Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
8166
RESOLUTION NO. 8166 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS ADOPTING A SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN IN SATISFATION OF A PLANNING GRANT AWARDED TO THE CITY BY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS WHEREAS, in 2017, the City of Redlands ("City") was awarded a Sustainability Planning Grant ("Grant") in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) from the Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG") to develop a Sustainable Mobility Plan ("Plan'); and WHEREAS, acceptance of the Grant requires the City to commit fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) in local matching funds, or in -kind services, towards preparation of the Plan; and WHEREAS, SCAG has informed the City it approves City staff time as appropriate "in - kind services" in satisfaction of the City's obligations under the Grant; and WHEREAS, SCAG will provide administrative grant management of the Plan including Grant acceptance, procurement, and consultant payment processing; and WHEREAS, City staff will coordinate with SCAG through attendance at meetings, and the provision of general information and support, as the Plan is implemented; and WHEREAS, the Plan is now complete and requires City Council adoption; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Redlands, as follows: Section 1. That approval of this Resolution is exempt from review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State's Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 2. That the Sustainable Mobility Plan, in the form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A," is hereby adopted. ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 2nd d of March, 2021. ti Paul T. Barich, Mayor ATTEST: J e Donaldson, City Clerk L \ca\Reso18166 - Sustainable Mobility Plan.docx I, Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk of the City of Redlands, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2" � day of March, 2021 by the followingvote: AYES: Councilmembers Foster, Tejeda, Davis, Guzman -Lowry; Mayor Barich NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None Je Donaldson, City Clerk 2 L:Ica\Reso18166 - Sustainable Mobility Plan.docx * i .tip L' - ir •- ArL � T � � - t770 - - � f �or" 7saft - ti i 4�07*0-- ROL r .� Acknowledgments The City of Redlands would like to thank and recognize the efforts of those citizens who participated in the development of the Sustainable Mobility Plan CITY COUNCIL Paul W. Foster, Mayor Denise Davis, Mayor Pro Tem Paul Barich, Council Member Toni Momberger, Council Member Eddie Tejeda, Council Member Jenna Guzman -Lowery, Council Member PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION Thomas Breitkreuz David Garcia Zachary Travis R. Brad Thorns Adekunle Ojo, Vice Chairperson "CV" Chandrasekar Venkatraman Steve Stockton CITY MANAGEMENT Charles M Duggan Jr, City Manager CITY STAFF Gerard Nepomuceno, Associate Engineer, Municipal Utilities & Engineering Department Brian Foote, Planning Manager, Planning Division SCAG STAFF Hannah Keyes, Senior Regional Planner SPECIAL THANKS A special thanks to the community organizations, businesses, and community members who contributed to this plan. CONSULTANTS TO THE CITY Alta Planning + Design RAt09 MOVING [OR A BETTER TOYORRON' 2 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan Table of Contents 01 Introduction p 4 05 Network Recommendations p 88 Network Development Process p 90 Citywide Bicycle Projects p 97 Citywide Pedestrian Projects p 102 02 Vision & Goals p 10 Vision p 12 Goals p 13 Performance Measures p 20 �P Project Prioritization p 110 Project Prioritization Criteria p 113 Prioritized Bicycle Projects p 120 Prioritized Pedestrian Projects p 124 Top Projects by Council District p 128 Existing Conditions p 24 Deomographics and Equity p 29 Current Travel Patterns p 33 Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts p 40 Bicycle and Pedestrian Audits p 45 Collisions and Safety p 52 07 Implementation p 138 Facility Costs p 141 Quick Win Projects p 144 04 Stakeholder Engagement p 72 Community Survey p 79 Public Input Map p 82 Appendix A: Plan Policy Review p 162 B: List of Data Sources p 194 C: Walk/Bike Audit Observations p 198 D: School Site Assessments p 208 E: Bicycle & Pedestrian Network p 224 F: Bicycle & Pedestrian Prioritized Projects p 252 G: Funding Opportunities p 270 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 3 Introduction T, AA INTRODUCTION What is a Sustainable Mobility Plan? Improve Public Health Connect people to 0 key destinations with or without the use of a vehicle ^, Plan for a safe and well connected network of mobility choices Reduce environmental impacts from vehicle emissions The Sustainable Mobility Plan promotes citywide walking, biking, and transit connections for all residents, including communities that currently have limited access and choices. The SMP outlines a strategy that includes balancing street design for use by people, cars, bicyclists, children, seniors, and bus/rail users. The SMP coordinates with other City plans such as the Bicycle Master Plan, the Orange Blossom Trail Plan, related work completed on the draft Transit Villages Specific Plan, and will help implement the environmental goals in the Climate Action Plan. The SMP is funded by the Sustainable Planning Grant provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). This Plan will expand the range of transportation options for residents, improve equity for disadvantaged communities, and ensure interconnectivity between key destinations and public transit routes. The Goals of the Sustainable Mobility Plan • Expand options for active transportation in Redlands. • Build a safer multi -modal network. • Provide greater access to currently undeserved communities. • Encourage more sustainable transportation patterns. • Improve public health. 6 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan INTRODUCTION Why develop a Sustainable Mobility Plan? The Sustainable Mobility Plan integrates walking, bicycling, and other transportation modes into a single plan that includes infrastructure recommendations as well as identifying specific funding sources, prioritized projects, and implementation strategies. The SMP builds off of previous planning efforts in the City. Recognizing that the City may not have the capacity to construct each recommendation contained in these recent planning initiatives, the SMP identifies priority projects and investments. This prioritization is informed by need, community support, and potential for implementation, among other factors. This plan develops and prioritizes projects that promote walking, biking, and transit options for all residents and business in Redlands. It considers access to locations important to residents and visitors alike such as schools, workplaces, downtown, entertainment, and transit stops. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan INTRODUCTION The Plan is organized as follows: Vision & Goals This chapter captures the vision and goals for the Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan. The chapter also includes performance measures to assist the City in making the SMP vision a reality. Network Recommendations Identifies the recommended bicycle and pedestrian projects from previous planning efforts, community input, and the existing conditions assessment Existing Conditions An inventory of present- day transportation conditions in Redlands. Project Prioritization This chapter provides a summary of the prioritization framework which allows the City to identify priority projects that can be submitted for competitive funding. Community Engagement This chapter provides a summary of the community outreach activities organized by the City and the SMP team. Outreach activities focused on identifying barriers to walking and biking in the City and the types of active transportation infrastructure that residents and stakeholders would like to see built. Implementation Plan Details a practical road -map for implementing the proposals within this plan including projects and cost estimates. 8 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan INTRODUCTION `` -f — "Biking across the freeway, either over or L '• ' _ under, never feels safe, either because of people hanging around, roads speeds, lack o sidewalks, �� g� g P f and traffic noises. It's particularly difficult to get to Citrus Plaza because of this." 5 "The city feels like it is designed more for cars. There are many places where cars go too fast, - inadequate/missing sidewalks, lack of shade, etc. . x which are an impediment to walking/biking." - "Orange Blossom Trail has potential to be a good off' road route for safe biking and walking." ' F v , 4:r- -Redland's stakeholder responses to the SMP Community Survey Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 9 6 I op , ■ I Ti%�ld re i .3Z bra Wds la• r ' v �'{ .. �. V - _ � •' - — try � # a VISION & GOALS SMP Vision and Goals Vision of this Plan Residents of Redlands have the opportunity to get around safely and conveniently, whether for recreation or transportation, with or without the use of a car. Access to Redlands' important destinations, commercial areas, and amenities are expanded to residents of more neighborhoods and adjacent cities. By building a safe and convenient multi -modal transportation system, Redlands can improve the health of all residents and reduce environmental impacts caused by vehicle emissions. This vision was developed through a collaborative process between the City, the Community Advisory Committee, and the project team. The project team assembled the initial draft from existing planning documents that dealt with various aspects of active and shared transportation in Redlands and the larger region. This sketch was then revised, edited, and elaborated upon by the CAC, composed of stakeholders who regularly walk, roll, bike, and take transit in Redlands. 12 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan VISION & GOALS OBJECTIVE I Goal 1; Improve Public Health This Plan will empower residents to live a more active lifestyle by providing a network of safe, efficient, and enjoyable facilities to support active transportation to important destinations and amenities throughout Redlands. The Plan will support the City's climate action goals by reducing public health impacts caused by greenhouse gas emissions. ACTIONS OPromote an active lifestyle that 1 Increase access to recreational facilities, parks, and trails. includes biking and walking. 2 Promote programs that encourage residents to walk and bike together on city streets. 3 Make active transportation a viable and attractive option for residents traveling to work, school, or daily key destinations. 4 Generate active, walkable streets with wide sidewalks, shade trees, and safe pedestrian crossings. OEnhance public health for all residents by reducing air 1 Develop a bicycle and pedestrian network that provides the freedom for residents and pollution and asthma rates through increased active visitors of Redlands to choose active modes of transportation other than driving by providing transportation use and fewer vehicle miles traveled. low -stress, well-connected facilities and integrating bicycling and walking with transit. 2 Consistent with the City's Climate Action Plan, implement programs, policies and physical improvements to support targeted reductions in automobile vehicle miles traveled annually as residents, workers, and visitors meet daily needs by walking, biking, and using transit. 3 Advocate for active transportation as a key strategy for addressing climate change, preserving clean air, reducing traffic congestion and noise, promoting good health, and conserving land and energy resources. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 13 VISION & GOALS 0 Goal 2: Accessibility The SMP will serve as a catalyst for significantly increasing citywide bicycle and pedestrian transportation through improved access to community destinations. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities will be designed to provide an accessible, low -stress experience for users of all ages and ability levels. OBJECTIVE ACTIONS OIncrease access to jobs, grocery and shopping 1 Provide pedestrian and bicycle connections between transit and key destinations throughout Redlands. centers, parks, schools, recreation centers, 2 Build low -stress bicycle facilities that provide access to local key transit, and other neighborhood destinations. destinations in every neighborhood in Redlands. 3 Develop a focused Safe Routes to School Improvement Plan for all K-12 schools in Redlands to reduce safety and mobility barriers to walking and biking to school. 4 Develop tools such as a web -based map or app to promote the use of the bicycle and pedestrian network and distribute them as part of a wayfinding strategy. ....................................................................................................................................................................... OAddress barriers so that vulnerable populations 1 Prioritize the implementation of active transportation facilities in can take part in the improvements. disadvantaged communities and low-income neighborhoods. 2 Continue to expand pedestrian access by filling in sidewalk gaps within the existing network. 3 Provide low -stress, affordable connections to the downtown area. 14 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan VISION & GOALS OBJECTIVE OY Goal 3: Expand the Active Transportation Network This Plan will support expanding the overall active transportation network to all neighborhoods in Redlands. The SMP will promote citywide walking, biking, and transit connections for all residents by balancing street design for people of all ages and abilities. ACTIONS OProvide safe, convenient, accessible, and low- 1 Increase the overall mileage of the low -stress bicycle network, especially stress bicycle and pedestrian facilities. in low-income and disadvantaged communities. 2 Provide safe pedestrian facilities with wider sidewalks and safe pedestrian crossings. ....................................................................................................................................................................... OEstablish and comprehensive network of low -stress 1 Build citywide and regional connections for the bicycle and pedestrian network. bicycle facilities that increases access to regional 2 Develop and implement projects that connect neighborhoods to schools, destinations and regional public transportation routes. work places, transit facilities, and other key destinations. ....................................................................................................................................................................... OExpand the bicycle and pedestrian network 1 Increase first -last mile connections to encourage more bicycle and pedestrian travel. by identifying specific network gaps. 2 Connect existing sidewalks with missing sidewalks when right-of-way is available. 3 Identify intersections for improvement to reduce bicycle and pedestrian conflicts with automobiles. ....................................................................................................................................................................... O Plan for safe routes to schools that allow 1 Prioritize infrastructure improvements near schools in Redlands. for increased mode choice and safety for 2 Promote bicycling as a mode of transportation to and from school. students traveling to and from school. 3 Address comfort level of bicycling for children and less confident riders in neighborhoods so that sidewalk riding is less prevalent. 4 Develop a focused Safe Routes to School Improvement Plan for all K-12 schools to reduce safety and mobility barriers to walking and biking to school. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 15 VISION & GOALS OBJECTIVE 16 Goal 4: Build a Safer Multi -Modal Network This Plan will improve safety for active transportation users through the design and maintenance of sidewalks, streets, intersections, and other roadway improvements to enhance and improve the overall safety of people walking and bicycling. ACTIONS OReduce conflicts between transportation modes by 1 Install more street lights and prioritize new lighting installations at locations with utilizing a layered approach to complete streets. higher pedestrian and bicycle activity or where known safety concerns exist. OFacilitate convenient multi -modal transportation through first- and last -mile mobility options, smooth transitions between modes, and provision of necessary amenities. 2 Use innovative designs to create safety enhancements using guidance from organizations such as National Association of Transportation Officials (NACTO) and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), as well as applicable state and federal design guidelines. 3 Increase safety education programs that encourage safe behaviors for all roadway users. 1 Install additional bicycle and pedestrian crossings across major arterial and collector streets that will connect residents to key destinations. 2 Design bikeways and pedestrian facilities that safely facilitate first and last mile connections to transit as well as amenities at transit locations such as bike parking. Explore opportunities to provide secure long-term bike parking at transit stops including electric bike charging stations. CONTINUED 16 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan VISION & GOALS 4 Goal 4: Build a Safer Multi -Modal Network (continued) OBJECTIVE ACTIONS OIdentify and address hazardous areas where 1 Support design strategies that encourage traffic speeds of 20 mph on residential and conflicts have occurred or are likely to occur. local streets and 15-20 mph along neighborhood corridor within school zones. 2 Develop a focused Safe Routes to School Plan to reduce collisions occurring near schools. 3 Install priority crossings where collisions have occurred and where other safety concerns exist. 4 Continue the implementation of a transportation system that prioritizes the safety of active modes to reduce and ultimately eliminate fatal and severe injury collisions. ....................................................................................................................................................................... OImprove streetscape and public areas to increase 1 Work with SCAG and Omnitrans to provide more pedestrian amenities safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. such as benches and covered waiting areas at transit stops. 2 Support streetscape enhancements, public art, and other placemaking strategies that encourage active transportation. 3 Plant new street trees to provide shade, physical separation from auto traffic, and a more inviting pedestrian realm. 4 Install or upgrade streetscape and public amenities to improve access for pedestrian with mobility challenges. 5 Incorporate landscaping as part of the infrastructure projects where feasible. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 17 VISION & GOALS OBJECTIVE KV Cap Goal 5: Encourage more Sustainable Transportation Patterns Reduce vehicle miles traveled by developing an active transportation network that is a viable alternative to vehicle travel. ACTIONS OImprove air quality by encouraging and enabling 1 Encourage residents to choose modes of transportation other than driving by providing a residents to travel without the use of a private vehicle. low -stress network, robust pedestrian network, and first/last mile access to transit. 2 Replace vehicle trips with more sustainable modes such as walking, bicycling and taking transit. 3 Consistent with the City's Climate Action Plan, implement programs, policies and physical improvements to support targeted reductions in automobile vehicle miles traveled annually as residents, workers, and visitors meet daily needs by walking, biking, and using transit. 4 Require future development or redevelopment plans be informed by the SMP and the Climate Action Plan. is Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan VISION & GOALS Ali Goal 6: Collaboration The SMP is for everyone and includes actions to make these modes of transportation more inclusive and accessible. This Plan will foster an increased role for the community in the planning process and improve community trust that the City will fulfill its promises. OBJECTIVE OCreate a greater opportunity for social engagement and cohesion through outdoor spaces and public activity. ACTIONS 1 Work with community -based organizations to host more outreach events and interact with more people as part of the future planning processes. 2 Continue to support and participate in Bike to Work and other bike promotion events. 3 Integrate bicycling encouragement programs into existing municipal programs and events where possible. 4 Support open streets and pilot active transportation projects. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 19 VISION & GOALS How Do We Measure Progress? The following matrix summarizes the ways that the City will measure progress towards implementing the Sustainable Mobility Plan. PERFORMANCE MEASURE BASELINE TARGET TRACKING MECHANISM 1 Maintenance of current Average Year One, establish baseline Maintenance of AADT from Collect annual data on AADT along Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) along AADT along major corridors Year One baseline along major corridors in Redlands, and major corridors in Redlands by 2030 selected by the City. major corridors (by 2030). track this data year over year. despite projected regional influx of 1.2 million people by 2030. ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Increase the percentage of Current Mode Shares: Total Bike/Walk/Transit: Summarize biennially (every other year) based Redlands residents who bike, walk, . Bike: 0.7% 11.8% (by 2030) on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, American and/or take transit to work by 7 . Walk: 3.2% Community Survey (latest 5-year average) percentage points by 2030. Transit:0.9% TOTAL:4.8% (Source: ACS 5-Year Estimate ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2014-2018, Table 808006) 3 Decrease the percentage of Redlands Drive Alone: 82.5% Drive Alone: 77.5% (by 2030) Summarize biennially (every other year) based residents who drive alone to work by 5 (Source: ACS 5-Year Estimate on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, American percentage points by 2030. Reducing 2014-2018, Table 808006) Community Survey (latest 5-year average). carbon dioxide and associated co - pollutants such as nitrous oxide contributing towards statewide GHG reduction goals identified in SB32 and local public health goals. ....................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan VISION & GOALS How Do We Measure Progress? (continued) PERFORMANCE MEASURE 4 Complete 50% of the high -priority pedestrian projects and 50% of the high -priority bicycle projects by 2030. BASELINE • 0 projects completed (of 26 high -priority pedestrian projects) • 0 miles completed (of 7.21 miles of pedestrian routes) • 0 projects completed (of 12 high -priority bicycle projects) • 0 miles completed (of 40.71 miles of high - priority bicycle routes) TARGET • 13 high -priority pedestrian projects completed • 3.6 miles of high - priority pedestrian routes completed • 6 projects high -priority bicycle projects completed • 20.36 miles of high -priority bicycle routes completed TRACKING MECHANISM This measure is based on the completion rate of projects from the scored project list rated as "High" priority. For routes (such as bike lanes or sidewalk completion), this should be calculated by miles completed. For point projects, this should be calculated by number of projects . S Projects with high equity scores 0 projects completed (of Rates of overall projects Rates of completion among projects with (of 15 and above) are completed 18 high -scoring pedestrian completion for each category an equity score of 15-20 (out of 20) should at the same time or higher rate as point projects) of projects will be compared to be compared with rates of completion for projects with lower equity scores. 0 projects completed (of rates for high -scoring projects. projects with equity scores under 15. 12 high -scoring pedestrian route projects) • 0 projects completed (of 4 high - scoring bicycle point projects) • 0 projects completed (15 high - scoring bicycle route projects) Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 21 VISION & GOALS How Do We Measure Progress? (continued) PERFORMANCE MEASURE 6 Reduce overall pedestrian and bicycle collision rates by 50% and collisions in which a pedestrian or bicyclists is killed or seriously injured (KSI) by 75% by 2035. BASELINE Four -Year Total (2015-2018) • 70 bicycle -involved collisions (2 KSI) • 88 pedestrian -involved collisions (10 KSI) TARGET Four -Year Targets(2030-2033) • 35 or fewer bicycle - involved collisions (1 or fewer KSI) • 44 or fewer pedestrian - involved collisions (5 or fewer KSI) TRACKING MECHANISM Analyze four-year data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) annually. Begin reporting collisions yearly in a Traffic Safety Report. 7 Reduce City obesity levels, heart SCAG Regional Rates: Redlands Targets: Summarize biennially (every other year) based disease, and diabetes rates by 10% Obesity Levels: 27.5% Obesity Levels: 24.8 % on data from the California Health Interview below regional rates by 2040. Heart Disease: 7% Heart Disease: 6.3% Survey, AskCHIS: Neighborhood Edition. • Diabetes Rates: 11.8% • Diabetes Rates: 10.6% 8 Increase the number of active Year One, establish baseline 25% increase in groups, Calculate based on active transportation -related transportation -related events, groups, or active transportation groups, events, activities from Year events (ex. competitions, community bike rides, activities held in Redlands by 25% by 2030. events, and activities. One baseline. (by 2030) walk to school week, SRTS trainings, etc.) 9 Complete a Safe Routes to School 3 Schools plan for all public schools serving the City Redlands by 2030 . Safe Routes to School Plans Completed Safe Routes to School Plans. for all public schools by 2030. ........................................................................................................................................................................ to Complete 25% of the ADA improvements No improvements list as of 2020. 25% of listed improvements The City of Redlands would first need to in the City's ADA Transition Plan by 2030. completed. develop an ADA Transition Plan, including a list of improvements necessary for ADA compliance across the city. 22 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan VISION & GOALS This page intentionally left blank Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 23 D Im Existing Conditions I lu 1p dc LWM. L 51 JF-L EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing Conditions in Redlands In order to understand and plan for improvements to citywide walking, biking, and transit, this plan must take into account the existing conditions in Redlands. This includes what facilities already exist for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users but also many other factors, such as: • Important destinations in and around Redlands • Land Use • Roadway Conditions • Environmental conditions • Demographics • Travel Patterns • Collision locations and High Injury streets • Community perspectives on active transportation • Existing planned improvements The purpose of the Exisitng Conditions analysis was to evaluate these factors as they relate to sustainable mobility. A comprehensive understanding of conditions as they exist today is necessary to develop a plan for the future that is consistent with community goals and that will ultimately improve the lives of residents. The findings of this analytical effort directly inform project planning recommendations in this plan. Summary of Findings Below is a list of key takeaways from the different analyses conducted throughout this chapter: According to 2018 data from the American Community Survey (ACS), commuters in Redlands were around 1.6 times more likely to walk or ride a bike than those in San Bernardino County as a whole. This suggests that the planned facility and network improvements mentioned in previous planning documents are likely to find many potential users. Where specific barriers or challenges were identified through previous planning processes or public outreach, the project team was able to gain significant insight into how Redlands can encourage more residents to make use of an expanded network. • According to analysis of ACS data, the northwest area of Redlands experiences greater burdens due to pollution and other disadvantages than other neighborhoods in the city. These areas also have lower Healthy Places Index (HPI) scores, indicating less - healthy community conditions, especially in central areas adjacent to Interstate10. While this area is very close to Downtown and the planned Transit Villages (and, crucially, the future passenger rail stops), it will be necessary to provide residents with safe and convenient access to these locations. This would include, for example, previously -planned projects for north -south connections and bike - friendly and pedestrian -friendly freeway underpasses. • Bike and pedestrian involved vehicular collisions occur primarily in the central region of the City. The collision analysis indicated that there have been more severe and fatal collisions involving a pedestrian than collisions involving a bicyclist. Through analysis of collisions 26 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan EXISTING CONDITIONS within Redlands, as well as the city's High Injury Network, this plan identifies crossing improvements and other projects that can reduce the inherent risk of collisions on some of the City's more dangerous roadways for bicyclists and pedestrians. According to analysis of ACS data, the northwest area of Redlands has a higher percentage of residents who do not have regular access to a vehicle. This region of Redlands also has a high CalEnviroScreen score and low HPI score, making it critical to examine the walking and biking facilities around schools. Campuses located in these areas include Victoria Elementary, Orangewood High School, and Citrus Valley High School. • Many of the City's previous plans recommend improvements primarily within the Downtown region. This plan compiles all existing recommendations along with additional community -identified improvements in order to evaluate areas beyond the Downtown area and look for opportunities throughout all of Redlands. Origins and Destinations Figure 1 displays the current land use designations and key destinations within Redlands. The City is primarily comprised of single-family residential, open space and recreation, and multi- family residential uses. Downtown Redlands primarily consists of commercial use as well as many points of interest including City Hall, libraries, and other key civic and cultural institutions. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 28 EXISTING CONDITIONS Demographics and Equity CalEnviroScreen 3.0 The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment developed the CalEnviroScreen tool to help identify communities that are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. Areas with a higher score experiences higher pollution burdens than areas with low scores. This is also a tool used in California's Active Transportation Program grant application scoring. Communities that score in the top quarter of the state are considered to be disadvantaged and receive a small advantage in the competitive funding process. Figure 2 shows CalEnviroScreen scores for all census tracts within Redlands. The areas with the highest scores are those considered to be most affected by pollution sources. According to the scores, the northwest region of the city appears to be most disadvantaged. Healthy Places Index The Healthy Places Index (HPI) aggregates a collection of community characteristics that predict life expectancy and allow users to see how public health intersects with transportation, climate, and other key factors. Characteristics included in the HPI score consists of social equity, healthcare access, economic, educational, housing, transportation, and environmental factors such as air and water pollutants. Higher scores indicate healthier community conditions, while lower scores indicate less healthy conditions. Figure 3 represents HPI scores for census tracts in Redlands. The areas with the lowest scores are located in the northwest region of the city, which is also considered to be disadvantaged based on its CalEnviroScreen score. No Access to Vehicles An analysis was conducted using existing demographic information from the US Census Bureau. All data was obtained from the 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) Five Year Estimates. Figure 4 displays the percentage of households who do have regular access to a vehicle by census tract. Overall, out of the 41,711 households who took part in the census, there were 1,970 residents that stated that they do not have regular access to a vehicle. Residents without access to a vehicle rely on transit, walking, bicycling, or carpooling to get to their everyday destinations. Figure 4 indicates that the central part of the City has a higher rate of households that do not have access to a vehicle. Many key destinations are located in this central area of the city, which may contribute to the lower rates of vehicle access. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 29 ................26%......-,;= • 74% '= MI. LLCR EKR LUGONIAAVE 0 38 ROLANDS BLVD [ NAVE i 3 — r- - 9% ¢ t~/f y ■ �� as N 2 ��� 7 tIIEl1S -- q = .yL 1.ma Linda RAR7DN RD 0 Sa AW L 0 4 9�pD F' tbP .r 4�� ODUMONTAVE_ � E �i H'i[IAN — QR�ySP fj 0�4 v 23 �yo WEI CALENVIROSCREEN 3.10 r 4vN CITY OF REDLANDS, GA --- - OrFO� CalEnviro Screen Score 70% , 99�0\ �-- 4814 1-25% (low burden) 0 City Boundaries F 2&500/o Park f: 51-75% 76-100% (high Burden) 510� LIVE OAK CANYON RD ?'+r fOliNfY�q► RD Calimesa 29% 43 0 Map produced by Alta Planning +Design y 2020. 75% p HEALTHY PLACES INDEX Figure 3. Healthy Places Index ��a 52/0 �o CITY OF REDLANDS, CA 21%----- HPI Score San Bernardino p = 0-20% (Less Healthy Conditons) o City Boundaries 71 /o 20-40% Park 0% 210 0 40-60n/o — 0 60-80% 7 80-100% (healthier Conditions) J...... - PIONEERAVE'._,_._...i'............ ........../_-- %' 39 SAN$f.INdRuiNOAVE �. 66%-------- -v. MILLC EK - i • 32 i- - - - - LUGONIAAVE s 2 7e 1110LANDSBLVD {ELrpNAVE_ 3 i — b8°� 3596 r4 W Wr 11%1. fj4po o' "� tiro - UIR iV-9 - " ti LL. z -� 90 J F L�riw LIrida '---- -- .snULWAD _�4a -51f, W. _ •-�� �r1�5 �f 62 /0 4s? �� tip 4UMONiAVE y��G �i9 S 6 — 6Q� p� HitiAN AVE e0 83% moo'`` �=, ..... • sal r C411AftS4 8l yp k 13% 60p� LIVE OAK CANYON '�,COgNT*11Nw Calimesa 60% 78% 26% Map produced by Alta Planning +Design May 2020. 31 NO ACCESS TO A VEHICLE Figure 4. No Access to a Vehicle ��a CITY OF REDLANDS, CA ..- _•v:� �� .. , • • . :... c ��9� Percentage of People Without Access to a Vehicle y' it 8i k%< it e kj3 0.6% 0 0 - 2% 0 City Boundaries 2 - 5% Park i � 10-16% ■ i PALMETTO AVE ? PIONEERAuc 4'.1° ..... ................. ........ .. SANItERN 1HRE ' . oo - •�i,°1�a �,. ...,,...... ��./o i� L MILLC EKR -.-.- ---- - L000NIA AVE —__38 elwo • I 4% - 110LANDS BLVD ix ; 4flssioy C11RU5 W j V • i urrrp Lends"' 1 5TH WE —! t; sqa® MAUMONT AVE A% P NLUONANs \ Rp g Q�gfl !'0 e��� ------ d ;. . _ moo•. ,- — � AVENUE-f r;:•:: 4.5/0' SgNl, ��'�'j TAvts'E$'°�'�•°U��A��'>:�:�E%{RSJiI[�:';'',':•.M1,k:.:.:�:r.':,':•:`..�;��?:�:,':%'.<:rr?:';�::<`. -------------- t��rF ` AU �x ..':.` '<''';'; •:::: i�1ap�RV&5f >. ,`.1.." . •.l ti .r r: 1 3.2% �r 7� LIVE OAK CANYON RD !WMap 2 Miles roduced by Alta Planning +Design M 2020. EXISTING CONDITIONS Current Travel Patterns Current biking and walking patterns were analyzed using data from the US Census Bureau and the 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) Five Year Estimates. Patterns were also analyzed using comments received from the community survey and public input map. Walking and Biking to Work Figure 5 shows (by census tract) the percentage of Redlands residents 16 or older who walk to work. Overall, out of the 55,215 workers in Redlands, an estimated 1,438 residents (2.6%) stated that they commute by walking. Figure 6 shows (by census tract) the percentage of Redlands residents 16 or older who bike to work. Overall, out of 55,215 workers in Redlands, an estimated 231 residents (0.42%) stated that they commute by bike. According to the Census, of the 881,534 workers in all of San Bernardino County, an estimated 2,335 residents (0.26%) stated that they bike to work and an estimated 14,425 residents (1.6%) stated that they walk to work. It is important to note that bicycle ridership and walking rates may be higher than this data indicates, as ACS estimates do not account for recreational trips or trips where commuters use more than one mode of transportation when traveling to work. For example, this data would not account for people who walk or bike to transit in order to get to theirjob. Walking and Biking to Work Findings As shown in Figure 5, the census tract located in the northeastern part of the City has a higher rate of workers who walk as a means of transportation. The University of Redlands is located within this region of the City and could be an underlying contributor to these higher numbers. For example, students and University staff may work on campus and find it easier to commute by active modes. Figure 6 indicates that the census tract located in the central part of the city has a higher rate of workers who bike as a means of transportation. The Downtown area could be a popular neighborhood for residents to bike to work, since bike parking is more available, and there is an accessible active transportation network. This region is also indicated as an area with a high rate of residents that do not have access to a vehicle. Overall, the census data demonstrates that the City's walking and biking to work rate is higher than the San Bernardino region as a whole. Redlands residents are 1.6 times more likely to walk or bike than the average County resident. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 0.5% WALKING TO WORK CITY OF REDLANDS, CA -------- Percentage of People Walking to Work 0-2.5% 11111111 2.5 - 4.0% 4.0 - 8.0% 8.0 -14% PALMETTO AVE PIONEERP'j.- 3%4 SAN*EU 3.9% h LUGONIA AVE 1 38., 7771 City Boundaries Park --IRIULANDS BLVD- t; 2.4% 511 ...... IN L nm,) L illda" RARTO Rk_ iTH 0i - -------- ----- -- ------ ---- ------------ All, 11.5 w 0 11" 'All C)% ik LUUMONTAVE "(A 1%, HitTkIN AVE S), ----------------- 0.6%a qENUE-E 3.1% lr4* A41�11-A�SATEXAS DR %bow OID/O ------------- GIU LICS4,T& LIVE OAK CANYON RD --------- y!COUNTYLMERD Calimesa Map produced by Alta Planning +Desiq�n M 2020. Data Sources City of Redlands, SCAG, S TA, Figure 6. Biking to Work = 0.4 % F an emU diflO >. 0% 210 PALMETTO AVE a c PIONEERP z SAN i;[RI AnDH03 A'ijE � ; 0% Q z� LUGONIAAVE I `- ---a z RI!DLANDSBLVD 4G {lug9-- �,q �y; rJip.i W- {iEru}ry L nrDa LirlddY RUC" iTn �Lv: ic EfAUMONTAVE 4Pa� S HitT011 AVE cS 11CS T� 03% LIVE OAK CANYON RD e 0 1 2 Miles P, BIKING TO WORK CITY OF REDLANDS, CA ----- Percentage of People Biking to Work [� 0-0.5% 1.5 - 2.0% 2.0 - 2.5% 0% 0 City Boundaries Park YDCArPA BLVD ';;� ------------- - AVENUE'E A\yp A T"ASDR V\SiR QQ p0 e`¢l c0`O�Pa 9 ' � CAlIMfS • �A8�0 .OUNTY LINE RD Map produced by Alta Planning +Design M Data Sources City of Redlands, SCAG, 4.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Who Bikes and Walks in Redlands Today? At the beginning of the SMP's development, the City released a project website that included an online survey and public input map. Here residents were able to share their experiences of walking and biking in Redlands. This project website, survey, and map were regularly included in public -facing communication about the project, inviting people to explore, comment, and share the tools with others. The Citywide survey shows that out of 92 respondents, 13% of residents reported using a bicycle daily and 38% of residents reported walking daily. What do residents say about walking? • 88% of residents said they walked for health/exercise/relaxation. • 39% of residents noted that they would walk more if there were more sidewalks or they were better connected. • 39% of residents noted that they would walk more if street crossings were safer. • 53% of residents noted that they walk because it is good for the environment. Figure 7. In a typical week, how often do you use the following modes to move throughout Redlands? Several Times OnceorTwice ■ Daily A Week A Week Rarely Drive alone Walk Bicycle Public Transportation CarpoolNanpool Ride hailing (Uber, Lyft, etc.) Other 0 ■ Never 25% 50% 75% 100% 36 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan EXISTING CONDITIONS What do residents say about biking? • 61 % of residents noted that they bike for health/exercise/relaxation • 62% of residents reported that they would bike more if there were more bicycle lanes and trails. 37% of residents noted that they would bike more if there were more bike parking at work, school, or other destinations. • 42% of residents noted that they bike because it is good for the environment Types of Bicyclists in Redlands The perception of risk with using stressful or unsafe facilities is often the most significant barrier to bicycling for most people. Even those interested in cycling will often choose to drive if the available facilities don't meet their comfort level. In order to develop a bicycling environment that will encourage more people to ride, it is important to first understand the different levels of cyclists. The general population can be classified into four types of bicyclists. a Confident Willing to ride a bicycle on any roadway regardless of traffic conditions. Comfortable taking the lane and riding in a vehicular manner on major streets without designated bicycle facilities. MCI Interested, but Concerned Somewhat Confident Bicyclists who are comfortable sharing the roadway with automotive traffic in some instances, but prefer to ride in their own designated bike lane or off-street facility. No Way No How Infrequent bicyclists with some inclination towards Residents who simply are not interested in bicycling more regularly if they felt safer on the bicycling for reasons of topography, inability, roadways. Not very comfortable sharing the road or simply complete and utter lack of interest. with cars, or riding on major streets, even with a Unlikely to adopt bicycling in any way. bike lane. Prefer separated pathways or low -traffic neighborhood streets. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 37 EXISTING CONDITIONS Why are People Not Biking, Walking, or Taking Public Transit More Today? Residents who participated in the Citywide Survey were asked, "if you drive a car regularly for most of your trips, what barriers prevent you from walking, biking, or taking public transit more frequently?" Residents were asked to choose their top 3 barriers. The top barriers identified in the survey were lack of safe sidewalks and crossings and not feeling safe due to the presence of vehicular traffic. These concerns emphasize the need to prioritize safety related projects to encourage more walking and biking in Redlands. Over a third of respondents also felt that the heat, the relative convenience of driving, and a lack of separated bicycle crossings were deterrents to active transportation. Seven percent of respondents mentioned crime as a barrier, and a small number lacked the necessary equipment for active transportation. Lack of sidewalks and/or safe road crossing I don't feel safe walking or biking (because of car speeds, traffic,etc) It's too hot to walk/bike Convenience of a car Lack of separated bicycle crossings It's too far to walk/bike Other Concerns about personal security (crime, etc.) Lack of equipment (bicycle, helmet, etc.) 43 % 38% 37% - 34 % _ 2'7% 27% 7% 1% 0% 25% 50% 50% of respondents are concerned about lack of sidewalks and/or safe road crossings. 75% 38 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan EXISTING CONDITIONS What Other Barriers do Residents in Redlands Face When Bicycling, Walking, or Taking Transit? An Interactive Online Mapping tool was provided to community members to give them the opportunity to highlight locations that they felt created significant barriers to walking or bicycling, such as intersections and roadway segments they felt unsafe riding along or crossings they preferred to avoid. There were a total of 324 comments that referenced community concerns and barriers to biking, with the following key themes: • 55% of comments identified bicycle facilities that community members would like to see implemented or improved. 34% of the comments identified pedestrian infrastructure they would like to see implemented or improved. • 9% of comments expressed concerns with high motor vehicle speeds. These comments were located not only in central areas and Downtown Redlands but across the city and its neighborhoods. Many concerns or recommendations were echoed by more than one commenter, indicating areas where public interest was high. Along with previously -proposed improvements from existing plans, the project team added relevant community recommendations from this map to the potential projects list, where they were evaluated and prioritized for implementation. 55% 9% of comments mentioned of comments cited bicycle infrastructure safety concerns or needs as a major concern. 34% of comments mentioned pedestrian infrastructure concerns or needs Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 39 EXISTING CONDITIONS Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts As part of the existing conditions assessment, the City recruited Community Based Organizations and Volunteers to conduct bicycle and pedestrian counts at strategic locations throughout Redlands in order to develop a more nuanced understanding of existing active transportation patterns. This counting effort was advertised through the CAC, as well as the City's email and social media networks. The data that was captured during these counts helped identify common pedestrian and bicycle travel behavior, and will support future competitive funding applications. Count Locations The initial proposed count locations were selected based on a methodology adapted from SCAG's Pedestrian Counter siting guidance memo. According to SCAG's process, land use, demographics, and accessibility were taken into consideration when selecting locations. In order to identify locations that would be likely to serve a large number of people, and especially those with limited transportation options, the project team utilized geospatial analysis to highlight areas of the City that were densely -populated, had lower -than - average Median Household Incomes, and were in close proximity to key destinations such as schools, transit, and employment centers. This analysis was combined with input from the CAC and City staff, who shared their perspectives on where counts would be most useful. In addition to these comments, other qualitative factors were also important when selecting counts that would be instructive and useful to the planning and funding process. The project team also considered the following: • Recommended count locations provided by the CAC; • Representative locations in a variety of areas across the city; • Key corridors that could potentially be used to gauge the impacts of future improvements (such as underpass improvements or installation of bike facilities); • Gaps, pinch points, and locations that are operationally difficult for bicyclists and pedestrians (potential improvement areas as identified by the City, CAC, or public input); • Locations where bicycle and/or pedestrian collisions have occured; • Varying land uses, on varying roadway types, and in locations where future improvements are expected; • COVID-related closures and their effects on typical traffic patterns. (For example, during the pandemic, there are few ESRI commuters, children accessing schools, or University students on campus.) The project team developed a list of ten recommended count locations. With the available volunteers, counts were conducted at four locations (See Figure 8): 1 Olive St b/w Grant and Eureka 2 Barton Rd b/w Bellevue and Kansas 3 N University b/w Citrus and Central 4 Orange St b/w Sun and Colton 40 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan Figure 8. Count Locations �o COUNT LOCATIONS F CITY OF REDLANDS, CA • Olive St b/w Grant and Eureka coo u ••. .••�` .••. .• •:• Sh IBondary :. ;,, s; : ;^; ;.:t; • {f l:M1ti l �y Barton Rd b/w Bellevue and El City Boundaries Kansas Park �.�4 �}}n ':: � ~ CC ,ki ,'n i}; ..y },: ,''+ �' {.f;~f rA .:: .+ .fif�ftif4'=f+'k}+r}`'f~+", f•�% •••••• � x 4 ~ ,+, ::.+•ti, :f \fk~ :%7 n�}l'- i r.`� }: r,"f }"�,,:'.;: .. 10,~ :.r.M1+'+' � �ti'���i:: .'.•f%/:?, '� �` : �;r.�i,. •%+rf;%�,'.'�:::;�:+~,-;: f}�~Yf ;st.:}::'+:'::s%:''> ' :s:r+,'r.;::.i: i::' :' >,;,r;;:,.:::;:?,:;^i. +::.';.~ :;>+:=;; '•'. N University b/w Citrus and ��'�4�•r::;�E''���:r:•'�';' �+�'+ Central ,+��a: k+f � �:4'f+r+•L+M1 y?�!y L n l � � ti'4?; •r ~+?: �M1�'r?�^r y'+:M1i .+r!: a?.�';.?.r •. 4 ^f + �afi'?+�rM1?+:M1 i'r?r +f„�;��;';;r,~.'.?':%:�"~ � �r'=�•• � mm Orange St b/w Sun and ~� f- �'' '+l�~^ '. Nf. _ ���+ ,M1 4'�f .+'•''', 1:�+•'.': �: .+.' '4 �v4 rM1r�++� r•'' ��•'''�r ::r' ... ?� +}v '';=�4; .:f:r:'•.?' ''�"''�•: ..4.... •<'f'•'�•:?r :;�:7? +°4f%~ '•f,.. Cotton . m f ell f f Q' : ' .��r+,+::::1U3iONIA�MVE~:,� -•-^. :::•.::: ......::::.:::. :.•, •. ,•.,", ,+.. it }: -REDLIVNDS � L W Vi 0TRui AVE v. � � .. ... ... =.3'ss;5 1 ... BARTON RD p0 � STH AVE ° .s...O................ E.' ....................... _41 eF pN ��.. ....... ............ .......jot41G41 .. qg` �i91 W�Q d S :. f0 . PAC. €on 00 +IILTON AVE ................... . �5� fL/Zq c .: ...... ..........•.. YUCAIPA BLVD .... �r�... ........... .. • '...•.•'•......•........... ................. T ................ .................. ... ................... ... ................... ..... ................. ..... .........-.. 90 `i y;:,, •:+,%'.::: ki,: " .'� :.AVENUES' 4 ...... 'I'4N`Y ' r;:, l+l, l 'f�G��t> 1 +kL'' r LUN�A? TEXAS DR . • .. . ........... .. ............ .. ....... ti ••4jp •,:�,+;:c,.r id:. f n�f �1$• F.41�:3'Sf' r{. @.................�........ ............... k 9a ` 1 CALIMESggLYD.. '... •' ....... RCHECAHYD'/.....•';'.::•:•,••':•:''•'•':'':'':''.••''•'''':' •.•..............•::: LIVE OAK CANYONRD ..................... COUNTY LINERD. . q ;..•..... •. .MM ::... ............ o.........'..'.:. •' • :................. • .:.................................... •'........... • ........ ............ e 0 1 2 Miles Map produced by Alta Planning +Design May 2020. Data Sources City of Redlands, SCAG, SBCTA, 41 EXISTING CONDITIONS Count Scheduling Times of day and days of the week for these counts were determined according to CalTrans Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant guidance. While these counts will not necessarily be used as part of an ATP grant application, the intention was to set up count data collection according to these requirements, as this is one of the most important funding sources for active transportation improvements in the state of California. CalTrans recommends that counts are collected on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, or Thursdays at both morning and evening commute hours. The day of the week for each location was chosen (among those options) based on volunteer availability. However, all counts were conducted between 7 and 9am and between 4 and 6pm to ensure compatibility with CalTrans methodology. Per CalTrans requirements, counts are also conducted on one weekend Other Challenges and Considerations Due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, pedestrian and bicycle activity in Redlands was not typical during the time of these counts. For example, elementary, middle, and high schools, as well as University of Redlands, were not holding in -person classes in September. Additionally, many workplaces were operating remotely and hours for other businesses were altered. This meant fewer people were on the road during commute hours and that many more people simply stayed at home during this time. Adding to scheduling challenges were air quality issues caused by smoke from nearby wildfires. Counts were delayed two weeks to protect the health and safety of volunteers. By the end of the two weeks, smoke levels were considerably improved and within safe margins. Due to these particular circumstances, this year's data day from 11 am to 1 pm. (or whatever the jurisdiction determines to may not track perfectly with subsequent years. be the peak time). After conversation with CAC members signed up to conduct weekend counts, it was determined that, given the hot weather in Redlands, peak time was closer to 8-10am. Therefore, counts were scheduled for the morning instead of midday. Date selection for the counts took into account guidance from the National Bike/Ped Documentation Project, which recommends scheduling annual counts for the same week each fall and spring. Their counts are generally performed in mid -September, meaning that students are back in school. 42 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan EXISTING CONDITIONS Pedestrian Count Results For all four count locations, the weekend was when counters recorded the largest number of pedestrians (see Figure 9). Afternoons tended to have smaller numbers w a of people walking, potentially due to the higher temperatures at this time. The Z count location with by far the most pedestrian activity was Olive Avenue, where the z weekday morning and weekend counts both recorded over 30 pedestrians an hour. Interestingly, weekday afternoon counts on Olive showed only six pedestrians per Y hour. Barton Road was also a popular pedestrian route, especially on the weekend, Lu when about 27 pedestrians traveled this way per hour despite 93-degree weather In terms of direction of travel, on Olive Avenue, pedestrians were more likely at all times Q Lu of day to beheading Southwest, away from Cajon Street (See Figure 10). On Barton a z Road, more pedestrians were traveling from West to East, toward Downtown. On o Orange Street, numbers were roughly even during weekday afternoons, but weekend W U- counts showed a majority walking north. On North University, recorded numbers of a pedestrians were very low, making it"hard to draw clear conclusions about direction. o Y w w Figure 9. Average Pedestrians per Hour 35 30 Y w 25 a z 20 w w 15 Lu 10 . ■ 0 Olive Ave b/w Grant and N University b/w Citrus Barton Rd b/w Bellevue Orange St b/w Sun and Eureka and Central and Kansas Colton ■ WkdayAM Peak ■ Wkday PM Peak ■ Wknd Peak Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan Figure 10. Pedestrian Travel by Direction and Time Olive Ave b/w N University b/w Barton Rd b/w Orange St b/w Sun Grant and Eureka Citrus and Central Bellevue and Kansas and Colton 36% S 39 % W Note: Where data is listed as unavailable, volunteer was unable to conduct count as planned. 43 EXISTING CONDITIONS Bicycle Count Results As was true for pedestrians, the weekend was the most popular time for bicyclists at each of these locations (See Figure 11). Barton Road was especially popular as a bicycle route on the weekend, with 28 bicyclists per hour traveling along this street. Olive Avenue was also used by about 20 bicyclists an hour during the weekend peak. North University and Orange Street were not popular with bicyclists at any time, likely owing to their lack of designated facilities. That said, some bicyclists did use these streets, especially on the weekends. In terms of direction of travel, on Olive Avenue, bicyclists showed a pattern of traveling southwest during the weekday morning peak and northeast on the weekend (See Figure 12). On Barton Road, the predominant travel direction for weekday mornings and weekends was westbound. On North University, the small number of weekend bicyclists were almost all traveling north, and the weekend bicyclists counted on Orange Street were mostly traveling south. Figure 11. Average Bicyclists per Hour 25 20 15 10 ■_ _� ■ _■ Olive Ave b/w Grant and N University b/w Citrus and Barton Rd b/w Bellevue and Orange St b/w Sun and Eureka Central Kansas Colton ■WkdayAMPeak ■WkdayPMPeak ■WkndPeak Figure 12. Bicycle Travel by Direction and Time Olive Ave b/w N University b/w Barton Rd b/w Orange St b/w Sun Grant and Eureka Citrus and Central Bellevue and Kansas and Colton Y 0 Q W Lu H d 0 LU J c� o_ m a Z w a 0 a J z U a Y W m 0 z Y Q a z 0 0 z of w LL - Q a 0 Y w w Y Q W a 0 z w `L w w Note: Where data is listed as unavailable, volunteer was unable to conduct count os planned. 44 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan EXISTING CONDITIONS Bicycle and Pedestrian Audits Traditionally, a walk audit of bicycle and pedestrian facilities involves gathering a group of community members to tour selected areas of the city in person. Participants are able to comment on these facilities as they used them, stopping at key locations to discuss and note issues and make observations. In response to public health provisions related to Covid-19, however, the Sustainable Mobility Plan (SMP) Bicycle and Pedestrian Audits were held in a Zoom presentation format. The audits were held between 6PM-7PM over two weeks in September and October 2020. Audit locations were chosen based on factors including consultation with City staff, existing conditions, and community feedback from the public input map. Participants were recruited through the CAC, email, and the City's social media networks. Each audit was conducted using Google Earth Projects, an interactive tool that facilitates customized maps and stories (See Figure 13). The map consisted of different "stops" in street view, where participants were able to discuss potential bicycle and pedestrian obstacles. Those who attended were given a link to this tool prior to the audit. In order to ensure that participants were given the opportunity to share their experiences or concerns, the project team provided links to a Google Form Survey and a link to the interactive mapping tool on the project website. Participants were also provided with a Toolkit which described different facility types that could help address common challenges when walking or biking in Redlands. Each audit observation is located in Appendix C. Figure 13. Example of Walk Audit Interface in Google Projects. Paths are shown in orange, while stops are represented by blue waypoints ;Te.. X: , Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 45 EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing Bicycle Network Existing and previously planned bikeways in Redlands can provide a base from which the City can propose a low stress bikeway network. It is important to note that some facilities promote both bicycle and pedestrian safety. Existing Bicycle Facility Mileage by Type The City of Redlands current bicycle network includes approximately 42 miles of designated paths, lanes, and routes. There are approximately six miles of Class I Bike Paths, 24 miles of Class II Bike Lanes, and approximately 12 miles of Class III Bike Routes. Figure 14 shows the existing and previously planned bicycle facilities throughout Redlands, as well as immediately outside of the City Boundary. Class I Bike Path Class I Bike Paths are off-street facilities located in a separate right-of-way from the roadway and for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians. The Orange Blossom Trail is a Class I Facility. Class 11 Bike Lane 6 miles CLASS I BIKE PAT 12 miles CLASS III BICYCLE ROUTES 7\0 Class 11 Bike Lanes are on -street facilities dedicated to bicycles and identified with lane striping and pole signs. Class ll facilities may be further separated from vehicular lanes and or parking lanes by buffers indicated with two to three foot diagonal painted striping. 24 miles CLASS II BICYCLE LANES Class 111 Bike Route Class III facilities are on -street bike routes shared with motorists. They lack a dedicated striped lane, are identified with bike route signs, and often include the shared use marking, also known as a sharrow. 46 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan Figure 14. Existing and Planned Bicycle Network EXISTING AND PLANNED BICYCLE s_oL= - -� NETWORK 9q ,CITY OF REDLANDS, CA >an Bernardino {lk " Existing/Planned • : r; :; .'•',. 5 — - — — _ - _ - _ _ --• Class I Bike Path i City Boundaries .. :w%r••:,,'`tik:�:• 14 ffr_+, '-=1i.; f: y.,'r'n?%;i `, •4}1:}'k•` r,�f+`:;}' kr'�:'�;{,i'- ° r:: 'f-^t, Ar s t : rr i hY^ _ , `.r , off ? Park 10,+} :.k•'::.k „'+'.•'•-•.:.:/f::=,: .\T:-, `......,+}r %� �•--ClassllBikeLane •'kj+f{{�^\i;i 'i�•:� •�:\'i • f+l !,?+.0 :_:M1 :+ - :':r��+.: i.y�v•r; :.M1+ I,• .. t v' :k •::`.! .::. •.•�_�' :;?f � : �+.::r'::�:�'; r � ; - Class III Bike Route l++k=f �f f 1�'-'� �J f..M1\? i �?,', �': •,~,+.v i.v4:r.'i:: ;:.: r• .. f } +- } ..• �. : f`.:: h i• - s;;....ii.... pSih......ARit. r,•fi '. f{!+;;`: :..;;.?•;;. •, -s:+'!:. •'.':': is k':•.•!, .•••. i�i: •:'f r'M1 `r'.y"'�i h'?h / . - �.: .:i., .::.:.....:•+. I. _ .... - ... ...... ..ti?n'.`i^�� : { _ LUSeONIA�MVE<t , ^ , . :.:.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.......:..:...:; .++i . .M1f�. rf..:.r _: ..ikk=- -rf::!�::••;?: k•'.; - .. •...(. Tl'• .. �'-'•1 r` ' r t AZEDLAN65BLVQ '.=_;...,:.• :•::::,: :::::::.:.:.. a •. —. ... — it V. - i q1 :.. , CITRUS HEm y r Skrol- STHAVE • : lees i.il�lla�� " � ' � • ' ' ... ... ...... �ak�� Aqv R ...... ... .'........................................ .... =............*.................................... .'....'. 3FJUIff�1 �� �sq�ofi tits`=� HiLTANAYE "_ - po ........ ......... .... /4 _ YUCAIPABLVD e " } .............................. ... �4.. :. . n .... ............. '•..'................. - - ;. fF —AVENUE E • {,r ............ ... ...... ....— :... ...... ... .. y ,.++ ...... ±- tir j. .. JgNll e:%:•:%:•:%:•:%:•%:•: S j �.. L }r a(/y�gp 'a `�o�< ° � �;+ .• if{r r 5 Alt:. 'TEXASDIi. ...- :....� .. ........ . > ... ........ fSAet ........... .... " �. -... LIVE OAK CANYON RD.... , ..... ...... • , .... •::: :............................. TY LINE RD „ y.....,. .. •.. .•..............:' ..............................- .......... :... .. ........................... .............. . ......... .. �a .....'::.'..'.:. . : :................................................. ............. .......................•,•,................,...........................•..•......•........... ......................................................................... . ........... .............................. e Cahmesa " " " " "' 0 1 2 Miles Map produced by Alta Planning +Design May 2020. Data Sources City of Redlands, SCAG, SBCTA, EXISTING CONDITIONS Bicycle Parking The City of Redlands has many bicycle parking locations, mostly centralized to the downtown area. The city understands the importance of providing secure bicycle parking at key destinations to support bicycling as a viable transportation option. Figure 15 shows The City of Redlands existing bicycle parking locations There are a number of excellent bike parking facilities located around the City. The City has about 50 existing bicycle parking locations which mainly consists of bike racks. Many of the bike parking facilities are located at the heart of the City within the downtown area and the University but are less abundant throughout the rest of the City. 48 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan Figure 15. Existing Bicycle Parking EXISTING BICYCLE PARKING Olive Ave crioneerAve y CITY OF REDLANDS, CA - 1 Exist!n9 /Planned ��•• Class I Bike Path QO Existing Bicycle Parking 1111110 City Boundaries Drek.. Class 11 Bike Lane Q Planned Arrow Park Passenger Rail Station School San Bernardino Ave 10 _ _ _ _ - _ _ W San Bernardino Ave —j--• Class III Bike � � planned Arrow Elise Dr Route Passenger Rail � �a■.a Almond Ave W Pennsylvania Ave E Pennsylvania Ave x - Jurupa Ave ' 4;; Hidalgo Ave Holly Ln — W L �1 �'.: •�R E Lugonia Ave State e 1 ■"" -� CourierAve Cornel2mp -� a ,07 N ` O C T E Brockton Ave • +\\ �5 _ ♦ ♦ Industrial Park Ave �...... z ♦ ♦ � � College Ave �- � `C'S,g� i ♦ e - W Redlands Blvd - - ♦ W Colton The Terrace E Colton Ave Ca C"S ca - - - - - - - - ♦ ESRI o --_- N ♦ ♦ ♦ y„ �` Stillman Ave _ ' • ♦ ♦ STATION FHi High ' 0 ♦ 0 M Q g E High Ave 79 Sylvan Blvd v - - - WParkAve •♦,_ = EStuart Ave , - c - -ft -tetra ra .rf r. .f Q�EPaaark=ve. ® DOWNTWON cc STATION E UNIVERSITY O a �¢ ® O STATION ACitrus Ave c ate St =�¢� , ®millECitrus Ave' 9 W Wne3 Oa eSs de Orang ve Y IL Pine Ave �.�•;'� �- / �(71Q� P , Barton Rd ® P°e jaw �_,i S� O s d�a o s s �•.� see l ® • � aPJe \ 1_�, e� �Q , N C F e� Citrus i ve r r r r Sth Ave Map pro2ha fed by Alta Planning +Design May 20', Data Sources City of Redlands. SCAG. SBCT 49 EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing Pedestrian Facilities The City of Redlands pedestrian infrastructure includes sidewalks and paseos, shared -use paths, curb ramps, crosswalks, median refuges, and hiking trails. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon HAWK Signal Refuge Island Bulb -Out Curb Ramp High -Visibility Crosswalk Sidewalks go Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan EXISTING CONDITIONS Other Existing Bicycle & Pedestrian Design Elements Other infrastructure and design elements that make up the existing pedestrian and bicycle environment within Redlands include pedestrian and bicycle signals, grade -separated crossings (bridges and tunnels), pedestrian crossing signals and beacons, street lighting and wayfinding signage. Providing intersection improvements that promote bicycle and pedestrian safety can encourage residents to bike and walk more frequently. Bike + Pedestrian Bridge Bike Signal 0 Pedestrian -Scale Street Lights Green Bike Lane Markings my 4=V 0 - - x, Wayfinding/Guide Signage Bike Box Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 51 EXISTING CONDITIONS Prioritizing There are significant safety risks for those walking Safety Using and biking in Redlands. Based on public input, many community members do not feel safe walking or Data biking on the City streets. This sentiment was also echoed during walk audits, where participants pointed out particular areas where they felt the potential for future collisions was high. Collision data involving people walking and bicycling was acquired from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). This database includes information on locations, dates, and collision types, allowing the project team to analyze collisions by various factors. According to SWITRS data, from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2018 there have been 70 bicycle involved collisions and 88 pedestrian involved collisions within the city of Redlands. There have been seven pedestrian -involved collisions that resulted in severe injury and three fatal collisions involving a pedestrian. One severe injury collision involving a bicyclist and one fatal bicycle -involved collision have occurred. 52 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan EXISTING CONDITIONS Where are the Majority of Collisions Happening Today? Collisions have primarily occurred in the central portion of the city along major arterials like Redlands Boulevard, Brookside Avenue, and Orange Street. Figure 16 shows the locations of all the bicycle and pedestrian involved collisions between 2015 and 2018. The color of each hexagon in the map represents the number of collisions that occurred in that area. Figure 17 shows all bicycle -involved collisions and Figure 18 shows all pedestrian -involved collisions. An elevated concentration of pedestrian -involved collisions have occurred in the central part of the City near Citrus Avenue, 6th Street, Colton Avenue, and Redlands Boulevard, indicating a need for more pedestrian improvements. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 53 Figure 16. Bicycle and Pedestrian Involved Collisions 2015-2018 Bicycle & Pedestrian 6KU KLYU �o� Involved Collisions, 2015-2018 • • • � .� � • ::'� • . •'.;' ' '.�.'.• .�. .. • • CITY OF REDLANDS, CA Number of Collisions ;fk`�`,•N,k: ",jn+jrk=.'.:;=,rn r rM1,_.fA• r .:'Y;f,y,''k .. •, k f ,kr,= I� 1 Q Severe Injury .•. �+'�'•} �f','::.,'..:•k 10;_k`,�k;kv'+jf� 2 Q Fatal ti�/r .`,�i:•�+'M1'�M1'.ii v•+! i'+:,'':•l'�+'!'i:ri+,`+i+',+i+y,,r++;•; ,:....+_+,.,.,::+: +..,+.,.. ... '; �:'�l:%:•:� O 3 0 City Boundaries . :hJ , t.;._.;:':'• �=+� 4 Park .. 4..'.•!a�:ir!`i•�.•�.f:�•i'Li!i!�..i!!!i!i'i!i'i!i'M1�r.r•:?:?:�,•: ::'� �• •� 4.,•::+••�•:.:', •�• r=:',`:r+•":r+;+,:, a •'.'• fDdIE!!A{ICE...........::............... . : y : . : �r'�•'� ��']', �•- _.1 : ...... 444r{:: :: ::.!;,:i..�. , ,'.;,: :... !::' - - }gin, -- }l�f ��f1 _,r �� r \� �. 6.. •:. - '--'--.:,.+: •..+M1•,•,',•, +•+, ,•:- .. :n +'�• •, ,.•.:::• .:• .• %: fir {, - - - .}. 38 . .:.,._.....tj�A6t•FIAAVE,::., , r� :r •. :.+.•.r:..,�,. . , � , : J • : : • : • :. c; ...._:... .. . ..... - .::,:,....., .:....,. ,,. ,:.,.. ...... :,...''.: .:.:.;:.:':',:r. .:' :�:::::::•:•: _':. ............. • y� ................ .: •, BARTONRD + y f f �+ i■ :: . V� r� .......: �E�,F �� hL n V�Ppf f O.. • :. sq............:..::..::..::..::..::..::.. . . 94 t k Y# 4P ���s j ��G�f ..................... ....... �6 �C...� ............. ............ .. •ii114��11,��-I�Yr �f i�f�1 .. trp 9� .: ,'' ' ..... ................ YUCAIPA BLVD . .. h .. ............... yrl rM1 ..........141- ...... ..................... ............. ..I............. f., 90 k,fk=„ : =% .,J :{% r.' Lrr •AVENUES ...... ............... l/I{:ti; AP TEXAS DR, • .. . s ............. ..... .... I.. ............... °y CA ............................. BUD R� .G9NYp'.....' ::.'::•:• :'.':'.':'.': •'.'..'.'.".:'..:.'.. ................'.••':: ,:..LIVEOAKCANYONRD......... ....... ..::.... .. .. CHE :. . • ................'.' '• •'.:: :'..'::'.'::'.'::'.'::'.'.:'•'• .::.'.'::'.'::'..:...'. ':'.'::'.': r:.'...' ............................. S......fNERD y _ Via .............. :: • .........................:.. . .............................................. ........................................................................... . ........................................................................ aimesa ........... e 0 1 2 Miles Map produced by Alta Planning +Design May 2020. Data Sources City of Redlands, SCAG, SBCTA, Figure 17. Bicycle Involved Collisions 2015-2018 Bicycle Involved Collisions, snu nLru �F 2015-2018 ' • � � . • . •... . � .'.'••.�••• . •..• •.'• • : ..CITY OF REDLANDS, CA Number of Collisions 'f,<. ,•n ",' r : f : SIn'ur • /^' �=.�N,i.k:; ;: w4 ffrk-:r:..=�-_Y-„/iA,rf;,:,`. k':'1�:,1,,,r ,, _,}!l ff+'4, :'.}",}�`iy�/..�k"��. � � �evere Injury ..�•M1 �f�.� ��;,,,.f�fti:�:+ `fi..'•`.� 10-kw,:�',;�;.}f:,�r�r.r:�: 4 '4`;-'�,:�':,_�x\,,: am„%_'f -kf- k?:'`f,��,f,4ni! %�:�1�; :f,, .f A Fatal..... 2 - ... , ti5",','.+:::+;:��!'.i;;'i;:���::`•''M1':M1'.;',•".'•'��:1:',:+��%�iM1:l•;f�:l�.;�..`::;,:i:::::,:,i,.;'. +.:.:•. •.;:,:..,;, `; :.,: .., f: .... 'f:;y';-:-':_�'ti�,r.,•,•:;•,;?•,•.;+,!,';:;'':•';;''•:4:.;,:.?;?;:,.r,i.•.....r.i::.,:,�,:�.'.•:�� - - 111111111 3 City Boundaries .. r ff 4 Park } . 1 1 �+ M1 f'�/• f,ti.r:•r::,'r:: ::: — •Q• %.-: •'-ti i - ': 4'.? '+f'- :. f4:: .... .. .. .Q E$ AVE i .. k _ ••••• r,:i• ..._ter. r�r_+�:.: - .: :: 'r' yl ^•y'+•M1�+ ' + M1ll•M1+l• •. �__ • _ �.� : ' `�iH4:��RitfiRpllClkg!�� : ,": <4 cs,'•,: i : �!. ;• � • • „ -# r:.:_rr:' - - - - - - - - ., f.1:•S ;'.i?v!:: ''%^; ter, i'� . 2. Y. , �4';�ti;; ;;� rfi4'' ,'f� +��%� J f•,:,. ��"_ .:sf.{�,{1 �vF fSts Fi. r�fx;, .. �' �' yyrif? . 1i/ - '' ,•,;�.,,1: ..... ..... .. loll •REDLANDSBLVD•Ile ::•+ :... ;: +r•,•:i:. ' all , CC til i ��%N4..c... F .`.. ...• �� Q :::::: q...—... ..:: .. W �Pa . Will BARTON .::... BARTON RD pp`p �J STH AVE ::........... .................... .: ........ ......... � p�tiJ @ P� f �pJ� `�' F ' • . • ................... . ... .. ` J V ........................................ r .�b 3•q . ............. .................. 3:,.u4?UH7:7r [ ' • 8��{�"o�p�v H TOk dE np ................. . . ILq �.. , . . :. ;' F•. $fdYlsf ?'e ............................ ....... YUCAIPABLVD........ .h ............... ........... I ......... .... .... . ..... ............. •.•+'7+ `�r'v �y'�? a'4rM1_'•'.' tyw.`� ...... :':';,;iC M1 •AVENUES ......... 5 r,, ................................ .... .. "9l/.P(:. ':'., Tj �y EI AP TEXAS DR :.�g[ . ...... .............. .......... . oy ' �411MfS4 kjkr .... .... . ......... R-'HE ..... ', LIVE OAK CANYON RD _ ................................... �... .......... •. •. .. CQClNtY•LfNERO „ Py�.....::::::: .:..:'.::..• • :... :.:::.:::.: ............................... ........... . ...........a ..............•;•::.................,. .,:,..•................................ .......... ................................................... . ............... ............................................................ ' e Calime� """""" 0 1 2 Miles Map produced by Alta Planning +Design May 2020. Data Sources City of Redlands, SCAG, SBCTA, Figure 18. Pedestrian Involved Collisions 2015-2018 Pedestrian Involved Collisions, SRU DLPU 70� 2015-2018 9 CITY OF REDLANDS, CA ,;}e s; : ;•;g;rr,:,s};r. ; + - Number of Collisions ... — — - everel y S 5'4 fih if`=k' >" Lrwf },+, fk:rr5_ •-' • 'k'ih' 1 S Injury N + ....5tir,'iir•,+•,',,p 10 .-{fir ;. 5. f;'+ r`-ti kf,.;� �'/��:/k7 kr-; +::, ref:.: rhlj: t". :l ,k .+ff .. llf/'r$;r.++.:r (2 :f;. ;,, r,_ f, f• l'+ !- _ f+f,•r ;4 ,k:._':, +I.. 2 Fatal ..... + j'Sn5',''i +'i+'+'i�??�!i'+::_?r+• •kf+r.'fi+ ',f, i � ... JN' 3 m City Boundaries .1 r_,. J1,. 4 Park _fir , ''. r+•��:r;:.+,+:+:;rr:1:+•%�'•�:i.����'�'•'rr;'+•?�''M1��; ;i�'•'''j%•' '• } . _k .• :�i ': +/W}�4 •' .lfF,+::,:�: r+++r:r �'',+?+:ii'iM1: i' f .,/ � _ 7'S 4••: +fig':::: ,',: :: .Q. f'. - - •,4 y1 •. .. .++. ..,..�...+.�..?• v.•a.......,:°..,•.:�•r r�ri r•:ri•ri r•:ri•?r�?:• 3',5 titi, 4 � •;� -_ �4'k+r.i:r' .. f�fk'' ,fr,f}}�• .. l-�+ .c k' M1 •'-n:,'-�_•,+.:�.•,-,�,�- .:•:• _. •. ,,. • •. .+':•+.:'riE'E:;���••,,.. iftl f #fR1iIkO ,.;.r',`.`r;r+;•i;'i._ . ...... . . ............ ... ... ;,�,!_+, •• .R: f•++•.++.. •K:'''�;: +r H:' •�:�' v"fs -•�+- f +fin5 �_.., + ,;M1r�r.v .•, f.+.ti,ti �:._.'i _ 1 s.:f,'t+,, ^'if}'� r � _ k `�•.' :;rf._-ter tir') ,..� s•: ..y. ,., u,?.++ +,'i ,' .... ..... +n k.,'.5ur�".� ..v:, +. :, ... �'u •' f .5' _ ki• � r• ,� f.+ " .••1,iC{jr{7PtF SSF:rFi f, J.• y 1 f fin+ •4.-.. f, •,�� + .�yti x - i.Q.�: •{ ..... ... .... ... . •RtlD1dND5 BLVU� ; is .: .. .•i ` ; r . . J� �,". �. /SUE.. .. ... .. . . �V .. . ...... Q iSLsBARTON RD 5TkA1E ............ ......................... • .. vniMO.';' .................... . F qy�``p ��s epp�`� L? .. ....:...... • �p`� r Qp� ... SI ND ....................................... i�44 sry �C01 _ f G�� O' fINSONAVE A ....... ............ .... ...... ... ...... ...... h • M1 �Q o ff g I Y..... BL.. r �.. ...................... — ................... ::. ' {+. 3 : ;-k1 krJ' '' !_! AVENUES ...... f r a+ . W U. 9 �TEXAS DR a N O t................................. iD d ...... R�NfQNYp.....',:- - r LIVE OAKCANYON RD - ..... SOGNTY,LMERD. .......... .. ........................ .............................. Calimesa " " " " " " e 0 1 2 Miles Map produced by Alta Planning +Design May 2020. Data Sources City of Redlands, SCAG, SBCTA, EXISTING CONDITIONS Most Common Bicycle Crash Types in Redlands Figure 19 presents bicycle -involved collisions by primary collision factor. The majority of the collisions were caused by a party violating the automobile right of way or conducting an improper turn. The absence or quality of bicycle facilities throughout Redlands may lead to some bicyclists violating the law as they attempt to navigate vehicle traffic. It is important to note that the tool used for this analysis, SWITRS, does not identify which party was at fault for the collision. Figure 19. Bicycle -Involved Collisions by Primary Collision Factor Most Common Pedestrian Crash Types in Redlands Figure 20 breaks down pedestrian involved collisions by the pedestrian's action at the time of the collision. The majority of pedestrians were struck by a vehicle while in a crosswalk, indicating the need for improvements at existing crosswalks. Figure 20. Pedestrian -Involved Collision by Pedestrian Action 25 50 45 20 40 35 15 30 25 20 10 15 10 .5 5 0 0 Crossing in Crossing not in In Road, Crossing in Not in Road Automobile Improper Unsafe Speed Traffic Sginals Wrong Side of Crosswalk at crosswalk including Crosswalk not at ROW Turning and Signs Road Intersection shoulder intersection Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 57 EXISTING CONDITIONS Level of Traffic Stress The perception of a stressful or unsafe journey is often the greatest barrier to bicycling for most residents. For this reason, it is important to understand how stressful different routes and roadway conditions are likely to be perceived by the average rider. In order to increase bicycle ridership, the routes that provide access to the most prominent destinations need to feel safe for all cyclists, not just the strong and fearless. The Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) indicates the amount of traffic stress a particular facility imposes on bicyclists. The analysis, based on methods developed by the Mineta Transportation Institute, considers posted speed, number of travel lanes, presence of bicycle facility and land use context to calculate a bicyclist's comfort level.' The combination of these criteria creates four levels of traffic stress for the existing roadway network. However, this Plan introduced a fifth level (LTS 1.5) to differentiate between streets without specific bike improvements which nevertheless remain low - speed and low -stress for most people on bikes, versus streets with specific improvements and facilities to create a low -stress experience for riders (LTS 1). The principle of the scale remains the same: the lower the number, the lower the stress and the higher the level of comfort for people on bicycles. LTS 1 and 2 roads are typically the roadways that are appropriate for "All Ages and Abilities" and the "Interested but Concerned" cyclists, respectively. For this analysis, levels of traffic stress range from 1 to 4 Existing Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress in Redlands The level of traffic stress scores shown in Figure 23 illustrate the low stress connections and gaps throughout Redlands. The Bicycle LTS results approximates the user experience for the majority of Redlands residents. However, people may have differing opinions of traffic stress depending on their own experiences. Many of Redlands' local roads are considered to be LTS 1 or LTS 1.5. The City's major roads and corridors connecting to key destinations are primarily considered to be LTS 3 or LTS 4, including Redlands Boulevard, Orange Street, Cajon Street, and others. 1 Maasa, Furth, and Nixon. Low -Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity, Mineta Transportation Institute, May 2012. is• Low Stress • Suitable for all ages & abilities, including children 115 • Low Stress -Does not feature a bicycle facility • Low Stress, with attention required • Indicates traffic stress that most adults will tolerate • Involves interaction with moderate speed traffic • Suitable for those classified as "somewhat confident bicyclists" • Most stressful • Suitable for those classified as "highly confident riders" 58 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan Figure 21. Existing Level of Traffic Stress ap LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS F CITY OF REDLANDS, CA LTS 1 - Most Comfortable 0 City Boundaries LTS 1.5 Park r _ _ • •'���^���}'`ti'"':.,,� .. .. �! �}.: ;;::� � •� f J.Lti'k f.i r i }}i / .k •' � f�f f; r. �;, :i;: lkti...4 f, i4, }'L }: vL�_.. •,',j %'J.vi4\ i }k'ir, LTS2 LTS 3 ..... 'rkk'�✓f,1 �}f4rr r+:'i :'� .;: �.•::>l :+ :I f�:,i��,f :� ti�f' l}"..k• . . ,.rf '•' �'•:'< L� � . -•' — LTS 4 -Least Comfortable _•L,� L-f �- l+/rf .nw , I - Jnl f',,•: 1 •¢'' Z f A • l n!M1 . • M1y � 'rr �'i ter• •� � ,�. �,'' ., '., tq 1. . f $EDLANDSBLVD::.• f Cl- W .......... ....... -Loma Linda e°,'•. -- t' <- . ytc'I , , , :y- SAryUC. ...:.... .......... :. .. `f•''; `�+ �8$J� . ............... . .... ... .... ... . .. 411hMplT :h;.... fit' E q� g 1` fj..... ............ ... . . RILiQI(A14E " � ` ', l�......... .. .................. ..... ......... . ... YUCAIPA BLVD . ��h�.. .......... . . k, l ............................... ... �, ............ .... .............r _, " , �} Dui . ..... ...................... :f•s'y : r Y f ............ .................. `, js.s"^ :, j ! :'. ?:� ! ri '• .' . '��v M1''" !M1; .t::5'.. •AVENUE E ' q, N / P TEXAS D i l rJ A 5 S F' C 4 .. CA(IMfSAg(VD R�CHECANYp.....'•:: ••;•• • . • LIVE OAK CAN ON • .........................::... COGNTY.LINERD ' y ......::.:::: :..:.'.: } } .':.:::..'.:'.'.:', . ::: ;'.:.:.: ".'.::.'.:::::.'.':.'.::.'.:::::'.:.........'...: :'..........:::'.':...'.'•:::'..:................................. ............ . ............. ...................................... ..•. •.. ......•.................. ... a Imesp .............................. ............ � e 0 1 2 Miles Map produced by Alta Planning +Design May 2020. Data Sources City of Redlands, SCAG, SBCTA, EXISTING CONDITIONS Low -Stress Connectivity Islands Analysis Figure 22 analyzes the connectivity of existing low -stress areas of the city based on the Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Analysis mentioned in the previous section. This exercise helps highlight the barriers that high-speed roadways, freeways, and railroad tracks create between neighborhoods. A low -stress connection requires both segments and intersections to accommodate low -stress travel. For example, if a corridor is considered a stressful roadway, enhanced crossings may be needed to provide a comfortable crossing experience for cyclists traveling between neighborhoods. Elements that promote low - stress connectivity between areas of the city could include: • Signalized Intersection • High -Visibility Crosswalks with flashing beacons • Low -speed roadways, bridges or tunnels bypassing high-speed streets In Figure 22, complete connections are displayed in the same color and create "low stress islands". When the color of the roadways changes, or the color is broken, this indicates that a high -stress roadway is creating a barrier, such as a lack of signalized crossings at the intersection. In this map, colors do not correspond to levels of traffic stress; rather, each color represents a part of Redlands where internal travel is low -stress, but crossing to another island is likely more stressful. This analysis approximates the user experience by visualizing potential barriers when moving from a low -stress LTS 1 or 2 corridor to a LTS 3 or 4 corridor. The connectivity analysis shows that there are several large pockets within Redlands that provides complete low -stress connections. Many of these low -stress connections are within residential neighborhoods that are not intersected by higher -stress roadways. For example, the large area north of Barton Road / Brookside Avenue and south of Redlands Boulevard (shown in light blue on the map) represents a large region of Redlands where internal travel is relatively low -stress. Alternately, in the central area of the city, where many larger streets converge, islands are small and more numerous, as represented by the multiple colors in this area. Bicyclists who wish to travel to the Downtown area, for example, may face barriers crossing high -stressful roadways such as Redlands Boulevard or Cajon Street. This suggests that this part of the city will require intersection and crossing improvements to better facilitate pedestrian and bicycle travel between areas. The map also shows areas of the city that are relatively cut-off from other locations, such as the neighborhood around Citrus Valley High School or Ford Park. Without safe crossings in place, these destinations could be difficult or unsafe to access. Other high -stress roadways that may create a barrier for bicyclists traveling to their everyday destinations include San Bernardino Avenue, Lugonia Avenue, Citrus Avenue, and Orange Street. 6o Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan Foo LOW -STRESS CONNECTIVITY Figure 22. Connectivity a ANALYSIS • - .: ?� ... • CITY OF REDLANDS CA : k : City Boundaries IV ;?ti+rM1S;f++++ v'{+.. Park 10 62�7 {lfj cif ���;�'' •;!¢LNIE#�T4'AV�;f � .'i tiY��• ,w'M1•+ :c' a }n1�iNEFR'�}Ifit`.: • .�• -' �''s•, . �: M1r +;: y:ii+r y1• ..... . . . . I-• ' ++', :.�::rn`f ,._ �,� ., .. +�,. _.• .. + ... - �u-•:a.,,��, � ''NI III7 •w k+ �.'. Jl� .. -kDLAN65BLVD::.• •:? E' rr';',:::.:s ;'''..,.:r%1. gyp;;?, ,' �. 'F.,.:.... rY:f •' .. ••� �.. f ter. I - .•�''=•�•�s. .. .• ... • OC • y�j , Z Q Q�` .1 .....' BARTDN RD '00 ( ` 5TN AYE .................... p d`Pal . �p� Qti , y �` y 1 rAyo......... .................... . :::::::::::::...:::: .. :.... .. AE1I�FGYi�L71''' 9J ,�r ............ ... ............'.......................... ....... ............ ...YUCAIPABLVD ...:G���r�. . ... : ' .... ��.\� ............ . .... + �. k�' : r y tiY ;''�,: +siywr - AVENUE E ::.... ................ . sq t • N// " TEXAS DR . . ... •. .. ..:: ,�^ .r}.h _ N`-' - . ............. .. ............. .. ....... Fp r + a CSLJ � �4d13 Sf .... ......... . .......... Hp.....o.... . .... LIVEDAKCAN ON ...................... CHEC :. .............:..:....,.........,...•......... •. •..,....... .:.:. ............................. SQGN........ .„ o.............. " .................. •.., .............................. Calimesa " " " " "' e 0 1 2 Miles Map produced by Alta Planning +Design May 2020. Data Sources City of Redlands, SCAG, SBCTA, EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing Roadway Conditions The speed at which vehicles are traveling has a significant impact on the comfort and safety of bicyclists and pedestrians who are also using the same right of way. As the figure below illustrates, a pedestrian's chance of survival after being hit by a vehicle at 20 mph is 98 percent but drops to only 62 percent if the vehicle is traveling at 40 mph. Figure 23 shows the posted speed limits for Redlands streets. Figure 24 illustrates the City's street widths. The widest road in Redlands is 105 feet and can cause drivers to drive at a higher speed. Additionally, the maps show that the wider the street, the higher the vehicle volume is as seen in Figure 25. This map shows the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) along the roadways within the City. The red line indicates that those roadways have a vehicular volume of 14,000 to 22,000 AADT. The major corridors that have the highest volume of traffic include San Bernardino Avenue, Lugonia Avenue, Redlands Boulevard, and Barton Road. A PEDESTRIAN HIT BY A VEHICLE TRAVELING AT 20 MPH 730 20 40 �10 50� 0 FATALITY RATE 60— A PEDESTRIAN HIT BY A VEHICLE TRAVELING AT 30 MPH I 20 3D 40 '-10 ' 50� — 0 FATALITY RATE 60 — 101 30% 50"° 7, 90" A PEDESTRIAN HIT BY A VEHICLE TRAVELING AT 40 MPH I IIIIIIIII�20 30 40 '-10 50� — 0 FATALITY RATE 60 — 10s 30" 50" 70% 90% HAS A 2 % FA A" IT OF HAS A 4% FATALITY r HAS A 3 8 % FA ALIT OF Source: Rosen and Sander. Pedestrian fatality risk as a function of car impact speed. Accident Analysis and Prevention 41 120091 536-542. VVV Rr 62 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan Figure 23. Roadway Speeds ROADWAY SPEEDS - - F CITY OF REDLANDS, CA :... ' Posted Speed Limit 25 mph or less O City Boundaries f ff k n:'''"? '' - ' k.f 4.4 J °r• x .•vf Y f .f.. 4 30-45 mph Park {k +,,,,,•, r'ti' :.1'r f�f r =h `.+'. �y,`, fi... 4A f}1 ffr ti,, .yl �, ..M1fr-f4}y,.}{, ' r ! i-;.;•f, .. r{''�.. rf 10,,,'.,�r„ 4+ ":��k }',:r-�v'"f; _ • ..... ti ; .: : , .;. ', ;,: : �i,.? ,':!: , ff .ti �'; r + .. +ter 50-65 mph •' f -, f :,i •'i ?+'• i ? v? ? i •? `.vi vj??`,M1+`.?i y �?i •+;.`, .r r r! if v'� i r+i r f+r v - 11n�`nr,}M1�fv,r!,M1;:+•:yE'rM1!v - . ~'r•rr/vvv,., yv.4+r!.';+,:'':•+r i•?? 'r4?r4?r4?r4?r4?r4?r4?r'i v'.',r: i'f•r ,. �'f`Jv• .. , •{ram • , ��y;`' ' - L • r!•4????r�r':'' L�/ f L4 - '4 - ":;?,. ' � F �YtE flI.AV16'�? tom: f^� 4 ,r m �E@R •+ f w�vr i is rrrv.• • .. y 4 4 ..��+r .$+•r ?,rrrr ,..�, 1L, .....4^v` ,tip' •` `. "' r ABe _ IiG '...,. .... C f� il,• ilr• .. �... - .. v„'v •r. ,.v.��rr.'r':: .4 r� r r � ... •r. .r' ..' .: �'�,.�.�,-'-'.i_--.a.-5'.• err ... ....... ..... .. ' •iiBDLANbS BEND• , �,, , ., � : . � _ - .. ' •; -n' .. ..1Y!�t ram.•'::'.• •- .-+--+�'.'r�. +'.. •.:: •2C •z `\` rRD— r ,� ' � u :o:• ......................:.:':. } SN .. ..... ....... . ........... \ q0 ................. .... oI ... ... �yQ ;k +?;';;C.' — ...................... ... YUCAIPABL .... • •........... .... n .. .. .. .... .. .. ....................... ...... ..... .. .. .... ... rr �� ,J .................... ,, . ............... ... ................ :..::.:...................... .... ��::� ?r%� :f•: �is� "AVENUES' }'�M1%�i•'`K14.0 ...TEXAS DR.•••...... ... .. .. . .............. �.41... �F ``.>''ar.G ..f.•;' " .'SOW : i ; : ........:................................ . ...: ,,.... R�CH6CANY"''' 0 .......................... :: :: • 1I ... ............. L EOAKCAN(ONRD o......'......:.' ' :.................. .... Ca Imes """""" e 0 1 2 Miles Map produced by Alta Planning +Design May 2020. Data Sources City of Redlands, SCAG, SBCTA, Figure 24. Street Width STREET WIDTH - - F CITY OF REDLANDS, CA .. .. .. Stf'eet Width 9-27 Feet City Boundaries Park .. ..'!'f :t.. {„ 4r='\+fr r', r�` .:k f, ti, �; "'+ . f �: Af+ ::k'./ ..+:::.; r. _f4_ •�_�, lr,.; " .. :27 - 44 Feet -,'. ���i;�',' }',?,',�:�++10 k,rJi,.�f��f}:lk\t' 7ifti {y rk ���kf 4k ,l Lkff��L,.\�ti_k\��I; •,',r;iti• k�: J', by .• ::, •.;.::+.,,+•.', ;:k• '.;.:.:.•,'+ �� ..... v�w'; ::+�.... :;��•;'J'.,f;+' ','�;'•:i:�:;: 44-67 Feet .'+f��%n ��i•,.r,,:::,:•;��.%�-;'' .rf,+•.�l'':>'�;` � 57 - 105 Feet Auq n.r •� - : f r. r.. n-k::+. +•ir:'•:' .: ' ' •. • • � -' :'.'. •, iti.-r' •-•. �._ ' - _ •rk�. i i .. iJi} i{•fri fir+ f•;, Ali • . . y_ r' } . JREDCAN656LVD... ,'rrr?..'.t: +,:?,r:f, :`r:•':`?%' ;:':'r: '::':'r::'r':": .::,t,-• k=;r•.t'r':: , W •, - W 41 tx .:.....: 94 . �::. ` .. . `lama a ..... km m: ............ .. oy fir; .................... . ..... �,��� J� .. O.'.:.:....................... . sp N ��` r� �� S9H.........:...:................ .:.. .... , . ^i;+. �.. f+M1l �,q p p o.. NILTPkkYF ................. .. . a1Q fy CBE T ya .. .. ....... .......... ... YUCAIPABLVD..... r ........................... ....................... ............... . ..:............ f\ �'9: ' 4 ` :.AVENUE E f r�rh, M1r, c,�9'/lj T ks UNCAP ...TEXASDR.•..'....' �t �...... ...... .. ............... ... .. .......................................... .... 1 �o ?�CHFCgyyYp..... - - - - :............................. SOfJN1 Y LINE RD _. f'f ; �a'a ... ....................................... .......... ................ . .............. Cahmeaa ............................. ........... e 0 1 2 Miles Map produced by Alta Planning +Design May 2020. Data Sources City of Redlands, SCAG, SBCTA, Figure 25. Traffic Volume do' TRAFFIC VOLUMES - F CITY OF REDLANDS, CA Annual AverageDaily ;.r.:,t;'.:: Traffic - - C oundaries r 01000 CityBoundaries .. • • k}r•r -nr:'!•�;'�e".r'�`' r„n5�,:fn•,1v'fvv� .f:f4,r.4:, +-ktin,:}ry.ln f,`v=ff•�-ri'. ^-4. .�,'� ff',4fv' �: ,s}' fk';f:-,.+_f: `�:sf.�'y':r/ 4 r+ •. —j D00 � S 00 Park 210 ' . .. ... • .. ,..--�{L fir'} ;',+4'�::: v +.... ,' %.'-L ,• fM1 I.' .. i;l,..:'.+!•k•,4fr'M1::l'•f+•I�,,.f+l+.:!:,.:%�,`':•. �,';:��!:'!l�, `M1.'•''? .`.•i;i;:ti'; :1.'':, i':•,y - 3,500 8,000 . . } , •v4 Yf f', } , .'•y`:•?'��"• 8,000 14,000 •`v, i.7\:::i Ly i v r r �rf 5'v '•'H •} i:n 4 { • i��"-4 : - 'irk%'��:j; ?;:?`:� f . . • m r�%� ti ,v4vr::i r :.'+•'•-Yri+xL ... _ _ .. .......... .. . . ti 'ti��-� lv i�'f .... ... ......... r'h~ . .tiM1� f •-f� a �. • ,tiir', `,. ..; .'r.,...•,: . . - - .. ,,..... }y"y„ . • .: • :: - - f ;:'ri ,�•,? �•':�?�.,,,:,:.':r,:f;,�r y.',i�-�;L^y - - v,: •} r 4 � ,..,. f f•': ..".. ... r .. .r''r� ;`„'fir:: �' : ,rfis• ••:i�+': ,�� .�...' ••• .• ...... ........... rf�r••i 4• } . r. . r38 REDLAND3BLVD•;..':;_:'rEE:�{ N LL: , w � ■ AM ..... ...... .:.'.: if .4NQ�..... ....................... . .. .. ... f sr ..................... ...... .... .....: .. ....... ffM145 .. ............. .... .... ..... }c;.U4d4kT 1iC .. •':. ��r ................ ................ �� HI ........ .......................... ............... .... . ........................ YUCAIPA BLVD .......�a....-. ............... , ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. _ i................................... .... �b. .. .. - .. .. .. .. . �- ....................... .............. .. . ...................... ':r �� .: �:%+{`}•. .. .......... ............. ..... ....... ....... .. .. ................... + AVENUE E................................ ........ . .. . ....... • 4A TEXAS DR �'ST . .. .. . . �QlF .......... . .�S��l{, .... ..... ..... ............. ......... y`o ........... .... ... . 111 _ .................I........ . ............... • . . R�CHfCq'NPQ..... - • •- - - - - - - ............................. CQCIN.LMERD LIVE OAK CANYONRD o.............. .. ..,.. Ca Emesa ............ e 0 1 2 Miles Map produced by Alta Planning +Design May 2020. Data Sources City of Redlands, SCAG, SBCTA, EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing Transit Network The City of Redlands is currently served by Omnitrans, the primary transit operator in the San Bernardino Valley. Currently, there are three bus routes that provide service in Redlands. The 8 and 19 routes travel east -west through central Redlands, including Downtown. Both these routes serve as regional connections to Loma Linda. The 15 route travels through the San Bernardino Avenue, the Donut Hole, Lugonia Avenue, and Downtown Redlands. This route also links Redlands to the City of Highland in the north via Orange Avenue. Additionally, the City of Redlands has plans for three stations along the Arrow Passenger Rail Line, which will run through the central part of the City. Figure 26 shows the City of Redland's existing transit network, and planned Arrow Passenger Rail Line. It is important to note that the future Arrow Passenger Rail Line correlates relatively close with SCAG's High Quality Transit Areas, or areas within one-half mile of existing major transit stops and frequent transit service. j OmniTrans 66 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan Figure 26. Transit Network TRANSIT NETWORK CITY OF REDLANDS, CA • •• .. .... .... 9�. . • • • • • . • • .. • • • .. , , • • • • � � Transit Route Arrow Passenger Rail Planned en er ^;, ,;, , , ;, ;, i ;' ....... Station •=r•1}��:ti .. High Quality Transit Area* City Boundaries h_;ti \ A, +r+r,:• 1 }'r, /;:_ \`iy:f=' ;"r -w y";=x:1+41+f , r7 ,;,1 lf;k ;.,;, : 'Planned Arrow Passenger Park {f'41 r.ff\ frr 10 r}rry f rf k %} -iif ' �frr}iy', rM1lrv�A}i �M1% 5 r,-1 ti1�+i1 rti, r 1N�!f {f :,k'•. !:: ;:l ;: :%- {% . }f r'• , ,!!+ f f Rail Ah rif jii/�.. r: ,':,:"�:!i:,. err ,/r:is4..:rff:'._L'f1.ii'�r.,,!,�:.+�''''+'yii'r'!{r: �-%r+;y•r•iir •!�r!i+f .. �,�� —. ' % �},.rr rr\+• +r fi,.r :i4 r4r'!i+!'f+"i!+f+ *High ualit Transit Areas are defined b the Southern California Association of f .'. f Governments fis being within..one-half mile of maor transit stops and high qualitytransit '•f i ''sf" �k �a ,l r •�+?ry •'.r :?:; iifrrr - 1 i ' 1 •rf c k�+ , r corridors.Ama'or transit stop is defined as containing an existing rail transit station a +r•'i � • , • � 1 P 9 9 }:+ r ` r r �'•kJ �,?r A •. en � �' f �� : ferr term:..a.�_� _ither a bus or rail transit service or the intersection of two or more r. k n1, r fir f x i i'�• bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less Burin the Y ��', �, :�.':ur,. - 'r 1'. r•1'. i•4'''i ••1'. i'r'•, fa +> trf :•' � •:� ti +` � ^\+ r mornin dr akernoon peak commute periods. A high-qualitytransit corridor is defined as a .�L��•.'� ..':I�r'ti��'�;f'l!,;:.',.}r:�•!.:,:...;:.•'%:.•'�:.•:+: ...;:'...': +. ;'.'±�'?fr ''•i •r 9 P P �, . • e ;corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during Q: peak commute hours. z' � f.r ±��{; l��E'�?�E7:�E'fEE';+SAif& 8•� :�';':- .c'f, tc=• ... - f{fti� '•d: `� �ii, 1•rh �r •� r} -ii�, �. k�;'-r: \rf} h1 j^1� , •....+..,+ � • .,. ...: .r ::.':'ir �: it - n'f' ' i ',':=:.. .. • • ...... •... �k•,r.;, `'; +::`. :':: ..err., r�. : - — {. { 38 LUGONIAAVE • RBDLAND1 BLVD # a ti ra m � # STATION �oLTONAYE I�NIVERSlT�! # 3 T #OF -77- STATION a. . • z .. ... DOOJITIWf x ....... N9........ -... i'ATION .... ....... . O fm,3 L L n lid FAO, STN AVE 4 .......................... ... t4 P�6� qrf R�QTP� a : .:.: JqA� ...... ........................... . . E c ..................... ....... BfJLWWra�,r q�l� �q� C .... . ........ .'.' ............. . �L H AVE Yit o iITON ....................... .. ......... :: ... .' `;; :•`jCAQZZ fS 9 . �/Lq 9� ::. ......... YUCAIPA BL7G.... +��.... . T .................................. _. ' r k':?:` s+o� . AVENUES ................................ ....... 1� .......... .... sga�vs ;+ . •• '.r r'.r r.rr >i1 f � ✓s fy1: Ar. UN�AP� TEXAS DR.. ..u... ... . .46 • ti ...... rk• y�oy .................... �O ZA[�HFSAB(Vd............ .. . RCNE(gNYp" LIVE OAK CANYON RD COggTY.LINE RD y :.::::.r.:::.::..:.:....:.....:,:':.::'.'.::.'.:..::.'.:..:::::::.:.'.::..::::. ::..::: ' : •...:::.:..-.. :::.............................. , .. ............................... •.'.'.:.......:...'....... , ..'...' .': '..'.'......:................ •.•:.... . .............................. . Calimesa ........... e 0 1 2 Miles Map produced by Alta Planning +Design May 2020. Data Sources City of Redlands, SCAG, SBCTA, EXISTING CONDITIONS School Site Assessments Addressing conditions for students traveling to and from school is an important component of sustainable mobility and active transportation To facilitate increased safety near schools, Safe Routes to School programs evaluate and upgrade street infrastructure. These programs also promote walking and bicycling to school in a safe and supportive environment through education and encouragement activities. The project team identified the existing conditions within a quarter -mile buffer around 12 schools in and adjacent to the city of Redlands. Assessing the existing conditions surrounding these schools is an important component when creating recommendations. The assessment reviewed existing conditions, including existing bikeways, existing sidewalks, missing sidewalks, stop signs, curb ramps, and signage. Figure 27 looks at the City's public schools that are not currently addressed in the San Bernardino County Transit Authority's Safe Routes to School report. The individual school site assessment maps are located in Appendix D. 68 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan Figure 27. School Site Assessment SCHOOL SITE ASSESSMENT CITY OF REDLANDS, CA ' 10 School Location }}'ff+, •;fr - - - - .. :: School Boundary ' tips, „finch,,.,., C k•Yki}1hy;,`;�'='%;�f, -1 `f rf_,., ,-f:._f�k=...•+ f�„ , ,C' ,r ?M1,;�;:. `_ f'k; rh .,, 4i f 'f•'4+: +�-f +'f• f ' Tx'•v:: '�'�: 10; ::r;;;.�;•':•w;,,,i,-irk,{�r,r:.�}�;,�+f�frti;+r{lf,^��r�;r.,,?l:+ .. .. IN City Boundaries ,+�,,�, .4 ; `': ,:f•:`,'• _ Park . . 4 : f { .4r _�+„•..:.. �¢• • :f . CITRUS :VALLEY, fHIGH �'r,l.,,',r;;}r;r.,l;',}r',}+., rrJ1?,�.h:��•'' .. .,�r,',;;.; � .. .. f .. 7. ,.4_•..:............�,- .,.•.z •.•••.„-f�:::•+•.'::.:r•,IE:ixAt��,ER�I %f: f. i'Ff?:}5,:!'::•r:%:%:,;4,• :... :j=:: ' f' AAEisSTONEELEMENTARY,ti' i-rr ���,,.',: olU�i6NtAthVE.r r� ...' -•-^ • : .. • r`..��• • ': ir.. , /�;+'f::' :'f+ti:iA,•?!';y= 'ti= `.:f' `,sue .. - "` - - - .•�fII{FEfLiu 4 1'. .. . . . R LA DS BL :: ... . bpANGEWdOb; H-IGH •.:t • "'+: t; r41 FRRN 1N ELEMEi\iTi4gY�r`'r:+ .. . .• .••. :, N � ...,,:,:•':.,_ '�:5: ._�AM N PLIMIFNTARY. W CflRDSAVE .... . p4..a........ .� ¢ .. MCK{NLEY ELEMENTARY �b&1P MOO REivn DLE BARTON RD �% STN ANE .:, •. SRYf4' VAWk fLEMENTI @�v �2l 0KINGSEUPY ELEMENTARY:...................... : ............ .. 4� F� t ........................... . .. ........... , 4 R cop III�EZLF OL Rl .. IEAUMONTAVE �� 4.L� go�'�� {HILTQNAYE .;.':'• ::........................ : • •.. •.. EY ELWENTA Y cM1L R E//uE .... ...... ... 'Ile Si '.•:' • .. ..... YUCAIPA BLVD ..... r :::.' ...::::...... �sr �v :::: . ....::.... ..................... ........ ....................' .� ............... ..... ......... .. :. ` ' •AVENUES . . ................ 4 •+' - ..... .. .................. A Nj/ 9 t }' k5' r Nlgp TEXAS DR, • ..... . ::s,v: ': ':>.`': ;+:` +:` : :-'.`': ': l : Al .: f ,• 8/ . 4ii13' f ........ . . ................ . ............. .. ... ... r 4 i y� oWD . .. _l.Y.. .. .... ... 4 ............................................ ........... ANY :.:.:::.:: , , :: .... .. ..................... ... . ...... .w .. • .....•. ............... ;•:.•:'.'.::'.::'.::'.'::'.'.':'.'.'.::'.'.'::'.'::'.'.:'.{'.'r::'.'::'.':::.'.t::.' .. SOfJN�YLINERD', ..........a.................................. .::.•:......•.................,.,... ............ ........................... .................. .. Cahmeaa............................. ............ e 0 1 2 Miles Map produced by Alta Planning +Design May 2020. Data Sources City of Redlands, SCAG, SBCTA, EXISTING CONDITIONS Previously Planned Projects The Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan builds upon recent planning efforts and provides a comprehensive vision for sustainable transportation throughout the city. Figure 28 shows the projects that were recommended in previous plans, including the following: • Redlands Bicycle Master Plan (2015) • Redlands General Plan 2035 (2017) • San Bernardino County Active Transportation Plan, formerly the San Bernardino County Non -Motorized Transportation Plan (Revised 2018) • Draft Transit Villages Specific Plan (2020) • SCAG Passenger Rail Access Plan (2020) Figure 29 indicates that many of the previous plans recommend projects within the city's Downtown region. Some projects from different plans overlap with one another or recommend different facilities. The City of Redlands also has pavement and re -striping projects planned, which (if coordinated with) could provide an opportunity to integrate sustainable mobility projects into previously - budgeted work in a cost-effective manner. However, it will be crucial to examine where plans may conflict, where alternative recommendations have been made, and where opportunities for coordination can occur.. The table in Figure 28 below lists some of the major corridors in Redlands where past plans have recommended projects that overlap with each other, indicating a need for review and consideration. Figure 28. Corridors with Multiple Planned Projects STREET PREVIOUS PLAN Colton Avenue • Transit Villages Specific Plan: Multi -Modal Street • Redlands Passenger Rail Access Plan: Bike Corridor Improvements • City of Redlands Bicycle Improvements: Class II Bike Lane • City's candidate for re -striping Texas Street • Transit Villages Specific Plan: Multi -Modal Street • Redlands Passenger Rail Access Plan: Pedestrian Corridor Improvements • City of Redlands Bicycle Improvements: Class III Bike Route • City's candidate for re -striping Redlands Boulevard • Transit Villages Specific Plan: Multi -Modal Street • Redlands Passenger Rail Access Plan: Bike and Pedestrian Corridor Improvements • City of Redlands Bicycle Improvements: Class I Shed Use Path • City's candidate for re -striping University Street • Transit Villages Specific Plan: Multi Modal Street and Gateway Street • Redlands Passenger Rail Access Plan: Bike and Pedestrian Corridor Improvements • City's candidate for re -striping 70 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan Figure 29. Previous Planned Projects o00 Previous Planned Projects CITY OF REDLANDS, CA • • • .... a• . • • ' Transit Village Specific Plan (r' • r�'.: • :{, j.,^ ti r • • • ....... , , , , , , — Gateway Street Highway Underpass — Pavement Projects y • • .rr S P s f{ 4 • • • • • ........ Improvement -- Restriping Projects r h f,+,+., • .. _ .. • — New Street }}54 4-+•4„J.++ 4 _ �M1,,, Intersection Improvement '4-r,r J l..r ;,' ',,4,,.r`; ='fk '4•-1,^'•,,.Y:.;�f; f,r}fL1f+r1 f=+��-,;f;; ff='M1-i%^f Planned Arrow Passenger Rail •• A tiJ}•'lJ.; ;'..;::;• 10.,rk;iM1�^r}}}','Y•-;f{;i':^,1+}tif+;ti'lM1_,'•5'r•lftik l?i_lti_+,+irr l;/` — Multi -Modal Street New Signalized • g Planned Arrow PassengerRail ..... ., `......r?�lr:::,:;'i;r+.lk;r+ .• .• r fl.,r.., :.`,'-'•,'•;,::::.',':'•+;%; 'S;'..,.:.-ii:.'f-r • Station • • • • • _�••;:+ •'•'!?+, — Convert to Two -Way MidblockCrossinglmprovement '��`�•�::+.:;'+:+:,rf:•:.•rl:i•:i�,�•i.;•lr,;,''ti:!:,:++:�+;.;..1?;rr�:�lr•.:::!.:%,':;�:::-::��: �',-•,l:;f�;, Passenger Rail Access Plan City Boundary �yv f • f • , f'tin`= ; �!"'%; i', "fir f '; , ,, f. , - - Bike Corridor Improvements Park Pedestrian Corridor Improvements P V ll in n� i. til!•.'i+, r�.�+ - tiff. r• •+f • is' • NE•R,• , o 'a .}/.i+:�:i�•':•'•'+,'yi'+f"'-:'':�',.•:'� i4: --: •4 `''+`•i y�{tiv ii•• ,f._+.. ,_ t;' i ' z' ^;',•; •; .+ ;::IkU14f4�E : ;:::;:.:;'.:;:+.:;'+;, !:;-+';.`+i';r'. ;;•.; fff-�;:,' +rf+r f � 'l.'iF• • rrf : i ^i' :� •+ v L', •l L: � � �'•.!+ ' r` 4'�� J n' } �' ' '+�':::..C::+_:.. .. '.. • .. ......' .,ti,,,.. ....: 7"F.''! � .... },'• tin 1 f � + } } 38. ME ,ri+ ::;: ,; '•,+rx,•.'-; f�i '4 'T,1f •.�•!�:� -inL M1S. : -.�,....... +`� � ♦ - -� ±�•'•'�'•'•"• :Y„ ............. . . �+f,++,ram . •'•'•• R6DLAN9S BLVD ,• . �': _ 3 E E E ! AVE , . c ;: + r �•,•: r:. ' W •� .. .... . . r .. .: Lq prK1 r 9ARTDN Rl� 8�p ` ^ STH AVE :.... Ns'.'.'.'.'. , .........:... ... ... ... ... ... . ' ' ' : ' • • • • , . . ..:..4*0 ... . 3;Irfal,is.t: �t q, au�� . ' &�� F m \ ................ . :.:.. �$E/Sf 9�m YUCAIPA BLVD ..... .�ti, . , .............. .. . $sl ............:...��..... .. ....... . L 4, r, o� -AVENUE E.................. ........ ..... ..r:; 1 4 4�•i tiiJr -+?•i 4:r4:+::�'.ir { .. •; s ;, i . ,• . . Nl/ �%' •:'%%%, j(.V�..�,•+•;+fre.,y�!.r, ..lqp'... TEXAS DR.•... .. .. ... .. QlFQ ,. !RA .............. Z. ..l ...... .. ........ ............................................. 4 ti Q R��HECANYpy .....: ::.'.::.'.::.'.:.'. ::.'.::: • • .:. • .• ......., ..... :...'................................ COGNtY.LMERD .. ......................................................................... . ......................................... .............................. Calimesa " " " " " " e 0 1 2 Miles Map produced by Alta Planning +Design May 2020. Data Sources City of Redlands, SCAG, SBCTA, Stakeholder Engagement ". IL F STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Overview In order to inform and engage the Redlands community about the Sustainable Mobility Plan (SMP), a variety of communication, meeting, and web tools were employed. Community members were invited to discuss the SMP's objectives, outreach strategies, and plan methodologies at a series of Community Advisory Committee Meetings. Public Engagement Workshops held by the Project Team informed community members of the background and trajectory of the SMP and educated them on how to record comments and suggestions on the project's public input map. Community members who were unable to attend engagement events were invited to leave their comments via the Public Input Map or Community Survey on the project website, or to email the Project Team with questions and comments about the SMP. The City's social media accounts were leveraged to advertise these events and to encourage community participation. The purpose of the engagement effort was to obtain community input on: • Vision for the SMP • Types of active transportation infrastructure and policies to support the City's goals • Barriers to walking and bicycling in the City • Who currently walks and bikes Recommendations focused on: • Types of bicycle facilities needed • Types of pedestrian facilities needed • Desired routes to prioritize first for investment 74 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Role of the Community Advisory Committee Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Meetings invited Redlands residents who wanted to be more involved in the SMP's development to join the Project Team in discussing the goals and the paths forward for the plan. Some CAC members represented institutions and organizations in Redlands, including bike shop owners, University of Redlands professors, and ESRI employees. Other Redlands CAC members joined as interested residents. These meetings invited attendees to share their thoughts on the SMP throughout its formation. Attendees were expected to review documents completed by the Project Team and offer their comments during the meetings. Among other things, attendee's suggestions helped determine how the Project Team approached outreach, how recommended improvements were prioritized, and how the bicycle and pedestrian networks in Redlands were shaped. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 75 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Outreach and Communications Plan The Outreach and Communications Plan was divided into three phases: Listen, Collaborate, and Refine. These phases allowed the Project Team to explain the contours of the SMP to community members in a variety of manners and for community members to give meaningful feedback and suggestions both regarding the SMP as a whole, and about specific corridors in the project area. The communications plan featured digital tools, social media updates, and live events with community members. Because of the impacts of COVID-19, all of these events occured online. The assortment of outreach strategies was planned in order to give community members options to engage in their preferred format and at the dates and times that worked best for them. As a result, the project team was able to reach a wide range of community stakeholders. Listen • Community Survey • Public Input Map Collaborate • Community Meetings • CAC Meetings • Walk and Bike Audits Refine • Incorporate what we heard into the prioritized project recommendations 76 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Online Activities Social Media Strategy Advertisements and reminders about engagement events were posted to the City of Redlands Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram pages. These posts helped spread the word about the Walk and Bike Audits and Public Engagement Workshops, and directed community members to the project website to participate in the Community Survey and Public Input Map. On Facebook, the Walk and Bike audits were advertised both as Facebook event pages, and as posts, inviting community members to reach out via the project email to learn more information on how to participate. On Twitter, tweets with an image attached reminded followers about the Walk and Bike audits and directed them to the project email for more information. On Instagram, images were posted with captions that included Walk and Bike Audit locations and dates, along with email contact information. On all of these social media platforms, community members could "like" or comment on the posts. � 4 Listen Collaborate Refine Webpage The Project Team built a project website to keep community members informed and engaged about the SMP. The project website had an "About" section where viewers could learn a bit more about the project and its timeline, and a "Contact" section so community members could contact the Project Team. The website remained updated with materials and documents that the public could use to track the project's progress such as an FAQ sheet and self -guided Walk Audit materials. Additionally, the website showed upcoming events which community members could put on their calendars. The website remained open from August 2020 through February 2021. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 77 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Community Survey Within the project website, the project team developed a community survey to capture community members' experience and perspectives on walking, biking, and riding transit in Redlands. Survey participants were asked about their typical mobility patterns and what types of improvements might be made that could encourage more walking, biking, and rolling in the city. These survey results helped inform the recommendation and prioritization process and also guided the Project Team in understanding what improvements are most important to Redlands residents. The Community Survey was open from August 2020 through October 2020, and 92 people responded. Public Input Map The interactive Public Input Map was another way for community members to inform the Plan. Community members were able to comment on any street, intersection, or corridor in the City of Redlands. There were three types of comments a community member could leave. • Destinations I currently access or would like to access by foot or bike • Barriers to walking or biking • Bicycle or walking routes that need improvement Community members could also review previous comments left by other participants and vote to either like or dislike the comments. The Public Input Map remained open for comments from August 2020 through October 2020. The public input map was used to both create recommended bicycle and pedestrian projects and prioritize these projects. Where comments recommended improvements to facilities such as crossings, sidewalks, or on -street bicycle routes, these items were added to the potential projects list to be evaluated alongside other previously - planned improvements. Community input was also one of the factors in evaluating and scoring potential projects. Where public comments intersected with a project area, projects were given points to indicate that they were priorities for members of the Redlands community.. Figure 30. The Redlands SMP Public Input Map Como L 4 78 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Community Survey Input Barriers to Walking • Lack of Sidewalks and/or safe crossings. • Lack of shade/too hot. • Transit stops are too far from resident's homes. • Safety concerns at major corridors like Lugonia Avenue and Redlands Boulevard. I WOULD WALK IN REDLANDS MORE OFTEN IF There were more sidewalks or they were better connected % Street crossings were safer 39% of respondents would walk more if Drivers were more careful or 33% there traffic were less dangerous My employer/school were ° 26 /o were more sidewalks closer to my house or they Other 26% were better connected I lived closer to public transportation ■ 12% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 79 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Barriers to Biking • Lack of secure bike parking at transit locations, work, school, and other destinations. • Concerned with distracted driving and vehicular speeding. • Lack of separated bicycle facilities. I WOULD BIKE IN REDLANDS MORE OFTEN IF There were more bicycle lanes and trails I didn't have to share the road with cars There were more bike parking at work, school, or other destinations Other Road surfaces were better 62% 43 % of respondents would bike more if ■ 3T-/6 there were more bicycle 25% lanes and trails 22% My employers/school was closer to my home = 13910 It didn't take me too long to bike to the places I need to go ■ 10%: I owned a bicycle . 8% I lived closer to public transportation ' 4% 25% 50% 75% 100% 80 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Types of Infrastructure and Programs Desired by the Community WHAT IMPROVEMENTS WOULD MOST LIKELY ENCOURAGE YOU TO USE SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS MORE OFTEN? More off-street trails for walking and biking More sidewalks and crosswalks Traffic calming (speed humps, speed detection) More bike racks in commercial areas, at workplaces, and at schools A system of signed, on -street bicycle routes that lead to important destinations Other A bike -sharing program Improved pedestrian connections to bus stops and stations N/A - These transportation modes aren't possible for me 62% of respondents would 40 ° �O like to see more of 34% off-street trails for 33% walking and/ or biking 32% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan gl STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Public Input Map Results The Public Input Map received over 450 comments, and over 1,000 votes on these comments. The public input map was used both to create recommended bicycle and pedestrian projects and to prioritize these projects. Types of Infrastructure Desired by the Community • Better or increased bicycle and pedestrian facilities including high visibility crosswalks, bike lanes, bike racks, and sidewalks • Alternative bicycle routes in the bike network on lower speed streets • More educational opportunities for bicyclists and drivers about how to use bicycle infrastructure, like bike boxes • Increased bicycle parking conforming to current design standards • Mid -block crossings near popular destinations • Longer crossing intervals, particularly in areas with children and older residents • Traffic calming in high volume and high-speed intersections • More shade structures • Increased lighting • Better wayfinding, particularly around trails Difficult Streets and Intersections • Dangerous crossing conditions at Center Street and State Street • Redlands Boulevard and Ford Street is a busy intersection with no crosswalks • The need for a bike lane on Lugonia Avenue • The need for improved sidewalks on San Bernardino Avenue • Heavy traffic volumes on Redlands Boulevard make biking and walking uncomfortable • Requests for a separated bike lane on Tennessee Street, a wide street with fast traffic speeds • The pedestrian infrastructure near Citrus Valley High School should better accommodate students who walk Separating bike lanes from traffic improves safety and accessibility. Consideration should be given to a protected bike lane. - INTERACTIVE MAPPING TOOL COMMENT The City should consider a Promenade or walking district connecting the transit station to State Street through a potential re -development of the Redlands Mall. - INTERACTIVE MAPPING TOOL COMMENT 82 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Online Engagement The Public Engagement Workshops and Walking and Biking Audits were hosted via Zoom meetings. The Workshops and Audits placed community members in settings where they were encouraged to participate and voice their opinions and concerns. The Project Team answered questions from community members, and took detailed notes in order to incorporate community member's comments in the Plan's prioritization list. The four Workshops and four Audits gave community members options to choose the events that best fit their schedule and interests Community Workshops The Workshops began by covering the background and goals of the SMP, and showed existing conditions maps of the City with sustainable mobility infrastructure improvements proposed in previous planning efforts such as the Redland's Bicycle Master Plan and Rail Access Plan. Next, the Project Team explained how community input would help inform the prioritized project and mobility network implementation strategy. In Workshops 3 and 4, information was added to the presentation which summarized the findings from the completion of the Walking and Biking Audits and the Active Transportation Counts. The Workshops closed with a demonstration of the engagement tools on the project website. �5 7", 0 v 0 Listen Collaborate Refine The Workshops were held on September 23 and October 6 from 6pm- 7pm, and September 30 and October 15 from 4pm-5pm. A total of 17 community members attended the Public Engagement Workshops. During the Workshops, attendees suggested bicycle and pedestrian improvements that were not seen on the exiting conditions maps, such as bike parking, wayfinding signage, and Class IV bike lanes. Attendees also discussed areas of the City that were not included in the Walk Audits that were in need of infrastructure improvements. The Project Team noted these suggestions, and also encouraged attendees to leave these comments in the Public Input Map online. While most of the attendees had visited the project website already, some were unaware of the information available, and some had not been taking advantage of all of the features of the Public Input Map. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Walking and Biking Audits Four virtual Walking and Biking Audits were conducted utilizing Google Earth Projects and Zoom. This tool allowed the Project Team to make "stops" in Google street view in order to discuss the opportunities and constraints of walking and biking in the surrounding area. Each of the four Audits reviewed a different section of the City, focusing on major intersections, busy streets, and popular destinations. These locations were chosen based on factors including consultation with City staff, existing conditions, and community feedback from the public input map. These virtual audits functioned similarly a traditional in -person audit, allowing the project team and participants to observe existing conditions and discuss potential improvements. The virtual interface also had the additional benefit of allowing the group to quickly zoom to other locations and discuss their characteristics in real time. Walk Audit Participant Comments • Enhanced pedestrian facilities should be installed around schools with busy pick up/drop off times. • Despite existing bike lanes, some streets are too uncomfortable to access by bicycle. Participants asked for separated bike lanes, or for alternative bike lanes on less busy nearby streets. • Freeway underpasses should have better pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Participants feel uncomfortable walking and biking in these areas, even though the underpasses connect pedestrians and bicyclists to popular and important destinations. • There are sidewalks in the City which end abruptly, forcing pedestrians into the street. These sidewalks should be completed and/or extended where possible. • Hot temperatures can be a deterrent to walking and biking in Redlands. Trees and other shade structures should be installed to reduce temperatures and make travel more comfortable Community Input Locations Figure 31 represents the density of comments received from the public input map, as well as community walk audits, Where more comments were received, areas of the city appear darker, indicating a concentration of interest among participants in improvements in these areas. Crucially, this map should not be interpreted as reflecting intensity of need or level of priority, since it only reflects the concerns and recommendations of residents who were engaged through public outreach. However, it indicates that areas with lower incomes, as well as greater environmental and public health concerns, are also areas with high numbers of community comments. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan ... .... . . ............................... ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 31. Community Input Heat Map : :%.. �� ..... ... .. ................. . ......... ........................... ......... . ........... .................... FP san Berawdino I PALMETTOAVE I-"-- ]PA PALMETTOAVE lir 01 6lop COMMUNITY INPUT CITY OF REDLANDS, CA Callimesa STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Bringing it All Together Within the final phase of outreach, the project team hoped to edit, vet, and refine the prioritization methodology, the City's goals, and the overall bicycle and pedestrian network. The stakeholder engagement process was an opportunity for the project team to say "did we get it right? and "is there anything that we missed? 0A rY 00h, 0 Listen Collaborate Refine RD • More sidewalks, improve broken sidewalks, and create sidewalk connections • More Protected Bike Lanes • More street lights • More street trees/shading opportunities • More off-street trails for bicycle and pedestrian use • Need a better sense of security walking and biking along major corridors • Create education programs for bicyclists and drivers about bicycle safety • Create traffic calming measures in high volume and high-speed intersections ■ 86 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT This page is intended to be left blank Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 87 it6 'm I L- • �, • 1 - r - I Network Recommendations 1 r..11R• �1� Z • � •r I i � `V Ap �■ tIC., •1�' r. A W.'m 1 r • z �------- �rti r. til 1 r NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS The Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Many previous improvements to the pedestrian and bicycle network are well -utilized and celebrated by Redlands residents. At the same time, there are also recognized limitations and areas where the network doesn't meet community needs. This chapter introduces the prioritization concept for determining which bicycle and pedestrian projects, as well as supporting amenities, the City of Redlands will prioritize for future implementation. This chapter also includes the overall strategy for determining the locations and type of facilities that should be recommended based on input from. Figure 32 lists some of the messages the project team received and corresponding proposals for addressing each issue or observation. Figure 32. Community Feedback and Project Team Proposals WHAT WE HEARD WHAT WE'VE PROPOSED Bicycling and walking are Make it Comfortable uncomfortable and stressful . Prioritize bicyclists and pedestrians with wider sidewalks, bicycle lanes as due to heavy traffic and because cars drive too fast. well as improving streetscape and public areas. • Continue implementation of the City's Bicycle Master Plan and General Plan to build a transportation system that will reduce fatal and severe .................................................................................................................... crashes around Redlands. . Bikeways are only useful if they are Make it Connected connected. Bicycle and pedestrian gaps as short as crossing an . Increase the overall mileage of the low -stress bicycle and pedestrian intersection or as long as several network, especially in low-income and disadvantaged communities. miles can keep people from . Increase first -last mile connections to encourage more bicycle and biking and walking more often. pedestrian travel. .................................................................................................................... • Address bicycle and pedestrian gaps and increase connectivity. . Biking and walking in certain Make it Safe parts of Redlands create safety issues for residents . Install more streetlights and prioritize new lighting installations at who wish to walk and bike. locations with higher bicycle and pedestrian activity or where known safety concerns exist. • Install additional bicycle and pedestrian crossings across major arterial and collector streets that will connect residents to their everyday destinations. go Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS How will Bicycle and Pedestrian Recommendations Achieve our Goals? Goal 1: Improve Public Health Network recommendations address the focus of promoting a walking and biking culture in Redlands Goal 2: Accessibility Network recommendations guides development of an active transportation environment that provides access and mobility options for users of all ages and physical ability levels. Goal 3: Expand Options for Active Transportation Bicycle and pedestrian project recommendations should improve connectivity, efficiency, and comfort of the bicycle and pedestrian transportation system. The city's active transportation network should be extended to currently -undeserved communities and areas of Redlands. Goal 4: Build a Safer Multi - Modal Network Bicycle and pedestrian recommendations should address the most critical safety issues and prioritize improvements along high - injury corridors and at intersections. Goal 5: Encourage More Sustainable Transportation Patterns Network recommendations address the reduction in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by developing viable alternatives to vehicle travel. Goal 6: Collaboration Bicycle and pedestrian project recommendations are meant to be used by everyone in the community. This Plan will foster an increased role for the community in the planning process and improve community trust that the City will fulfill its promises. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan gl NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS Developing Public Input the Proposed Redlands residents and visitors helped identify P barriers to walking and biking in their neighborhoods Network through survey results, online mapping, virtual walk audit comments, and virtual outreach events. The SMP takes into account Residents identified walking and biking issues a combination of existing which included missing sidewalks, missing/ proposed projects and challenging intersection crossings, lack of safe additional public input received bicycle facilities, and lack of lighting and shade. as part of this recent planning process. Ultimately, the Bicycle Master Plan following sources informed the proposed network of bike and In 2015 the City of Redlands adopted the Bicycle pedestrian improvements. Master Plan. The Sustainable Mobility Plan recommends implementation of focused projects from the Bicycle Master Plan, which includes increasing and improving the bicycle network. DRAFT Transit Villages Specific Plan In April 2020, the City of Redlands released the draft document of the Transit Villages Specific Plan. This plan details the developments planned for each of the three Redlands Transit Villages, including alterations of pedestrian and bicycle access, traffic patterns, and street design. The SMP recommends the development of projects within each Transit Village. General Plan 2035 In 2017, the City adopted the General Plan, which includes recommendations for each aspect of the City's planning and development efforts. The SMP recommends implementing focused projects from the General Plan which includes bicycle and pedestrian network improvements. SCAG's Rail Access Plan In 2020, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) released their Rail Access Plan to address accessibility to the future Arrow stations. The SMP recommends implementing focused projects from the Rail Access Plan which includes bicycle and pedestrian improvements. San Bernardino County Non - Motorized Transportation Plan In 2018, The San Bernardino County Transit Authority (SBCTA) revised their Non - Motorized Transportation Plan. The SMP recommends implementing bicycle and pedestrian projects from this plan. Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts Redlands residents volunteered to perform bicycle and pedestrian counts at specific locations in Redlands. This web -based system was used to determine bicycle and pedestrian activity. 92 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS Orange Blossom Trail + Highland - Redlands Regional Connector Project The Orange Blossom Trail stretches from Redlands' western City boundaries (Mountain View Avenue) to the eastern City boundaries (Wabash Street). The Orange Blossom Trail is a valued community supported asset and is considered to be the "backbone" of the Redlands bikeway system. Routing for the trail was approved in 2015. The Orange Blossom Trail is a paved trail for 3.5 miles. The trail is inturrupted by a 2.5 mile section on city streets, and when fully realized, will expand local and regional active tranportation options. This study evaluated the unbuilt segments of the overall trail For more information, please see the .Conceptual Alignment Study Opportunity and Constraints & Final Alignment Addendum. (PDF) The Highland -Redlands Regional Connector Project plans to construct 4.7 miles of bikeways and walkways to connect the bikeway and trails system in the City of Highland and Redlands. The Class I bikeway will connect the City of Highland to Redlands from Redlands' northern boundary south along Orange Street to Pioneer, and west from Pioneer to Citrus Valley High School. A complementary Class 11 Bike Lane is proposed to run along Orange Street from the Redlands' northern boundary to Colton Avenue parallel to the trail, which would create an easier transition for bicyclists accessing Downtown Redlands. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 93 NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS Bicycle Facility Types Different types of bicycle facilities are better suited for different roadways, based on considerations such as vehicle speeds and volumes, the roadway width, and other types of transportation using the space. The following bicycle facilities are part of the City of Redland's toolbox. It is important to note that some facilities promote both bicycle and pedestrian use. Class I Bike Path Class I Bike Paths are off-street facilities located in a separate right-of-way from the roadway and for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians. The Orange Blossom Trail is a Class I Facility. Class H Bike Lane Class II Bike Lanes are on -street facilities dedicated to bicycles and identified with lane striping and pole signs. Class/1 facilities maybe further separated from vehicular lanes and or parking lanes by buffers indicated with two to three foot diagonal painted striping. Class III Bike Route Class Ill facilities are on -street bike routes shared with motorists. They lack a dedicated striped lane, are identified with bike route signs, and often include the shared use marking, also known as a sharrow. Class IV Protected Bike Lane Class IV facilities are separated from traffic by a vertical barrier, such as a curb, median, or bollards. Also called a "cycle track" or" separated bikeway" Class IV facilities are most helpful on streets with high traffic volume.. 94 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS Bikeway Amenities BIKE PARKING • Includes curbside and sidewalk racks, corrals, bike lockers, or bike stations • Racks provide short-term dedicated parking outdoors. • Lockers provide long-term secure parking at high demand locations. • Stations provide long-term parking typically near transit. BICYCLE -PROTECTED INTERSECTION • Intersections designed to provide additional separation, comfort, and safety for people biking and walking. • May include bike boxes, signal priority, curb extensions, or islands. • Ideal for locations with conflicts between people driving, walking, and biking. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 95 NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS Bikeway Amenities (cont.) A BIKE SIGNALS • Bike signals can create even more separation between bicyclists and vehicles. • Allows for better intersection movements for all users. WAYFINDING • Orients people to their surroundings and informs them on how to best navigate to their destination along preferred bicycle facilities. • Offer a sense of safety and familiarize users with the network. GREEN BIKE LANE THROUGH INTERSECTIONS • Provides additional comfort for bicyclists. • Creates bicycle visibility for drivers. • Ideal for locations with conflicts between people driving, walking, and biking. 96 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS Citywide Bicycle Recommendations The City of Redlands is proposing almost 42 miles worth of upgraded Figure 33. Complete Bicycle Network and new bikeways. There are approximately 6 miles of proposed Class I Bike Paths, 24 miles of Class II Bike Lanes, 12 miles of Class III Bike Routes. Figure 33 presents the mileage of the bike network today Class I Bike Path 26 6 miles existing MILES and the proposed new bikeways. Figure 34 -Figure 37 shows the 20 miles proposed existing and proposed planned bicycle facilities throughout Redlands. It is important to note that the recommendations from the Class 11 Bicycle Lane 75 24 miles existing previously planned bicycle facilities are from the 2015 Bicycle / MILES 51 miles proposed Master Plan, the 2017 General Plan, SCAG's 2020 Rail Access Plan, the Draft Transit Villages Specific Plan, and the County 40 12 miles existing of San Bernardino's Non -Motorized Transportation Plan. class III Bicycle Route / MILES 28 miles proposed A full list of the previously planned projects and which ■ Existing plan it came from can be found in Appendix E. �::; Proposed Feasibility of Improvement Recommendations This is a planning document, providing a high-level blueprint to guide future bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout Redlands. This plan will show the recommended bicycle network, the prioritized projects based on the projects prioritization methodology, and an implementation plan with funding opportunities. Each project in this plan will require more detailed project -level analysis, community engagement, and engineering study. As the City proceeds with more detailed project -level planning, some projects identified in this plan may require refinement. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 97 EXISTING AND PROPOSED BICYCLE NETWORK - NORTHWEST CITY OF REDLANDS, CA Existing/Proposed •• Class I Bike Path —� -• Class II Bike Lane —�--• Class III Bike Route ••--• Class 11 Bike Lane or Class III Bike Route ----• Class II Bike Lane or Class IV Protected Bike Lane Figure 34. Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities - Northwest Intersection Improvements Bike Parking Improvements 11 1� O Bike/Ped Bridge 210 11 Crossing Improvements 11 � City Boundaries 1o11 Park 1� School -�----- - - - - -- 11 II 1 ♦ 11 ♦ 1 ♦ ♦ II 1 1 • 11 ` 1 1 Palmetto Ave � N Y a� ` ♦ II . 11 W Domestic Ave o II ` . RNerv, U 11 nr ' m O 11 to 65 Olive Ave EPioneer Ave o WPioneer Ave ' 1' �j_o' - - A- - - - - _ L ' .,Hartzell AVe im Q I Almond Ave j Hugo St o i � 1 o _ Lugonia Ave 1 ♦ 100 0 0.25 0.5 Miles San Bernardino Ave Cn 1 ' o � +� 1 r � Almond Ave O N L ' in W Pennsylvania Ave oil in o ~I U)U 1 U - W Lugonia Ave E Lugonia kve @ -I _ - - - - - - _ _• - - - - �- O U)1 I N' (71 C Ir OI IC E 1 3' o o U) 1 o Brockton Ave C, L_ CU ZI ICU J U O' �1 E W Sun Ave 1 ' 0 I� W Redlands Blvd - - - - - _ N-' - - - - _W Colton Ave 1 - - - 00 , E Colton Ave I� a �/ Pearl Ave W PatkAve 1 v W�StuartAve ' 1 �� E Stuart Ave _ T- —-- — - -•'- - -— N1 - _: �.----( idttilAv€ Ci-_-_-- .EParkAbe U m uc1 1 ♦ —'-Z Cn u' m �' 1 1 1 �r �• ECentral Ave 1 f6 I F ♦ C .Slate 1 1 o Citrus o - - m • - - ♦ W State • Vtl 6itrusAy� a I I 3 m ' .F a �° �O U Z Y % JJe S 1 uce / /ap Sources b sACi�f Redlands, SCAG, S CTRedlands, SCAG, S CT Hyacinth Ave Cornell Ave 0 ra Y O U U) 98 Figure 35. Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities - Northeast a EXISTING AND PROPOSED BICYCLE cahp NETWORK - NORTHEAST r �0 �a CITY OF REDLANDS, CA + Q& Existing/Proposed 0 1 St �Cy �=-• Class I Bike Path Intersection Improvements Z r -•+�-- Class II Bike Lane 0 Bike Parking Improvements 0 O Bike/Ped Bridge 0 —�--• Class III Bike Route �' ` a ----- Class II Bike Lane or Class III • Crossing Improvements ` • °t� City Boundaries Bike Route Riverview Dr 0��� --- Park IF - - - 1 - • - Class II Bike Lane or Class IV School r ; r - - - . L Protected Bike Lane f 06 - - - - - -E Pioneer4e- - ` %CL Hartzell Av- - e q, �r 50 Tb7 E San Bernardi Ave o Sa Bernardino Ave y ; or ; m` ' E ennsylva a Ave �' ¢ Madeira Ave n' j N Mill Creek d �� ; Jean AV m Cedar La Sliger Rd Q _ _ E Lug_ nia Ave _ - - _� Mentone Blvd r orn- Ave r ■ k- 2 EBro ton Ave —' ins p` Nice Ave w o o r co Q -;he TerraceI E Colton Aue - � Q o i E Colton Ave ' Sylvan Blvd Centr21 Ave 10Q �'� in itrus Ave Q � teySP Re w c c A �GGIp °Odor a I� > O ° Pie .6 r Q r G„ 6� ��� � a 5th Ave 9� �S \ r°G°Gr0 sr , rn w d'r 6v�e 6th Ave - gar Sr ,s Pie � � . .14arion Rd � C° d SU Fr Oak St Q e o d,, 00 '9t'e °ice d S' Gcao�Ntts�C Wallace Wa erR a y pa Cw Anita Ct a F/i2aboth 3t 'NF E SoutMAve ` Tennessee St Yucaipa Blvd Washington Dr a> N 0 _- 0.375 Map produced /ja4PIanning +Design May 2020. DataSourndS SCAG SBCTA EXISTING AND PROPOSED BICYCLE an Be_rna_rdino_A_V NETWORK- CENTRAL _ j Figure 36. Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities -Cent CITY OF REDLANDS, CA , N ' _ s E' N ca N ° _ Existing/Proposed W Pennsylvania Ave -j E Pennsylvania /eve I 0 m 4-• Class I Bike Path • Intersection Improvements ID Ruby Ave r iq o a)4-• Class II Bike Lane • Bike Parking Improvements ° CS- F A r a)C7 I :E Q m ° L O Bike/Ped Bridge m Q x, > , C' coZ ° Class III Bike Route Y ° m . • u_ a •Crossing Improvements t - - ~' • U �_ in. �� it _ _ _ E L_ onia Ave _�_ _ >� State Rte 38 _ 0 •• Class II Bike Lane or Class III 11111111 City Boundaries �' • o p r a� Bike Route park Y' e �' r a) @ @ Z ---- Class II Bike Lane or Class IV o E L , a s Y r o- � V) School �, C) , � E ur C, r ' .N r m ° Protected Bike Lane � o @ 81 O o U E Brockton S; Nice Av ' m' w x > o Campus Ave o m' Industrial Park Ave ' Z' ' r ' �' O UI Cn' o a cc , D r m W Sun Ave �``� Z �, N Z ):_ W Redlands Blvd ' ' W Colion Ave m ' U r >' • - •� •� - _ _ The Terrace Colton_A_ve_ _ �• _ _ _ ��• _ _ E Colton§Ave _ _ _ _Orchard r - ' z, @ Stli lmanlAve High Ave SyIva Blvd o ' c e Ave a� W Stuart Ave E Stuart Ave • �� • .o s W Park Ave �, r . `o N _ - _ _ _� _ Z' _ E Central Ave 1 Central eve o ton I co3 — _ cc Y_ _ _ _ W Statet• �� �V\% Citrus �e E Citr ' Ave Citrus Ave ; m O f�eP roll, T r Q �. �Cv G\at*� . PAe cs n oa 1 w Pine Ave os`ae ^�w e • fG0'�Pe Wo ° E 00 3 L Sr lC.� c fj -`o ° w7 % S yam ° �� LL p r f0. B'rton Rd °' 2 • \artier'\°e' e^�' s� e°s Qa\ th Ave ° dr 'd Gr ° lT y6 �L y Ladera S Pie Pie ° `� ., %w d', Pie Oe 'sots \a�aP� .ag�o�va O�v1e s� tr Sf Q�eyaca 'p • �• _ •' ��` ��'f �e ,�C� y1C'� . ' �e E6thA ,n II L 0 3�� ���, e�^ 6\rP AA - Li a ooz \��r a•am \PJe°° Beaumont Ave \ _ _ _:0a Po ° o �J,be �CeE _Hilton A�e G\sra�w\e q G°jae • i o °o° tepde� �,e FoJ W South Ave NP E South Ave�� ` < c sf �G�i Ore^ F/�2dbeth ' %X\side Way ' E o a�i ess Sr 3t i p Sunset Or N �e Q a � ,., duo` dd ' FUc Via Vista Dr � c> �a R�a9 �� • `i� ' dyAtU � Al ' e S� yd/ '. °gad ° �� ��■�� co 0 0.5 1 N W Sunset Dr S seYST Map produced by Alta Planning +Design May 202 © Miles t ` Data Sources City of Redlands, SCAG, SBCT -al 100 Figure 37. Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities - South Central Ave save ' itrusAve N . e ^y° s �ac� . r . yP e Feca r in as m r G �e e W cc I— gj Pine Ave ae s �nP G�Q& in oO O Q as bey �e 0 L m e �e o cu a) Q w° \�P LL o m t•I rt e • tP y6• �Qa % Lr rn ° M J e • �i e a �e cn •41 O • s °e °° O e cn �e • C� d dP� 0e (00 - - - - �e0 es�e Fe��P ,�� ds �`gr\aa • ` wp 0^e SurJ7.,. 15) es�a 'c 3�C�PteP�e �Qa\�A J�1P�e F,ank//n11qv \ � ` ° G\`oa �aaP��e' C rya° ` w , °iiye e0� ' ` 00 W South Ave �� E South�Ave h �eStQ� r �tesc °tee^ F/i2abe th St FS t� ^0' pe 01�0 Via Vista Or SetO� or. EXISTING AND PROPOSED BICYCLE NETWORK - SOUTH CITY OF REDLANDS, CA Existing/Proposed —�--• Class I Bike Path 0 Intersection Improvements —� -- Class II Bike Lane Bike Parking Improvements —}.-- Class III Bike Route O Bike/Ped Bridge Crossing Improvements ----• Class II Bike Lane or Class III 111111111City Boundaries Bike Route Park --�- Class II Bike Lane or Class IV School Protected Bike Lane Fairway W Sunset Dr S rn E Mariposa DrDr �9 ` a 3 E Mariposa Dr la Solana Dr 0 a �^ oleo et<l, Palo Alto Dr °cagy°� country Or � r a c�ee m , T U a , �SrQ0 ea e 0 0.5 1 Miles e Sunset Of S Live Oak Canyon Rd Calimesa Map produced by Alta Planning +Design May Data Sources City of Redlands, SCAG, SI Ave NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS Citywide The City of Redlands has proposed a multitude of walking and bicycling infrastructure improvements Pedestrian through the General Plan, the draft Transit Improvements Villages Specific Plan, and the Rail Access Plan. Improving crossings at high -traffic intersections and where significant barriers exist, installing new sidewalks where gaps currently exist, and repairing and maintaining existing sidewalks can provide a safe and enjoyable experience for both pedestrians and bicyclists. Figure 38-Figure 41 shows the locations of proposed intersection improvements Intersection improvements can include projects like installing a high -visibility crosswalk, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible curb ramp, protected intersection, a rectangular rapid flashing beacon, etc. V"i.A.-BAN "M 102 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS Pedestrian Facility Types BULB -OUT HAWK SIGNAL Different types of crossing improvements can greatly enhance the experience of walking throughout the City. It is important to note that some of the facilities listed below in the toolbox promote both pedestrian and bicycle safety. I19 0 RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON MR - �I - HIGH -VISIBILITY CROSSWALK SIDEWALKS CURB RAMP REFUGEISLAND PEDESTRIAN SCALE LIGHTING Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 103 NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS Supporting In order to ensure an enjoyable trip from beginning to end, supporting infrastructure is Infrastructure needed at intersections to make crossing easier, wayfinding signs along the way to help reach your destination, and secure parking once you reach your destination to store your bicycle. Intersection Enhancements A bicycle and pedestrian network is not complete without looking at how people cross challenging intersections and reduce conflicts between people driving, walking, and biking. New treatments can be added to retrofit intersections to better serve bicycling and walking moving across or through busy intersections. Pedestrian -Scale Lighting Pedestrian -scale lighting provides illumination of walking areas by installing frequent lamp posts at a low height. Pedestrian -scale lighting increases visibility to drivers and bicyclists, increases pedestrian comfort, perceived sense of safety, and helps to create an inviting and vibrant streetscape for those walking and biking throughout the city. Bike Parking Knowing you have a secure place to store your bike at your destination is an important part of making a bike trip feasible. The City has many bike parking facilities but more is needed, especially to accommodate cargo and other large bicycles. Streetscape Amenities Sidewalk amenities like benches, shade structures, parklets, water fountains, public art, and pedestrian signals can contribute to a safer, inviting, and more pedestrian -oriented community. These elements can greatly activate the City's sidewalks at popular destinations. Wayfinding Providing wayfinding signs for bicyclists and pedestrians that directs them to nearby destinations on the safest route is an important element to any bicycle and pedestrian network. 104 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan EXISTING AND PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN Figure 38. Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities -Northwest NETWORK- NORTHWEST CITY OF REDLANDS, CA Proposed Pedestrian Pathway O Intersection Improvement .... Existing Sidewalk Crossing Improvement 210 OR Access Improvement Signalized Intersection O Bike/Ped Bridge Underpass Improvement O Bus Stop Improvement City Boundaries O Crosswalk Improvement Park W Mill St O Driveway Improvement School ,,AA Ir a r_ Palmetto Ave W Domestic Ave I i In I->rjl 11 Ilol II 1 II I o — I Oliv IAve EPioneer Ave _ it I� W Pioneer Ave I II I I L '111 II I I - I ____=San BernrdinoAve - L--- Q-----�,AlmondAve Hugo St o� I m III II 0 ___==QIL, Lugonia Ave af LI wl Cal I W m E 0 e 0 0.0.5 r Miles imy 11 h fu L I II II -A —,I- Ir � I11ia�eHAye== I II t I_!IJI,I��r lu AImOIIdAve ! I I r - �jnll'll p Ir1 Ir�l II III � ` ' �-- IIVW�'enll I1�',Jhi2�iAv II QII II I I ! III IIF- � II Ii ..Ir 11 I! I I 1 II II II 11—==ill �i 1 I! i LIUI I II II==! �I I •i I Ir II - II Ir=J I II II II _IL—! _WParkAve—_ Ave 1 � II I II I UII W Lugonia Ave III - I II VI II II II I �� _ I I I IL�._�1 ��JI_ _II�-- J o`I rl-JJyyykr�Il I�lr Ire -II Ilatll / I }I--- `-�I !I�IL II_li II Ili a) ---r -tiolr II y + I ZII II _IIUIi�L C \; II a IA1—q— r I Uli— �\ IL�_IJ�Uf1iA��IY 1 t II tI rtAve J - r; drrentl Stu ICO i, — I I ~I I I - t/�/ Citrus Ave r O I II \ate y�d� O _ Pine Ave II �" o' i' J,IIII� - o` r W MIN �C u rt Ave r E merl{ra 1 I ❑� CitrusAv�_ _- V v `Fa) produced by A Planning +Design May ata Sources Ci f Redlands, SCAG, SI ioS Figure 39. Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities - Northeast �Ra 1 St Riverview Dr I� lll_I j I�°L' II1 IL — � � I1—� ti 7 L �_ +k AIL 111 ill .I , 1L�i!I� ! �i J E Pioneer Ave y'ijl='Hartzelh=¢� Av II I III 11 I II�� III __ ��------- L_ II 1- II �� 1. I. II IL ; 01 I YJ L _F ennsylvaniaAv�_} IJ` 2 m O E Lu,#ia Ave D _ !I_!„! iLI F i @ e 1CornellA4 ILII c ��� ■ IIJI�I,;E Br ton Ave�i IF'�--rA '2i E_i lrti --- � �V e Terrace E Colton w Sylvan Blvd I l��V��1 i��?• r1,J ail L a ardiii UIt" Citrus Av;' L G\a�h� 55 —io� o Fern yr� � .P EGG u�i �;' wOOapr.laQ!I ° Pie S �R of p • �G� ��{i �6� ��ea �� LLi�l yLo�w l�o (�r� `o• s ve A� S��mvt oak e `nTa v� � t• t � �—\\ `�JI �� I� II 0 0.375 0.75 Miles f Marion Rd ee 5� Bernardino Ave ice �e Cedar Mentone Blvd ■ E Colton Ave IL I■ 5th Ave iQ .• 65 L m E m 'e Sliger Rd Nice Ave UC or\i\\\sDC Tennessee St t EXISTING AND PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN NETWORK - NORTHEAST CITY OF REDLANDS, CA Proposed Pedestrian Pathway 0 Intersection Improvement • • • • Existing Sidewalk 0 Crossing Improvement Access Improvement Signalized Intersection 0 Bike/Ped Bridge Underpass Improvement 0 Bus Stop Improvement City Boundaries 0 Crosswalk Improvement Park 0 Driveway Improvement School Rp Mill Creek a Wallace way Oa�G0 Yucaipa Blvd Map produced by, Data Sources Washington Dr ing +Design May 2020 dlands, SCAG, SBCTA, w6 Sa Bernardino I I 'I I r,l, I ni - I - L___ W San BernardinnAva I I, I, LI d Ij Ilii II ii jL; it jl I — �r d BE EXISTING AND PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN _ - h------ I I� _I! I`---J.SULILi.rl Fi e Figure 40. Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities -Central �(_-� ;�-------�i , -IF117 it 7� 1�;i ,I NETWORK - CENTRAL jAlmond Ave I, II W Lua Plum Ln 1 I' •� m 11 \1ndL�s1 A l i W P.M. A. 8 I 1' I Park ar W Park Ave- I ---- II II II ill ay I V 11 Citrus Ave ° E Stag us'I-----II---- 3 ca "il�r-----r---- ° m `y,l I'DI, I .• II i I III-_ - = -W' II?I eIlAII�`n=syI l YI rrIIIiItaII�ov IjIfoA p��rIII III_QI'lImIl Il-lI a_flr-I CITY ITY OF REDLANDS, CA v_iI f� Proposed Pedestrian Pathway O Intersection Improvement rovem entj(oL_ilI Cl) 0 Crossing ImprovementI-II 1A L •••• Existing Sidewalko I2 I rII 1, L_ _ILal 1 xo I mII II=II -II I; Signalized IntersectionY State ImprovementAccess Underpass Improvementn oni@Ae O Bike/PedBridge I I 0 City Boundaries I II II I II I- _ Bus Stop I 'ImpIrr�lo,-v-Ie_CmLJIe-jnlI' IFr!t1- Park -rkfI,hIr Crosswalk Improvement ILIIEII II II I I I,�i II II Ibl School�IIL I_C62l E &OCktor Driveway Improvement = ?oiI9I,C)'I all II , oJ=il_.[-L.il II I101I—=,LIF,Ir If-irir�o 1�I� WI Colton A\e QQ E= ZJ1l�J'i,�- I II- II FIX rifaOrchard m E z z IFY m,i- _High Ave IL BaII Id Independence AveCD 5yartAve I_II —'tStuartAvej E. Arien_i`\e! taQ' I,o4^?/per r I u =___ — 1 Pine Ave II . o sy� Barton Rd Lades \ if ca m °� a\��O > o Z Beaumont Ave duo 1 3 Miles eAve I L II E Ger►�ral a ntral�?'ie', •1 Ir1 II II I I_-_�/ C]Iilt m It i-•-- � ' �1I II II II �LILII �I II��I b 9 Gr Jg \\wit' -tAl;l.-•-11 I 1 ■I 00 �^ \�1 fn l \1 ILI(AI - CAI, QN •`tPf h CI L—E — Marion Rd el �� ` , ` \\ R ` \s/, Camelot Dr pail o p ti \ \ - `�oi / la L _. E HiItaCl A� yl� `I, �a 4 ----- --- c esce �, F° V�1 iSc>�ith�rre \N�=_ E$ouiFlve Za Ib etprIV o _ Via Vista D� 0° � - = = - Q/age ` <> ✓O °a/yofps Sf Haan O —,J ,- W yd/Sek&, Map produced by Alta 2020.1 Hedlarxls LIQK , , 1 Figure 41. Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities - South Citrus Ave EXISTING AND PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN M+, QI 11a 0 w \7p�`moov�d),�ii\\r 4P� _�QQej� lV A� vy i . Pie \ oel\ C 4r J sao °fe a�yo 1-�R a 0 U) 9) a a U 0 0.5 1 Miles os f P� e� .--Ir— ;=, CITY OF REDLANDS, CA `C Z Q�I ml Proposed Pedestrian Pathway O Intersection Improvement L�, P rll rn l l JI I _11 � ml I 15 Existing Sidewalk Crossing Improvement )I I II I O Access Improvement Signalized Intersection IU) 0 Bike/PedBridge Underpass Improvement P y\ PJ6i-0 Bus Stop Improvement CityBoundaries Park (00 O Crosswalk Improvement O Driveway Improvement School i e tgvo /�\�Q \ — q r 0 0� \\� �hx4ve r -Via Vist��r �\ Fairtya� a' E Mariposa Dr'� l' l Aso ManposaR\f)-r-7,SOlana,Dr hs S � O u, �•'—l�'�� � er ser_Palo Alto Dr 2 �071 O Country Clublbr Sunset 0T S i Live Oak Canyon Rd Map produced by Alta Planning +Design May Ave I This page intentionally left blank log Project PrIorl tization 1 k''�# IRS^ti }'�jj ,,�Yy ��' ��. Y •� , %i rr; tirl • yJ'r Y rFK�' f + r, fl + }. ''I` %6L '+ + Pam' oh,kp ; L t� r • • i' .l _ �fI13j i _ 1 OL kLp Lo I ' ' ir IL f , n 1 •Y + ' rl + M1. S h *_ f yr. r y ,• 5 =* '' ' '' y�y , w ;. 1 L PROJECT PRIORITIZATION Prioritizing the Mobility Network The intent of evaluating projects is to create a prioritized list of projects for implementation. As projects are implemented, lower ranked projects move up the list. The project prioritization list included in this plan is flexible and should be used as a guideline to implementation. While one project may be ranked higher than another in this guide, funding may better align with a lower ranked project to help leverage local money with competitive, regional, state, and federal resources. The high -priority project list, and perhaps the overall project list may change over time as a result of changing bicycle and walking patterns, land use patterns, implementation constraints, and opportunities and the development of other transportation improvements. Project prioritization was developed through feedback the project team received from City staff as well as input from the CAC members. The project prioritization strategy looked at different indicators to determine the need, feasibility, and benefit of implementing each recommended bicycle and pedestrian project. The project team developed a prioritization criteria and collectively determined the importance of each consideration by assigning each category an appropriate weight. The prioritization criteria is shown in the table on the following pages. 112 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan PROJECT PRIORITIZATION Bicycle Prioritization Criteria CRITERIA DESCRIPTION MAX. SCORE Proximity to School The project is within a quarter mile of the school (5 pts) 5 • The project is within a half mile of the school (3 pts) • The project is within one mile of the school (1 pt) ............................................................................................................................. Proximity to a Bus Stop • The project is within a quarter mile of a bus stop (5 pts) 5 • The project is within a half mile of a bus stop (3 pts) • The project is within a mile of a bus stop (1 pt) ............................................................................................................................. Proximity to a Key Destination • The project is within a quarter mile of a key destination (5 pts) 5 • The project is within a half mile of a key destination (3pts) • The project is within a mile of a key destination (1 pt) ............................................................................................................................. Proximity to Bicycle • The project is within 1,000 feet of multiple bicycle/pedestrian 5 Involved Collisions involved collisions (4 pts), plus one point for reported injury/fatality • The project is within 1,000 feet of one bicycle/pedestrian collisions (2 pts), plus one point for reported injury/fatality • The project is not within 1,000 feet of any bicycle/ ............................................................................................................................. pedestrian involved collisions Located on a High • The project is on a high injury network corridor (5 pts) 5 Injury Network • The project is not on a high injury network corridor (0 pts) ............................................................................................................................. Intra-City Connectivity The project is on a local corridor or trail (5 pts) 5 • The project is not located on a local corridor or trail (0 pts) Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 113 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION Bicycle CRITERIA DESCRIPTION MAX. SCORE Prioritization Regional Connectivity • The project is on a regional corridor or trail (5 pts) 5 Criteria (cont.) • The project is not located on a regional corridor or trail (0 pts) .............................................................................................................................. Community Concern/Need • The project is located in an area where the community 5 has identified a concern or need (5 pts) • The project is not located in an area where the community .............................................................................................................................. has identified a concern or need (0 pts) Median Household Income • The project is located in census tracts with an average 5 MHI under 30% of the Redlands MHI (5 pts) • The project is located in census tracts with an average MHI between 31 % and 50% (4 pts) • The project is located in census tracts with an average MHI between 51 % and 80% (3 pts) • The project is located in census tracts with .............................................................................................................................. an average MHI above 80% (0 pts) Free and Reduced Lunch • The project is located in the service boundary of an Elementary 5 Program Eligibility School where 80-100% of students qualify for FRPM (5 pts) • The project is located in the service boundary of an Elementary School where 60-80% of students qualify for FRPM (3 pts) • The project is located in the service boundary of an Elementary .............................................................................................................................. School where less than 60% of students qualify for FRPM (0 pts) Hazardous • The project is located in an area with over 80th percentile burden (5 pts) 5 Environmental Areas • The project is located in the 50th to 80th percentile range (3 pts) .............................................................................................................................. • The project is located in the bottom 50th percentile burden (0 pts) 114 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan PROJECT PRIORITIZATION Bicycle Prioritization Criteria (cont.) CRITERIA DESCRIPTION MAX. SCORE Public Health * The project is located in census tracts with a score of 40 or less (5 pts) 5 • The project is located in census tracts with a score between 40 and 60 points (3 pts) • The project is located in census tracts with a score of more than 60 (0 pts) ............................................................................................................................. Inclusion in Bicycle Master Plan • The project is identified in the Bicycle Master Plan (5 pts) 5 The project is not identified in the Bicycle Mater Plan (0 pts) ..................................................................................................................... Inclusion in the Draft Transit • The project is identified in the Draft Transit Villages Specific Plan (5 pts) 5 Villages Specific Plan . The project is not identified in the Draft Transit Villages Specific Plan (0 pts) Inclusion in SBCTA's Non- • The project is identified in the Non- Motorized 5 Motorized Transportation Plan Transportation Plan (5 pts) • The project is not identified in the Non - Motorized Transportation Plan (0 pts) Inclusion in the Passenger • The project is identified in the Passenger Rail Access Plan (5 pts) 5 Rail Access Plan . The project is not identified in the Passenger Rail Access Plan (0 pts) TOTAL POSSIBLE SCORE 80 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan ii5 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION Pedestrian MAX. CRITERIA DESCRIPTION SCORE Prioritization Proximity to School • The project is within a quarter mile of the school (5 pts) 5 Criteria • The project is within a half mile of the school (3 pts) • The project is within one mile of the school (1 pt) .............................................................................................................................. Proximity to a Bus Stop The project is within a quarter mile of a bus stop (5 pts) 5 • The project is within a half mile of a bus stop (3 pts) • The project is within a mile of a bus stop (1 pt) .............................................................................................................................. Proximity to a Key Destination • The project is within a quarter mile of a key destination (5 pts) 5 • The project is within a half mile of a key destination (3pts) • The project is within a mile of a key destination (1 pt) .............................................................................................................................. Proximity to Pedestrian • The project is within 1,000 feet of multiple bicycle/pedestrian involved 5 Involved Collisions collisions (4 pts), plus one point for reported injury/fatality • The project is within 1,000 feet of one bicycle/pedestrian collisions (2 pts), plus one point for reported injury/fatality • The project is not within 1,000 feet of any bicycle/ .............................................................................................................................. pedestrian involved collisions Located on a High • The project is on a high injury network corridor (5 pts) 5 Injury Network • The project is not on a high injury network corridor (0 pts) ............................................................................................................................. Intra-City Connectivity • The project is on a local corridor or trail (5 pts) 5 • The project is not located on a local corridor or trail (0 pts) n6 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan PROJECT PRIORITIZATION Pedestrian Prioritization Criteria (cont.) CRITERIA DESCRIPTION MAX. SCORE Regional Connectivity • The project is on a regional corridor or trail (5 pts) 5 • The project is not located on a regional corridor or trail (0 pts) ............................................................................................................................. Community Concern/Need • The project is located in an area where the community 5 has identified a concern or need (5 pts) • The project is not located in an area where the community ............................................................................................................................. has identified a concern or need (0 pts) Median Household Income • The project is located in census tracts with an average 5 MHI under 30% of the Redlands MHI (5 pts) • The project is located in census tracts with an average MHI between 31 % and 50% (4 pts) • The project is located in census tracts with an average MHI between 51 % and 80% (3 pts) • The project is located in census tracts with an ............................................................................................................................. average MHI above 80% (0 pts) Free and Reduced Lunch • The project is located in the service boundary of an Elementary 5 Program Eligibility School where 80-100% of students qualify for FRPM (5 pts) • The project is located in the service boundary of an Elementary School where 60-80% of students qualify for FRPM (3 pts) • The project is located in the service boundary of an Elementary ............................................................................................................................. School where less than 60% of students qualify for FRPM (0 pts) Hazardous • The project is located in an area with over 80th percentile burden (5 pts) 5 Environmental Areas • The project is located in the 50th to 80th percentile range (3 pts) ............................................................................................................................. • The project is located in the bottom 50th percentile burden (0 pts) Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 117 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION Pedestrian Prioritization Criteria (cont.) CRITERIA DESCRIPTION MAX. SCORE Public Health • The project is located in census tracts with a score of 40 or less (5 pts) 5 • The project is located in census tracts with a score between 40 and 60 points (3 pts) • The project is located in census tracts with a score of more than 60 (0 pts) ............................................................................................................................. Inclusion in the Draft Transit The project is identified in the Draft Transit Villages Specific Plan (5 pts) 5 Villages Specific Plan The project is not identified in the Draft Transit Villages Specific Plan (0 pts) ..................................................................................................................... Inclusion in SBCTA's Non- • The project is identified in the Non- Motorized Transportation Plan (5 pts) 5 Motorized Transportation Plan . The project is not identified in the Non - Motorized Transportation Plan (0 pts) Inclusion in the Passenger • The project is identified in the Passenger Rail Access Plan (5 pts) 5 Rail Access Plan • The project is not identified in the Passenger Rail Access Plan (0 pts) TOTAL POSSIBLE SCORE 75 118 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan PROJECT PRIORITIZATION Prioritized Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Figure 42 shows the top ten tier 1 bicycle projects and Figure 43 shows the top ten tier 1 pedestrian projects. The following tables summarize the bicycle and pedestrian projects that were scored as Tier 1 projects. This list will act as a guide for implementation for the City when funding becomes available. Figure 44 - Figure 49 shows the top bicycle and pedestrian projects within each council district. It is important to note that some projects will require additional study to aquire an exact cost. Bicycle and Pedestrian Tier 2 and Tier 3 Projects are located in Appendix F. The projects have been categorized into the following categories: Tier 1: Projects with the highest potential to increasing the number of people bicycling and walking. The City should actively pursue funding for these projects. Tier 2: Projects with a lower potential than Tier 1 in increasing bicycling and walking yet still play an important role. These projects should be pursued as funding opportunities arise. (Appendix F) Tier 3: Projects that help complete the bicycling and walking network should be funded mostly by development projects. (Appendix F) Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 119 Figure 42. Top Tier 1 Bicycle Projects Q'oG :'�;ri,vhSN,k:k:;:.;`'%}k +�r�-,:ijff"ir;�ff._%'kw'T"�`�}r:'+'wl''r�:::'}F:J\'.'�'�%•i'4^rJ: : ... .. f• .:: },.��:f; `.,,%: 10�-4 :' J;\4}'i" rryr l_k,,,,k �.�,. ; �, %l'vr;.';.'�k' y}5f_%`M1L`k �„r; f; f.nf �. .. �n�'.,• , k� r •;k.,v, ,k:• .-Yf'..k �'•' „1 r, f /, r.: :J�:�?k,..;,.f.. \:._..,}..::: ' ' ' - - . . ,..:•r;?i: •••,�(, is i:, <•?;,..1 .,;.•r:,,;: ?. r �r k. f� ��,: :.4rtil 'lam?'': it???•?M1 � ti { y Ills. ,l f a �M1�ti:?:?.,•:: �'.::: - _ ,�5.�:•,:.i,.w..,. _ - --- --- - - - - - :•fir'.,::',?i•M1•r�'�:,:i:�:, ...F}}+FI}f f �iir:: i�:::ii .".•• .. '' ... nnfi:'�v ':4:►,v:., •F_ Jff l•`.k % ...L�fi6NIA�MVE ,. L,4t L Y � •:. k, jF ••�a���......----- - -- .••�EH�LtFist:iFi- ;r. f, � , f REDLANDS BLVD' ...... ; sQ • a'11' COLiORAVE-- - _- - _ _ « 3 f; " x Sri a fi • • . '. - F. iaTRU61foE .... .. Q . .................... Lp�tP r ; - : '- ' BARTON RD 9'. STN AVE.siss;5 Lindy $ ................. . ............ r @a� Cry 4�� O.•:':.':.'.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.• . •. .•.•.. .. P.......... s :..S ............................... . ... . :"'::..'.::.'.. �................. . ............ 4 ,y�...................... Ite yL H ONAVEMILT A �.... . P o�� :.•'' 4 �' ltp, 9 .................... I ... YUCAIPA BLVD ....... �9 , .............. . . T _ ... ..................... ................. *.. .... ....... .................. TIER IC'YL PROJECTS CITY OF -RLL BAN DS, CA _ ClaS% dike Path Lugonia Ave b/w California & Sth6ol 9 :. • .'• abash o City Bou .aries rk c9� Classll Bike Lane ti• oy�o ©Redlands 13fVd b/w Colton & Orange 5t b/w Calton&Citrus Park Fern O Orange St b/w City Limit & ® New York St b/w Lugonia & Colton • • • •. • . • ' Stuart Q Texas St b/w Santa Ana RiverTrail Rf(pECAVy, - - - - - - LIVE OAK CANYON RD Colton Ave b/w California & &State .......... ......'::.'..'.:. ::................. ...... ................ •.......... Dearborn 0 Alabama St b/w Lugonia & Park ............................................................................................. e 0 1 2 0 OBT b/w New York & Naples 4D 6th St b/w Lugonia & Olive Miles Map produced by Alta Planning +Design May 2020. Data Sources City of Redlands, SCAG, SBCTA, 120 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION Tier 1 Bicycle Projects STREET FROM TO LOCAL/REGIONAL TOTAL PROPOSED PROJECT CORRIDOR SCORE COST LOW COST HIGH Redlands Blvd .......................................................................................................................................................................... Colton Ave Fern Ave Class II Bike Lane Both 73 $221,320 $893,970 New York St .......................................................................................................................................................................... Lugonia Ave Stuart Ave Class II Bike Lane Both 71 $72,432 $292,572 Colton Ave California St Dearborn St Class II Bike Lane Both 70 $403,406 $1,629,464 .......................................................................................................................................................................... Orange Blossom Trail New York St Naples St Class I Bike Path Both 68 $1,606,500 $7,956,000 .......................................................................................................................................................................... Lugonia Ave .......................................................................................................................................................................... California St Wabash St Class 11 Bike Lane Both 65 $422,520 $1,706,670 Orange St Colton Ave Citrus Ave Class 11 Bike Lane or Both 65 $50,300 $203,175 Class III Bike Route .......................................................................................................................................................................... Orange St .......................................................................................................................................................................... San Bernardino Ave Colton Ave Class 11 Bike Lane Both 64 $250,494 $1,011,812 Texas St .......................................................................................................................................................................... Santa Ana River Trail State St Class 11 Bike Lane Both 63 $223,332 $902,097 Alabama St .......................................................................................................................................................................... Lugonia Ave Park Ave Class 11 Bike Lane Both 63 $76,456 $308,826 6th St .......................................................................................................................................................................... Lugonia Ave Olive Ave Class 11 Bike Lane Regional 63 $110,660 $446,985 State St .......................................................................................................................................................................... Alabama St Eureka St Class 11 Bike Lane Both 63 $137,822 $556,700 San Bernardino Ave .......................................................................................................................................................................... OBT California St Class 11 Bike Lane Both 61 $100,600 $406,350 Tennessee St San Bernardino Ave State St Class 11 Bike Lane Both 61 $124,744 $503,874 .......................................................................................................................................................................... Church St .......................................................................................................................................................................... Santa Ana River Trail San Bernardino Ave Class III Bike Route Both 60 $15,939 $24,255 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 121 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION Tier 1 Bicycle Projects (cont.) STREET FROM TO LOCAL/REGIONAL TOTAL PROPOSED PROJECT CORRIDOR SCORE COST LOW COST HIGH University St .......................................................................................................................................................................... San Bernardino Ave Cypress Ave Class II Bike Lane Both 60 $170,014 $686,732 New York St .......................................................................................................................................................................... OBT End of New York St Class II Bike Lane Local 59 $23,138 $93,461 Stuart Ave New York St 6th St Class II Bike Lane Regional 58 $85,510 $345,398 .......................................................................................................................................................................... Cajon St .......................................................................................................................................................................... Citrus Ave Olive Ave Class III Bike Route Both 58 $4,106 $6,248 Orange Blossom Trail Mountain View Ave Bryn Mawr Ave Class I Bike Path Both 56 $1,134,000 $5,616,000 .......................................................................................................................................................................... Grove St Brockton Ave Citrus Ave Class II Bike Lane Regional 56 $4,106 $6,248 .......................................................................................................................................................................... W Lugonia Ave & 6th St Redesign Median Both 56 .......................................................................................................................................................................... W San Bernardino Ave & Orange St Bike Detection Both 56 .......................................................................................................................................................................... Improvement Nevada St .......................................................................................................................................................................... Lugonia Ave Barton Rd Class II Bike Lane Both 54 $152,912 $617,652 6th St .......................................................................................................................................................................... Stuart Ave OBT Class II Bike Lane Regional 54 $4,024 $16,254 San Bernardino Ave .......................................................................................................................................................................... E Donut Hole Texas St Class II Bike Lane Both 54 $50,300 $203,175 Park Ave .......................................................................................................................................................................... OBT Kansas St Class II Bike Lane Regional 54 $117,702 $475,430 W Citrus Ave & Cajon St Bike Detection Both 53 .......................................................................................................................................................................... Improvement 122 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan PROJECT PRIORITIZATION Tier 1 Bicycle Projects (cont.) STREET FROM LOCAL/REGIONAL TOTAL TO PROPOSED PROJECT CORRIDOR SCORE COST LOW COST HIGH University St & Sylvan Blvd Mid -block Crossing Both 52 .......................................................................................................................................................................... Improvement Orange St & E State St .......................................................................................................................................................................... Both 51 E State St & E Citrus Ave Intersection Improvement Both 51 .......................................................................................................................................................................... Colton Ave Dearborn St OBT Class II Bike Lane or Class Both 51 $163,275 $465,625 IV Protected Bike Lane .......................................................................................................................................................................... Pioneer Ave Buckeye St Wabash Ave Class II Bike Lane Regional 51 $365,178 $1,475,051 .......................................................................................................................................................................... Center St State St Crescent Ave Class II Bike Lane Both 50 $180,074 $727,367 .......................................................................................................................................................................... Zanja Creek Trail .......................................................................................................................................................................... OBT Grove St Class I Bike Path Regional 49 $543,375 $2,691,000 Clay St .......................................................................................................................................................................... Colton Ave Pioneer Ave Class III Bike Route Regional 49 $30,188 $45,938 Tennessee St at OBT .......................................................................................................................................................................... Intersection Improvement Both 49 W State St & Tennessee St .......................................................................................................................................................................... Intersection Improvement Both 49 New York St at OBT .......................................................................................................................................................................... Improve Wayfinding Both 49 Alabama St & Orange Tree .......................................................................................................................................................................... Ln Intersection Improvement Both 49 E Citrus Ave & olive Ave Intersection Improvement Both 48 .......................................................................................................................................................................... N University St & Lugonia Ave Safety Improvements Both 45 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 123 Figure 43. Top Tier 1 Pedestrian Projects o0n. of • k �s` hfyti �A ...,., C n•'n {�; by ;. `.�'-;n'}. ` 'f 'f rf_;.. .f.. f�k.... • r �._, f-� • f}„ ,C' �r }M1'��'._.'_ }�,1;�rh.�, �',ki� fk �f •r4y'y`:f `;, v:r_� .. . •• .r}•x_`,k.. :�f;� �10; ..i;M1�,sn ,4.y�i M1/_.� �kr„f,f':,:;_^.:+} i•��f7'ir,.� i \f,�{��.�`' :: •• - •• � ... :{nr{rkvl _. ..f.,',M1 �'�,'+: �r': •,+ti :v Y..��.v:v"..:,•::;.?.++ _ - - - - - - of •,J: :4f : , f .�f.. a .y,�•, __ - ,+„�;:,?i ,:,fir; ,..,•�.'- . . .fv- L ` ri Y:�•`'::Yr r':+� f`/:: - i•f i'......... .................nJv• ........... Z i/+,�: •ti i::: r+:•?•�;!r ti'�. ::D.:•- % v %'+ \. 1lC�yL131iAN0�VE�:' :,�� • } "i i;t:•. .:'f:::.:i :r+:: •.j:. i' v • •r .. ,,_ ..,............. :.:.:.:.::....g •.•:0:•.. ..........:.. .,w A4E#i11PcF SF:rF J }r f ;. .:•';;:,?•:•.,,,:+i ;!.L ,,.' _:•��-pp :5 f+. i:.,.,.-, •','�`, - - :: �.' ........ ........ .. i. f •REDLaNOSBLY[i:,',? ' :� 3 k:= ; ff %f W x _ 0 9 . J _ CITRUS AVE . • • .. . . ......... BARYON RD STN AvT. r 3', ............ �•` O�J� .. .................... .. .. .. ................ F ,a�� � :c.::... ........... _ :..:..:..: :..:..:..:..:...... . ............. 4r~��E iq 9J� g�� P `E }qy� ......... ........................... .: ........... . .... ..... 1q �,9 ���c� �94A .................... . • ..... . :::. . t�iLMAI AIL tp r 4 H TO AVE ............... .............. ..... . 14� I L N A'' �p . F TIER 1 PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS ... ..... �' CITY OF IREDLANDS, CA :' d . • . .. - - - - - rp 55 o � . :=, ; •. o ; .:; O 6th 5t & Coilur Ave University St & 110 Undp a School intenectionimprovement Underpass Improvement 4M1, .rq:. '',�liq;•.•�•.`;�•,.J{•,.J•.•,•+:! rjGityB:�tanzlaries Nri�o M1+P 0 University St & Sylvan Blvd 0 Citrus Ave & 6th St park lFo` intersection Improvement Intersection improvement ti ••' � t)range $t &Cdlton Ave Citrus Ave &Orange StInter"sec- ?o ' Intersection Improvement tion Improvemett 0 Orange St & 1-10 Underpass 0 New York St b/w Colton &Texas 1 Underpass Improvement Pedestrian Path Connection LIVE OAK CANYON RD O Central Ave & University St 6th St & Redlands Blvd CANY�d . • • • • • • • o......'::.'..'.:. .'.'....'....'....'.::';:'.', , '•.•::. , '::'.'::'' ..:;:...::'..:•:: • 1,• • • • ' " • "' '::''::'':...... New Signalized Intersection Intersection Improvement ......................................................................... ..........., .............................. ............ e Ca (mesa 0 1 2 Miles Map produced by Alta Planning +Design May 2020. Data Sources City of Redlands, SCAG, SBCTA, i24 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION Tier 1 Pedestrian Projects STREET CROSS STREET LOCAL/REGIONAL TOTAL PROPOSED PROJECT CORRIDOR SCORE COST LOW COST HIGH 6th St ................................................................................................................................................................. Colton Ave Intersection Improvement Both 67 University St ................................................................................................................................................................. Sylvan Blvd Mid -Block Crossing Improvement Both 66 Orange St Colton Ave Intersection Improvement Both 65 ................................................................................................................................................................. Orange St 1-10 Underpass Underpass Improvement Both 64 ................................................................................................................................................................. Central Ave University St New Signalized Intersection Both 63 ................................................................................................................................................................. University St ................................................................................................................................................................. 1-10 Underpass Underpass Improvement Both 63 Citrus Ave 6th St Intersection Improvement Both 63 ................................................................................................................................................................. Citrus Ave ................................................................................................................................................................. Orange St Intersection Improvement Both 63 New York St ................................................................................................................................................................. Between Colton and Texas Pedestrian Path Connection Both 63 $46,228 $173,357 6th St ................................................................................................................................................................. Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement Both 62 Orange St ................................................................................................................................................................. Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement Both 61 Texas St ................................................................................................................................................................. Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement Both 61 5th St ................................................................................................................................................................. Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement Both 61 Citrus Ave ................................................................................................................................................................. Eureka St Intersection Improvement Both 61 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 125 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION Tier 1 Pedestrian Projects (cont.) STREET CROSS STREET PROPOSED PROJECT LOCAL/REGIONAL TOTAL CORRIDOR SCORE COST LOW COST HIGH 6th St ................................................................................................................................................................. 1-10 Underpass Underpass Improvement Regional 60 University St ................................................................................................................................................................. Between Park and Central Pedestrian Path Connection Regional 60 $11,877 $44,538 Redlands Blvd Between Kansas and 1 st Pedestrian Path Connection Both 60 $113,313 $424,924 ................................................................................................................................................................. Park Ave Between Church and Cook Pedestrian Path Connection Both 59 $70,899 $265,870 ................................................................................................................................................................. Brookside Ave Grant St Mid -Block Crossing Improvement Both 59 ................................................................................................................................................................. Grant St ................................................................................................................................................................. Glenwood Dr Mid -Block Crossing Improvement Regional 58 6th St ................................................................................................................................................................. Lugonia Ave Intersection Improvement Both 58 Citrus Ave ................................................................................................................................................................. 1-10 Underpass Underpass Improvement Both 58 University St Between Central and Pedestrian Path Connection Regional 58 $9,162 $34,359 ................................................................................................................................................................. 1-10 Off Ramp Lugonia Ave ................................................................................................................................................................. Texas St to Clay St Pedestrian Path Connection Both 57 $39,634 $148,626 Texas St ................................................................................................................................................................. Between 1-10 to Redlands Blvd Pedestrian Path Connection Both 57 $30,528 $114,479 University St Park Ave Intersection Improvement Both 57 ................................................................................................................................................................. Texas St ................................................................................................................................................................. Colton Ave Intersection Improvement Both 56 Pennsylvania Ave Orange St Intersection Improvement Both 56 ................................................................................................................................................................. Lugonia Ave Church St Bus Stop Improvement Both 56 ................................................................................................................................................................. Colton Ave ................................................................................................................................................................. University Ave New Signalized Intersection Both 55 126 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan PROJECT PRIORITIZATION Tier 1 Pedestrian Projects (cont.) LOCAL/REGIONAL TOTAL STREET CROSS STREET PROPOSED PROJECT CORRIDOR SCORE COST LOW COST HIGH Orange St Oriental Ave New Signalized Intersection Both 55 ................................................................................................................................................................. Central Ave Between University Pedestrian Path Connection Regional 55 $63,434 $237,876 ................................................................................................................................................................. andjudson Sylvan Ave Between University Pedestrian Path Connection Regional 55 $65,007 $243,776 ................................................................................................................................................................. andjudson Sun Ave Orange St Intersection Improvement Both 54 ................................................................................................................................................................. Park Ave 1-10 Underpass Underpass Improvement Local 54 ................................................................................................................................................................. University Ave Between Brockton and Sylvan Pedestrian Path Connection Regional 53 $45,141 $169,280 ................................................................................................................................................................. Orange Ave ................................................................................................................................................................. Orangewood Ct to Kansas St Pedestrian Path Connection Both 51 $13,473 $50,525 Alabama St ................................................................................................................................................................. Calvary Cir to Orange Ave Pedestrian Path Connection Both 50 $26,432 $99,121 Redlands Rail Corridor ................................................................................................................................................................. University Ave to Grove St Pedestrian Path Connection Regional 48 $38,414 $144,053 Church St ................................................................................................................................................................. Pennsylvania Ave to Church PI Pedestrian Path Connection Regional 48 $9,590 $35,961 Cook St ................................................................................................................................................................. Sylvan Ave to Citrus Ave Pedestrian Path Connection Regional 48 $34,073 $127,773 Orange Blossom Trail Tennessee St to Alabama St Pedestrian Path Connection Both 46 $53,931 $202,241 ................................................................................................................................................................. Stuart Ave Between Texas and Lawton Pedestrian Path Connection Both 46 $1,118 $4,194 ................................................................................................................................................................. New St Between Sylvan and Central Pedestrian Path Connection N/A 46 $24,649 $92,434 ................................................................................................................................................................. San Bernardino Ave Tennessee St to Webster St Pedestrian Path Connection Both 44 $64,837 $243,138 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 127 Figure 44. Top Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects, Council District 1 E San Bernardino Ave Cooley Ave El. Q 3 Lc 0 Redlands B Beaumont Ave 0 0.5 1 Miles St Calvary Cir TOP BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS, DISTRICT 1 CITY OF REDLANDS, CA Bicvcle Proiects Blvd b/w Colton Ave & St b/w Lugonia Ave & ,e b/w California St & St Vew York St & Naples Pedestrian Projects 0 New York St b/w Colton Ave & Texas St © Citrus Ave & Eureka St © Redlands Blvd b/w Kansas St & 1 st St 0 Brookside Ave & Grant St © Grant St & Glenwood Dr We b/w California St & t rAve Y � E Pioneer Ave 0 Hartzell Ave 'San � Doyle Ave Ber ardino Ave 65 _ E San Bernardino Ave fN n m Q Gail Ave x 10 H m c in J E Pennsylvania Ave O c y o m Molly Ln �- .-qonia . Ave - - - a -- - - - - - -- - E L.......-••••••--' �- Y U) P 0 Cornell Ave U) 0 L }i o Cm in 60 v EBrockton Ave 3� E � s N p z1 J a ° g @ a° •.........O� ' -- W Colton -� a�y Ave---------� E Colton Ave ° - ---•-- �- -� `� °n 0 W Pearl Ave z T Sylvan Blvd T W Stuart Ave E Stuart Ave � _ _ E Central Ave : Central Ave W .isss-•------ 'c ••�, W State StGecerus Ave E Citrus Ave Z Citrus Ave f 4ve Pine Ave ePe G�eP.4e seP GAQ o9� � (P 0 ;'G w (P. �N p0 4e �e 1 oL. o dP L �Fes�0P^N dNN�`gr�a� `e-111 a\�P�e Ay SUm��t Pie GAQ �e 3�Q tiP�e 30CIV Map produced by Alta Planning +Design May 202C yL PROJECT PRIORITIZATION Top Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects - District 1 ID STREET FROM Bicycle Projects TO PROPOSED PROJECT TIER 1 Redlands Blvd Colton Ave Fern Ave Class II Bike Lane Tier 1 ............................................................................................................................................... 2 New York St ............................................................................................................................................... Lugonia Ave Stuart Ave Class II Bike Lane Tier 1 3 Colton Ave California St Dearborn St Class II Bike Lane Tier 1 ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Orange Blossom Trail New York St Naples St Class I Bike Path Tier 1 ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Lugonia Ave California St Wabash St Class 11 Bike Lane Tier 1 ............................................................................................................................................... Pedestrian Projects ............................................................................................................................................... 1 New York St ............................................................................................................................................... Colton Ave Texas St Pedestrian Path Connection Tier 1 2 Citrus Ave & Eureka St ............................................................................................................................................... N/A N/A Intersection Improvement Tier 1 3 Redlands Blvd ............................................................................................................................................... Kansas St 1 st St Pedestrian Path Connection Tier 1 4 Brookside Ave N/A N/A Mid -Block Crossing Improvement Tier 1 & Grant St ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Grant St & N/A N/A Mid -Block Crossing Improvement Tier 1 Glendwood Dr ............................................................................................................................................... Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 129 Figure 45. Top Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects, Council District 2 TOP BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS, DISTRICT 2 CITY OF REDLANDS, CA Bicycle Projects Pedestrian Projects O New York St b/w Lugonia Ave & O 6th St & Colton Ave Stuart Ave OOrange St &Colton Ave 0 Colton Ave b/w California St & 0 Orange St & 110 Underpass Dearborn St W Mill St © OBT b/w New York St & Naples Citrus Ave & 6th St St Q Citrus Ave & Orange St 0 Lugonia Ave b/w California St & Wabash St 65 Rivervie'y I)r 4 Orange St b/w Colton Ave & PalmFtoAv. a' Citrus Ave T W Domestic Ave o o R/ven l w Or ° e ° o `6 _ m 10 Li o Midway St Solano Way Olive Ave E Pioneer Ave u o'° W Pioneer Ave O MA& Dreka Ave C75 � Hartzell Ave I � San Bernardino Ave W San Bernardino Ave Q o E San Bernardino Ave 1 _ ca N 6 — Almond Ave U Q W Pennsylvania Ave ° C�5 ULril� ' !!IF cc a` L a) -- W Lu ��i�A�� Y 0..0 - °° E Lugonia Ave . .. �;. .�.....y....•...........•••.�. . ....... .W--mk' on — Cornell Ave Padua Ave_ o Z °� t ( y ° c } O iA u rn (� p` ° aa) y N i ° i� 3� c ° 65 v a 0 p u EBrocktonAve c c o 1 7 t cL a7 0 -° v Q U M.ft: \ U U co m E a) m = E O in Clock St o J Z O p` a° j U a) CU W Redlands Blvd 5 v '0 7■� .............................. i _ W Colton Ave . O E Colt�r:Av� °' ,� E c Y. O The Terrace .... W......i7.. E Colton ° c ...........nAve .. 65 m• Stillman Ave Z @ Stillman Ave as L U 2 ° N E High Ave Sylvan Blvd 0 Y %. W Stuart Ave w* O in E Stuart Ave P J W Park Ave �`• �.....� ...................E P=rkA........... O ta��e ve m La 2 �N Z ECentral Ave _ �_.. a E State St '--F, Citrus Ave W State St Oec W Citrus Av Ie oo�SsdeP s0 �°3� I►� � ���f► 0.5 Map produced by Alta Planning +Design May 2020. Miles Orange Ave Pine Ave �t�� �� Data Sources City of Redlands SCAG SBCTA 130 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION Top Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects - District 2 ID STREET FROM TO PROPOSED PROJECT TIER Bicycle Projects .................................... ........................................................................................ ............ . 1 .................................... New York St Lugonia Ave ........................................................................................ Stuart Ave Class 11 Bike Lane Tier 1 ............ . 2 Colton Ave California St ........................................................................................ Dearborn St Class 11 Bike Lane Tier 1 ............ . .................................... 3 Orange Blossom Trail New York St ........................................................................................ Naples St Class I Bike Path Tier 1 .................................... 4 Lugonia Ave California St Wabash St Class 11 Bike Lane ............ . Tier 1 .................................... 5 Orange St ........................................................................................ Colton Ave Citrus Ave Class 11 Bike Lane or ............ . Tier 1 Class III Bike Route .................................... Pedestrian .................................... Projects ........................................................................................ ........................................................................................ ............ . ............ . 1 6th St & Colton Ave N/A N/A Intersection Improvement Tier 1 .................................... 2 .................................... Orange St & Colton Ave ........................................................................................ N/A ........................................................................................ N/A Intersection Improvement ............ . Tier 1 ............ . 3 Orange St & 1-10 N/A N/A Underpass Improvement Tier 1 .................................... Underpass ........................................................................................ ............ . 4 .................................... Citrus Ave & 6th St N/A ........................................................................................ N/A Intersection Improvement Tier 1 ............ . 5 .................................... Citrus Ave & Orange St N/A ........................................................................................ N/A Intersection Imporvement Tier 1 ............ . Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 131 Figure 46. Top Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects, Council District 3 `ah '0R a �a 0 1 St cye S_ ssums DrSSan y p Baden A Ora N co E Pioneer Ave O �� a Hartzell Ave a a CO yy _ E San Bernardino Ave U -n Bernardino Ave ccq, E o E Pennsylvania Ave > Madeira Ave Holly Ln o N ; U) State Rte 38 � _ E Lugonia Ave o ¢ L Mentone Blvd _ Maple z Ave m cL) E Brockton Ave ~ Nice Ave -o U _ o Cn C The Terrace O .� w N OZ 0 > ¢ E Colton Ave Sylvan Blvd ' E � in EStuart Ave -'-----._ z© rO o o a ����--��� _-_-_- , L O 3rdAve x co Z E State St �/ ____• Central Ave d---------_O o S wan Blvd - Y ti Z Citrus Ave n Lu Pie e C YiighlandAve w Highland Ave > U e O LL ec0 5th Ave U in y° d'r9rao, Reate ;� Cr � E 6th Ave 5 C3 Od�Lo Sr has ej�0 osr � Agari ,p ry r Rd 7th St °51 ank/,h Set°r a I w q W Hilton Ave Anita Ct E South Ave westor Ivy SitFs Via Vista Or "o otOrN FahrWay Dr E Mariposa Or e 0 0.5 1 Miles c `m ¢ Mill T � 0 L .m iu 3 m . < ¢' m to L E TOP BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS, DISTRICT 3 CITY OF REDLANDS, CA Bicycle Projects Pedestrian Projects OColton Ave b/w California St & O Central Ave b/w University Ave & Dearborn St Judson St © OBT b/w New York St & Naples © Sylvan Ave b/w University Ave & St Judson OLugonia Ave b/w California St & 0 Ford St b/w Crestview Dr to Wabash St sidewalk O Pioneer Ave b/w Buckeye St & 0 Lincoln St b/w Sylvan Blvd & Wabash St Laramie Ave OCoton Ave b/w Dearborn St © Ford St & 1-10 Underpass OBT Map produced by Alta Planning +Design May Data Sources City of Redlands, SCAG, SI 132 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION Top Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects - District 3 ID STREET FROM TO PROPOSED PROJECT TIER Bicycle Projects .................................... ........................................................................................ ............ . 1 .................................... Colton Ave California St ........................................................................................ Dearborn St Class 11 Bike Lane Tier 1 ............ . 2 Orange Blossom Trail New York St ........................................................................................ Naples St Class I Bike Path Tier 1 ............ . .................................... 3 Lugonia Ave California St ........................................................................................ Wabash St Class 11 Bike Lane Tier 1 .................................... 4 Pioneer Ave Buckeye St Walbesh St Class 11 Bike Lane ............ . Tier 1 .................................... 5 Colton Ave ........................................................................................ Dearborn St Orange Blossom Trail Class 11 Bike Lane or Class ............ . Tier 1 IV Protected Bike Lane .................................... Pedestrian .................................... Projects ........................................................................................ ........................................................................................ ............ . ............ . 1 Central Ave University Ave Judson St Pedestrian Path Connection Tier 1 .................................... 2 .................................... Sylvan Ave ........................................................................................ University Ave ........................................................................................ Judson St Pedestrian Path Connection ............ . Tier 1 ............ . 3 .................................... Ford St Crestview Dr ........................................................................................ Existing Sidewalk Pedestrian Path Connection Tier 3 ............ . 4 .................................... Lincoln St Sylvan Blvd ........................................................................................ Laramie Ave Pedestrian Path Connection Tier 3 ............ . 5 .. ......... Ford St & 1-10 Underpass . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. N/A ... . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . N/A . . .. . ... . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. Underpass Improvement ... .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . Tier 3 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 133 Figure 47. Top Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects, Council District 4 o Q - Doyle Ave o .° ca W San Bernardino Ave G F E San Bernardino Ave H S n Bernardino Ave i Z 210 Elise Dr Elise Dr ' 65 o 0 ' ° a Q 2 Lalania Ave m O NE Pennsylvania Ave X fn 1 U �. 1 05 j a - Cl) 7 > 1 :' ° Jean Ave 1 Y Ur ^� U W Lugonia Ave U a �_�__ - -___________-v-------------- m j Z E Lugonia Ave U State Rte 38 ___________________ Mentone Blvd � __��_ Courier Ave w U x a � o ' Cornell Ave U) W Padua Ave m m c `o a o U) °' y' 1 U) a, E Brockton Ave W o = Q > Nice Ave m Z o o U O x o '� a> O-0 U a 1 Campus Ave o U o O = o p Zio in Clock St o Z ' ai CDU W Colton Ave .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?. - j f0 ' °' 0 a E Colton Ave O The Terrace ___-___-_ ____ _��Y____�___� ° 2 Orchard C ® Stillman Ave. Z Stillman Ave _ Y U) O 1 Z m E High Ave Sylvan Blvd o c� Independence Ave W Park Ave-.. W Stuart Ave w ly M E Stuart �' a o N -Latam N \epve 9 Ner r� W Redlands Blvd � L E Central Ave 1 cn o p n 9 On Dr t 1 an glvd Central Ave J a Z U gyly W State St G W Citrus Ave J o E E Citrus Ave Citrus Ave o Q o Morrison Dr LL U c (P sr G t�5` �G\ © Q O Pine Ave A rnern�000O'. °' s� vdeP�e 11� 'ems et�p�e �F PO 0. f� �� _ as ' U- TOP o d' 9i e y e BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS, DISTRICT 4 �°°(PG\a`*y� ps �ea\�n CITY OF REDLANDS, CA a f L. ^��s'r �Ci �,° %' L 6�s°G� ° °^°�� s, �O� Bicycle Projects Pedestrian Projects °\\aP�e �OoPJe PJe r o O Colton Ave b/w California St & O University St & Sylvan Blvd oa �a��ev° Pie e5e �G�Qt s'r O yea° aPJe O„ Dearborn St ©Central Ave &University St `0 w° °101 ° ��0 © OBT b/w New York St & Naples © University St & 110 Underpass 9C0 s s �` � � d �sf St Aaq,'od0 Lugonia Ave b/w California St & Q University St b/w Park Ave & �e Wabash St Central Ave SAQe\�P O Chruch St b/w Santa Ana River © Park Ave b/w Church St & cook St Trail & San Bernardino Ave Pie Q University St b/w San Bernardino Ave & Cypress Ave 0 e 0.25 0.5 Miles 3� W Map produced by Alta PI nning +Design May: Data Sources City ol Redlands. SCAG. SB 234 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION Top Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects - District 4 ID STREET FROM TO PROPOSED PROJECT TIER Bicycle Projects ......................................................................................................................................... 1 ......................................................................................................................................... Colton Ave California St Dearborn St Class II Bike Lane Tier 1 2 Orange Blossom Trail New York St Naples St Class I Bike Path Tier 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Lugonia Ave California St Wabash St Class 11 Bike Lane Tier 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Church St Santa Ana River Trail San Bernardino Ave Class III Bike Route Tier 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 5 ......................................................................................................................................... University St San Bernardino Ave Cypress Ave Class II Bike Lane Tier 1 Pedestrian Projects 1 University St & Sylvan Blvd N/A N/A Mid -Block Crossing Improvement Tier 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Central Ave & University St N/A N/A New Signalized Intersection Tier 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 3 University St & 1-10 N/A N/A Underpass Improvement Tier 1 Underpass ......................................................................................................................................... 4 University St Park Ave Central Ave Pedestrian Path Connection Tier 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Park Ave ......................................................................................................................................... Churc St Cook St Pedestrian Path Connection Tier 1 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 135 TOP BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS, DISTRICT 5 Figure 48. Top Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects, Council District 5 CITY OF REDLANDS, CA W Park Ave co Sylvan Blvd m y Bicycle Projects Pedestrian Projects m in in (D �_ u> ~ O Center St b/w State St & 0 Redlands Blvd b/w Fern Ave & E m 0 0 6 z >_ Central Ave y v CD o Q) W State St cn D Morr�sOn Crescent Ave Ford St Z m Co � z Or E O San Timoteo Canyon Rd b/w © Highland Ave b/w Monterey St & z o Orange Ave ~Pine Ave 6eP�s�o06 s��^ °N, ee\ Pie 5 c Barton Rd &Nevada St 110 too Gee 5� Sr ePr �F{�pt �e C O Ford St b/w Highland Ave & © Crescent St b/w Alessandro Rd & Ba n Rd �O Elizabeth St Center St s �a�� `�sj •� 0 Redlands Blvd b/w Fern Ave & Q San Timoteo Canyon Rd b/w Fern e s w d'r Si ,' Ford St Ave & Frontage Rd ^ L �,, o�c , 0 Redlands Blvd b/w Fern Ave & © Fern Ave b/w San Timoteo L �� s <Yi o e r ,' � Ford St Canyon Rd &Terracina Blvd � n OA06°� Beaumor t Ave Aa Qa\�P�ep 4��°�P� �a\aP�e•� hq�e G paho�a Overo�estDr \`� © Col J9 °, �ao� . .are:-•'�e • • E South Ave PF62abeth l� e SV� A St Ivy St CarObdc °°7r st i�S Ca^ ✓°ra�r Via Vista Dr4hserp� N as a7 Sah T�oteogo �^ W Sunset Dr S �� Fainva E Y Dr Mariposa Pilgrim Rd e oar sa'T�''Ot ra o Q Dr /a SolanaDr �5 m A'SG°S� � /^�°>r O� �� eoCahy Palo Alto Dr ��� ' °� Q p County C.IubDr Highview Dr G Ro' �SetN�\\sLi ^ Sk o° a setDrs S' O N Sur o76er/ 0 E Burns Ln a�a � aCrecks ae U a o: ° E Live Oak Canyon Rd Live oak Canyon Rd 0 0.5 1 Miles Map produced by Alta Planning +Design May 20 i3o PROJECT PRIORITIZATION Top Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects - District 5 ID STREET FROM TO PROPOSED PROJECT TIER Bicycle ......................................................................................................................................... Projects 1 ......................................................................................................................................... Center St State St Crescent Ave Class II Bike Lane Tier 1 2 San Timoteo Canyon Rd Barton Rd Nevada St Class II Bike Lane Tier 2 ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Ford St Highland Ave Elizabeth St Class II Bike Lane Tier 2 ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Redlands Blvd Fern Ave Ford St Class II Bike Lane Tier 2 ......................................................................................................................................... 5 ......................................................................................................................................... Redlands Blvd Fern Ave Ford St Class III Bike Route Tier 2 Pedestrian Projects 1 Redlands Blvd Fern Ave Ford St Pedestrian Path Connection Tier 2 ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Highland Ave ......................................................................................................................................... Monterey St 1-10 Pedestrian Path Connection Tier 2 3 Crescent St Alessandro Rd Center St Pedestrian Path Connection Tier 3 ......................................................................................................................................... 4 San Timoteo Canyon Rd Fern Ave Frontage Rd Pedestrian Path Connection Tier 3 ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Fern Ave ......................................................................................................................................... Sam Timoteo Canyon Rd Terracina Blvd Pedestrian Path Connection Tier 3 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 137 Implementation li ti IL S. -W - 4r: :-7 111` T%b b- .1I kzv Of AdIP". r 1, Milt 6P r4- AIL At. -let IMPLEMENTATION Implementing the Sustainable Mobility Plan This chapter provides cost estimates, funding strategies and maintenance approaches that can be utilized to implement the recommended bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Key funding sources are listed in this chapter, with a more extensive list in Appendix G. Project Prioritization A prioritization methodology was created to organize the pedestrian and bicycle projects, in order to ensure the projects that will most increase safe active transportation use are the top priority for funding. In Chapter 6, this plan discusses the project prioritization process and identifies the final project list. The following criteria were used to prioritize the proposed bicycle and pedestrian projects: • Safety • Equity • Destination Accessibility • Community Identified Needs, • Connectivity • Inclusion in previous plans 140 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan IMPLEMENTATION Costs Plan level cost estimates for the facilities recommended in this Plan can be seen in the following table. Low and high cost estimates account for the unknowns when implementing a project, including construction costs, design and administration, and environmental studies. In addition to implementation costs, maintenance costs will need to be considered before constructing a project. Maintenance costs can vary depending on whether it is performed by Redlands City staff or private contractors. Costs can also change if implementation occurs simultaneous to other road improvements. These cost estimates are provided in 2020 dollars, and will increase in future years. COST ESTIMATE FACILITY TYPE PER LOW HIGH Shared Use Path ..................................................................................... Mile $787,500 $3,900,000 Bicycle Lane ..................................................................................... Mile $100,600 $406,350 Bicycle Route ..................................................................................... Mile $24,150 $36,750 Protected Bike Lane ..................................................................................... Mile $326,550 $931,350 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) EA $31,500 $63,000 ..................................................................................... Pedestrian Refuge Island EA $10,500 $52,500 ..................................................................................... Protected Intersection EA $787,500 $1,575,000 ..................................................................................... High Visibility Crosswalk EA $2,625 $5,250 ..................................................................................... ADA Curb Ramps EA $3,675 $5,250 ..................................................................................... Curb Extensions EA $15,750 $131,250 ..................................................................................... Crossing Signals ..................................................................................... LS $5,250 $525,000 HAWK Signal EA $210,000 $420,000 ..................................................................................... Sidewalk Construction LF $20 $75 ..................................................................................... Streetlights EA $500 $20,000 ..................................................................................... Signal Detection EA $1,800 $36,000 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan lql IMPLEMENTATION Implementation Redlands will continue to build a strong, connected active transportation network using Strategies a variety of implementation strategies. Project Feasibility Project feasibility categorizes projects based on their complexity and high-level costs. In general, projects that only require signage and striping changes are considered highly feasible and can be done in the short term. Examples of projects that can be completed in the short term include: Bike routes that require only striping, signage, and low-cost traffic calming measures. • Bike lanes that only require striping. • Short sidewalk gap closures that provide better connectivity. • Crossing improvements to join pathway/trail segments that require only lower -cost materials, such as high -visibility crosswalk markings and signage. Projects that require inter -agency coordination, hard-scape changes, or potential road diets are considered low -feasibility projects and should look into additional competitive funding sources. Project Considerations While some of the projects outlined within this Plan may be implemented more quickly, other projects still need to go through a community design process to evaluate challenges, undertake additional study, or consider multi -agency coordination. Infrastructure projects can be costly, and may require multiple funding opportunities to implement and maintain large scale improvements. Quick -Win Projects Balancing the value of implementing Tier 1 projects in a timely manner with the city's overall financial needs, presented on the following page is a financially constrained set of lower -cost Tier 1 bicycle and pedestrian improvements. These projects could be built relatively quickly and cheaply utilizing funds from existing sources such as the city's Capital Improvement Program and maintenance programs. In addition to providing a cost-effective starting point, these "quick wins" can help build momentum and lay the groundwork for future implementation of the city's sustainable mobility network. Figure 49 and Figure 50 show the top ten quick win bicycle and pedestrian projects. 142 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan IMPLEMENTATION 1 ,•y`,• 1• • " z 41 • L y .L `� Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 143 Figure 49. Tier 1 Quick -Win Bicycle Projects .. -ri s': S��:i.`%'; c": �;'s:aCi .. . ,•,Lk ti fy i � .. � ,' � ' . • .. „vr �� '. vk y�v :.r v h: rl :n!/,k11 - .. •k .. hl-: •• .. .. .. .... .. .. �,: k# „+:':, f ry :r`f• f �')i. y �+',,}�:`. f• f',4•k�,•:::i,; f+ s' h\frM1S: 10%?f��_%L'�'""`4}',nf:%�k�=./. •'�'{r; ��)r-f`•�}'�? ^7-h+:%'":��!•�:;';rri}� - ' ..... :_f _,.Sti,.: `k•,/f'.':,•'::;�` : };r,i:.5!:: ,..- : _ -:f•:r i :'i�'� f��' .'f�i•, ' y -'f' .. .... . . ,.r .. .. kv: �f � ••f 'll ti��J r4' .. - '• f � v_\ yy : f � ':\ �ti�\r• �': •r:?�:?r•:?+:?v l: .'l�''•':'! rr - - - f— + L r } 1 •' i 7 / `f � h r' l v . . . . �y5��y,� f : f • f ' _ L era. !f'f �:`: �'. :%:: n :-f'.'•: z' S.`r"' !iS...... i...... 911tif!::' %:• i . ..... 5, .. .. fs : r....: vv. vv:v v•v �v i.. .. .... / 1 --- .. ......... .......... ... .. ..... .. .. �f i .. :k::.`r::;� �}' w.'::-i.r k-+, :: +f•-•f:�..•, -- ,y,� ..2,. :i=:` -' .�•U4�i�•. r. .._......: 't±::':: fi .`.: 4::, :::nv : ''• r'i a ".'.''::r •"�:i �'::yyy +� �r'�v , f'f v }. f REDLANDSBLV[i;;,•. ;� ; :.: E'E .!E.E !J:¢+ r :{ f F M ` C yy CITRUS s : _ ..'1" . BARTON RD �6��\O r� STFI AVE ............ .................... ea :... � ���� a . :.:........................ : . v I 4 uluiriait... p41, Pt� �9�0� ���� +I OkAVE ..................... . . ILT A ::.... .... ......... ... . @..... . .... r .......................................... 4.. .... .... S ............. y' .................. ... ...............;, " , '' i ; o� 'BIER I OVICK-WIN BICYCLE PROJECTS CITY OP-REi� ANbSI CA CIaS4 4t dike Lane IDflew York St b/w OBT & New York SraTooi olFo St L"it�r Boundaries ty2`o (lass ill 8 ke'Route m 0 6th St b/w Stuart & OBT 0 Clay St b/w Colton & Pioneer Park �o & Olive 0 Orange St b/w Colton & Citrus © Cajon St b/w Citrus :::: • . : ' © Grove St b/w Brockton & Citrus San Bernardino Ave b/w Donut • • • • • • Hole &Texas R4epf�ANYp ' ' ' ' LIVE OAK CANYON RD 0 Church St b/w Santa Ana River 0 New York St b/w Lu onia & Stuart 9.. :.' .:......:.:.:.... •. g :. .............'.:.:.....: Trail & San Bernardino o.. Alabama St b/w Lugonia &Park ........................................................................................... e 0 1 2 Miles Map produced by Alta Planning +Design May 2020. Data Sources City of Redlands, SCAG, SBCTA, 144 IMPLEMENTATION Tier 1 Quick -Win Bicycle Projects PROPOSED LOCAL/REGIONAL TOTAL STREET FROM TO PROJECT CORRIDOR SCORE COST LOW COST HIGH 6th St Stuart Ave OBT Class II Bike Lane Regional 54 $4,024 $16,254 .......................................................................................................................................................................... Cajon St .......................................................................................................................................................................... Citrus Ave Olive Ave Class III Bike Route Both 58 $4,106 $6,248 Grove St .......................................................................................................................................................................... Brockton Ave Citrus Ave Class II Bike Lane Regional 56 $4,106 $6,248 Church St .......................................................................................................................................................................... Santa Ana River Trail San Bernardino Ave Class III Bike Route Both 60 $15,939 $24,255 New York St OBT End of New York St Class II Bike Lane Local 59 $23,138 $93,461 .......................................................................................................................................................................... Clay St Colton Ave Pioneer Ave Class III Bike Route Regional 49 $30,188 $45,938 .......................................................................................................................................................................... Orange St Colton Ave Citrus Ave Class II Bike Lane or Both 65 $50,300 $203,175 Class III Bike Route .......................................................................................................................................................................... San Bernardino Ave E Donut Hole Texas St Class II Bike Lane Both 54 $50,300 $203,175 .......................................................................................................................................................................... New York St Lugonia Ave Stuart Ave Class II Bike Lane Both 71 $72,432 $292,572 .......................................................................................................................................................................... Alabama St .......................................................................................................................................................................... Lugonia Ave Park Ave Class II Bike Lane Both 63 $76,456 $308,826 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 145 Figure 50. Tier 1 Quick -Win Pedestrian Projects .. • • k �Y` ..fkn�n,..:.: C k.s,�;}M1;,y�,..�:_ :;•. f. • -f :f'rf_;.. .• f+ f�k — •M1• +.. �r=, f-� •- �I •' � .. 1 fkn10:rf�+: =:-\{f�.k. f}rh.�: :4 ff �•ri.kjrky+hy�_: '::i:r_ .. ./r �`f•/f�i 'i v,.�.'i "':i++'i+M1":: �:'r ti'�`:ii+:�:':�i�'r+,��r-f � • 4 : :r+•':��f� •lHl•'44•�gyy fir+ �f'. '¢'• :y': �F•:ir;.':::.•.•'.'.4:�: __.- _.. .......... .. .�{:v•v'..:v.:.:::?.•' ,vfl., .. .:. - y1 �,.v;�; 1..ti �riiM1� f r:.v...:,v..-...r. .. W• tl.i::::?:. �..�r+: +:,... r.;'.f �p�yA�p����y� r\" .'\fir•+, _ - ... "., }- - �M�!,PSl7NiU!a��c!:�+ f+v i++�+�•+' fl ar 7 . y' �,:.- :;: •, .. ` , ...... .' }+ti �` .�.'.: .r ::`.'.. �':�:� f� : ::r r:�fj•'„r}��= ifs.. _} 1, WON f f y ...•::_fr • ' +:{{i.r.+.::., �:.: ...,..:. : .;:�M1•r'M1. _ 38 \..i+•.+; _ .. ......... .......... .....�. ... ... ..... .. • • , •• N 6 Fsi ;'M1:` • .p., ••:•• . f,- f .�.? �.,h,,Y• ,;r{ }r .y_:;..M1M1;JI+,:::.: i.i C • Pv„f"5_.Fi- .1 . .. ... .... . f. .... +... .:... .. r .. REDLI4NOS BLVD; f ', E' {f "$OLT01 r.fl S /°' o = ' ff . *US AVE •r.3's2?,il.... ..... %DARTONRD I"I�p0` �. 5TNAirT. _ : .....::........... ............ .................... 9 P H : .s . . �� ...... .. ......... • err �F��~k �����qy�......... .......................... . 4 PEE' 0 �ti�°+IILTON AVE \ ...... ........................ ....... : •...' ...' n�S �Zi c L':: : ::.. :::.'.... r ..............W. .. 4�Q �! L4gf Sr 9� ....... ............ ... YUCAIPA BLVD ........ ,a , . ........ ... .. , ....:.................................... .... �A??P ............................................ f.. ?'!:::` `>� '�GELR ! (UI�1(-WIN PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS ..................°` .............. CITY OP REQLANDS, CA :';; :';; :';; : 0 StuWT Ave b/w Tpxas & Lawton New St b/w Sylvan &Central SChaol 19 University St b/w Central & Alabama St b/w CaivartyCirca Char Boundaries 1 10 Off Ramp Orange Ave Park : ©'Church St b/w Pennsylvania & QTexas St b/w 1-10 & Redlands Blvd Church PI 0 Cook St b/w Sylvan & Citrus ' ' • • • • • • • • • • 0 University b/w Park & Central Redlands Rail Corridor b/w LIVEOAKCANYONRD ' ......... ..... :.' '.: : '.: •'.'.'.: :: •::'.'.::.'.:.'.::.'.:.:::::: '. '.'.::.'.::::.'.:'..':.'.: '.'.: © Orange Ave b/w Orangewood University &IGrove d o......:..'..'.:. ''' & Kansas ................... e 0 1 2 Miles Map produced by Alta Planning +Design May 2020. Data Sources City of Redlands, SCAG, SBCTA, i46 IMPLEMENTATION Tier 1 Quick -Win Pedestrian Projects LOCAL/REGIONAL TOTAL STREET CROSS STREET PROPOSED PROJECT CORRIDOR SCORE COST LOW COST HIGH Stuart Ave Between Texas and Lawton Pedestrian Path Connection Both 46 $1,118 $4,194 ........................................................................................................................................................................ University St Between Central and Pedestrian Path Connection Regional 58 $9,162 $34,359 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1-10 Off Ramp Church St Pennsylvania Ave to Church PI Pedestrian Path Connection Regional 48 $9,590 $35,961 ........................................................................................................................................................................ University St ........................................................................................................................................................................ Between Park and Central Pedestrian Path Connection Regional 60 $11,877 $44,538 Orange Ave Orangewood Ct to Kansas St Pedestrian Path Connection Both 51 $13,473 $50,525 ................................................................................................. New St ........................................................................................................................................................................ Between Sylvan and Central Pedestrian Path Connection N/A ................................................. 46 $24,649 $92,434 Alabama St ........................................................................................................................................................................ Calvary Cir to Orange Ave Pedestrian Path Connection Both 50 $26,432 $99,121 Texas St ........................................................................................................................................................................ Between 1-10 to Redlands Blvd Pedestrian Path Connection Both 57 $30,528 $114,479 Cook St ........................................................................................................................................................................ Sylvan Ave to Citrus Ave Pedestrian Path Connection Regional 48 $34,073 $127,773 Redlands Rail Corridor University Ave to Grove St Pedestrian Path Connection Regional 48 $38,414 $144,053 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 147 IMPLEMENTATION Complete Streets Implementation Strategies Complete Streets are streets that are safe for transportation users of all ages and abilities. Complete Streets should balance the needs of drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders, rideshare users, and micro mobility devices while also supporting Redlands' existing land use, economies, cultures and natural environments. This can be completed through treatments like bike lanes and sidewalks separated from motor vehicle traffic, strategically located mobility hubs, docking stations for bike and scooter share, and bus only lanes during peak hours. A successful complete street provides a safe public space, rather than just a transportation corridor. There is not a one size fits all approach to Complete Streets, and not every street is appropriate for this approach. Implementing Complete Streets in Redlands requires thinking holistically about how a corridor is used by all methods of transportation, and what streets are best suited for complete streets treatments based on their proximity to the city's existing and proposed active transportation network, destinations, or their accessibility for vulnerable user groups. Streets near the future Arrow rail stations may be a good fit for these treatments. In addition to considering existing methods of transportation, Redlands City staff must also consider the future of transportation, including autonomous vehicles, and the increased used of e-bikes and other e-mobility options and how these may fit into the design of a Complete Street. Complete Street planning should be considered long term, and should involve many Redlands City departments including planning, public works, parks and recreation, transportation and public safety. Temporary pilot projects can be initiated to test Complete Streets improvements, 148 and gather feedback from community members about the pilot project's efficacy. The goal of implementing Complete Streets in Redlands should not only be to make active transportation safer, but also to encourage more active transportation use by residents. The City can utilize the Complete Streets Policy Workbook (see link below) to create a locally -appropriate Complete Streets Policy, bringing it into compliance with the California Complete Streets Act of 2008. The Policy itself need not be cumbersome in its language; however, the real "teeth" associated with the Policy is the subsequent development of design guidelines and development code that will meet the goals established in the policy. While the process of developing and adopting a complete streets policy in Redlands may yield additional opportunities, the table below identifies recommended Complete Streets Priority projects. Complete Streets Policy Workbook: https://smartgrowthamerica. org/resources/complete-streets-local-policy-workbook/ ility Plan IMPLEMENTATION Recommended Complete Streets Priority Projects TOTAL STREET CROSS STREET PROPOSED PROJECT LENGTH (MILES) SCORE COST LOW COST HIGH University St Sylvan Blvd Mid -Block Crossing N/A 66 N/A N/A ................................................................................................................................................................. Improvement University St Underpass Improvement N/A 63 N/A N/A .................................................................................................................................................................. University St .................................................................................................................................................................. Between Park and Central Pedestrian Path Connection 0.11 60 $11,877 $44,538 University St San Bernardino Ave Class II Bike Lane 1.69 60 $170,014 $686,732 ................................................................................................................................................................. to Cypress Ave University St Between Central and Pedestrian Path Connection 0.09 58 $9,162 $34,359 ................................................................................................................................................................. 1-10 Off Ramp UniversitySt Park Ave Intersection Improvement N/A 57 N/A N/A ................................................................................................................................................................. University St ................................................................................................................................................................. Between Brockton and Syvlan Pedestrian Path Connection 0.43 53 $45,141 $169,280 University St Sylvan Blvd Mid -Block Crossing N/A 52 N/A N/A Improvement Orange St Orange Orange St P,.............. Class II Bike Lane or 0.50 Class III Bike Route lass II Bike Lane 2.49 D0 $203,175 34 $1,011,812 Intersection Improvement N/A -6�5 N/A N/A ...................................................................................................... Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 149 IMPLEMENTATION Recommended Complete Streets Priority Projects (cont.) STREET CROSS STREET PROPOSED PROJECT TOTAL LENGTH (MILES) SCORE COST LOW COST HIGH Orange St Underpass Improvement N/A N/A Orange St Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement N/A 61 N/A .......................................................................................................................................................... Orange St Statue Bike Detection Improvement N/A 51 I 6th St Colton Ave Intersection Improvement N/A 67 N/A N/A .................................................................................................................................................................. 6th St Lugonia Ave to Olive Ave Class II Bike Lane 1.10 63 $110,660 $446,985 .................................................................................................................................................................. 6th St Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement N/A 62 N/A N/A .................................................................................................................................................................. 6th St Underpass Improvement N/A 60 N/A N/A .................................................................................................................................................................. 6th St Lugonia Ave Intersection Improvement N/A 58 N/A N/A nderpass Improvement N/A pi.trusAve I N/AN/A ntersection mprovem ...... Ila .............................11llW� Citrus Ave Intersection Improvement N/A 61 N/A N/ Citrus Ave Orange St Intersection Improvement N/A 58 N/A New York St .................................................................................................................................................................. Lugonia Ave to Stuart Ave Class II Bike Lane 0.72 71 $72,432 $292,572 igo Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan IMPLEMENTATION Recommended Complete Streets Priority Projects (cont.) TOTAL STREET CROSS STREET PROPOSED PROJECT LENGTH (MILES) SCORE COST LOW COST HIGH New York St OBT to End of New York Street Class II Bike Lane 0.23 59 $23,138 $93,461 .................................................................................................................................................................. New York St/Stuart Ave Between Colton and Texas Pedestrian Path Connection 0.44 63 $46,228 $173,357 .................................................................................................................................................................. New York St Orange Blossom Trail Wayfinding Improvement N/A 49 N/A N/A texas St Texas St Texas Sf Texas St anta Ana River Trail to State St Class II Bike Lanqr Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement Between 1-10 and Redlands Blvd Pedestrian Path Connection 0. Colton Ave Intersection Improvement N/A $223,332 $902,097 $30,528 $114,479 N/A N/A i Alabama St Lugonia Ave to Park Ave Class II Bike Lane 0.76 63 $76,456 $308,826 .................................................................................................................................................................. Alabama St Calvary Cir to Orange Ave Pedestrian Path Connection 0.25 50 $26,432 $99,121 .................................................................................................................................................................. Alabama St Orange Tree Ln Improved Intersection N/A 49 N/A N/A M.....�....... ... i............................ dINOW............... 0001MV........................................................... Lugonia Ave California St to Wabash St Class II Bike Lane 4.20 68 $422,520 $1,706,670 .................................................................................................................................................................. Lugonia Ave Texas St to Clay St Pedestrian Path Connection 0.38 57 $39,634 $148.,626 .................................................................................................................................................................. Lugonia Ave ..,--.-r.............. 6th St ....... Median Improvement .......... N/A 56 N/A N/A . Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 151 IMPLEMENTATION Recommended Complete Streets Priority Projects (cont.) TOTAL STREET CROSS STREET PROPOSED PROJECT LENGTH (MILES) SCORE Central Ave University St New Signalized Intersection N/A 63 Central Ave Between University and Judson Pedestrian Path Connection 0.60 55 Santa Ana River Trail to Class II Bike RouteSan AhSt Bernardino Ave Pennsylvania Ave to Church PI Pedestrian Path Connection 0.09 Redlands Blvd Colton Ave to Fern Ave Class II Bike Lane 2.20 73 Redlands Blvd Between Kansas and 1st Pedestrian Path Connection 1.07 60 .............. San Bernardino Ave OBT to California St Class II Bike 1.00 ........... ..... San Bernar ino Ave Tennessee t to Webster St Pe estrian Pat onnection 0.61 COST LOW COST HIGH N/A N/A $63,434 $237,876 R$15,939 $24,255 $9,580 $35,961 $221,320 $893,970 $113,313 $424,924 ..............1-i+-r++-rry $100,600 $406,350 ......................... $64,837 $2440 ig2 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan IMPLEMENTATION Funding Strategies With limited and competitive funding options, implementing a citywide bicycle and pedestrian network must be prioritized in a thoughtful and feasible manner. In Chapter 6, the SMP provides the final list of prioritized projects and will be used to determine which funding sources are the "best fit." Funding sources can be local, regional, or federal, and can be used for building bicycle and pedestrian facilities, maintenance of infrastructure, and programming to encourage safe use of active transportation methods. A list of potential funding sources are located in this section and a full list of additional funding sources are located in Appendix G. Local Grants REDLANDS MEASURE T In November 2020 Redlands voters passed Measure T, a one - cent sales tax to preserve the quality of life and city services in Redlands. Measure T funds can be used to keep public spaces such as parks and recreation areas clean and maintained. The money can also be used to maintain sidewalks and curbs. All Measure T money is required to be used in the City. Regional Grants SBCTA MEASURE I Measure I is a half -cent sales tax in San Bernardino County which can fund projects until 2040. Redlands City staff can apply for this grant to fund road maintenance, sidewalk installations, ADA upgrades and other transportation improvements. Funding is distributed based on the Measure 1 2010-2040 Ordinance and Expenditure Plan and the Strategic Plan. SBCTA administers the revenue and is responsible for ensuring funds are used properly. SBCTA TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) The Transportation Development Act (TDA) provides funding for building and maintaining bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Funds can also be distributed to improve public transit stops, including construction of new sidewalk near a bus stop. SBCTA oversees the distribution of these funds. Bicycle projects must be included in the SBCTA Non -Motorized Transportation Plan. Funding is available to cover up to 90% of total project costs, and 50% of the total funding available is reserved for smaller projects under $250,000. SCAG SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PROGRAM (SCP) Created in 2005, SCAG's Sustainable Communities Program (SCP) can provide resources and assistance to Redlands to complete local planning efforts. The SCP provides resources to support active transportation and multimodal efforts and sustainability, equity in transportation planning, reductions in motorized vehicle miles traveled and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The SCP can fund quick build projects, Safe Routes to School Plans, active transportation infrastructure, and pedestrian plazas, and can assist in evaluating the success of new infrastructure and programming. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 153 IMPLEMENTATION State and Federal Grants CALIFORNIA'S ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (ATP) The California State Legislature created the Active Transportation Program to encourage walking, biking, and rolling in California cities. Eligible projects include infrastructure projects, education, encouragement and enforcement non- infrastructure projects which further the goals of the ATP, and a combination of infrastructure and non -infrastructure activities. The goals of the ATP include shifting driving trips to walking and biking, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and improving public health. CALTRANS SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING GRANT This grant is available to Redlands for planning, study, and design work to identify and evaluate projects, including conducting outreach or implementing pilot projects. When applying for this grant in Redlands, City staff should consider the grant objectives of sustainability, preservation, mobility, safety, innovation, economy, health and social equity. HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP) The Highway Safety Improvement program's purpose is to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roads. Eligible projects from the list of SMP recommendations include installation of pedestrian hybrid beacons, roadway improvements that provide separation between pedestrians and motor vehicles, and other physical infrastructure projects. The HSIP requires a data -driven, strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads that focuses on performance. Funding is available up to $10 million. 154 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan IMPLEMENTATION Maintenance Maintenance of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure will be crucial in keeping the sustainable mobility network safe for all users. Infrastructure should regularly be cleared of debris and hazards, and traffic control devices, striping, and signage should be maintained to ensure the network continues to function properly. Additionally, pavement should be maintained, and vegetation should be cut back when encroaching into pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The City of Redlands has several maintenance systems in place to keep the active transportation network clean and safe: • The City of Redlands Pavement Management Program (PMP) evaluates and rates the condition of road surfaces, and identifies a maintenance schedule. The City uses a variety of engineering software to ensure the greatest return on investment for the City's budget. The latest PMP report was released in 2020, and includes a forecasted maintenance report for streets in Redlands until 2024. This latest PMP report can be useful in planning for active transportation upgrades on Redlands streets. • The Redlands 311 app allows residents to report problems including potholes, non -working street lights, flooding, overgrown vegetation, sidewalk dangers, and other civic issues. Users can take a picture of the problem, write a short description, and geo-tag its location before sending it to City personnel. • The Street Maintenance Division is responsible for clearing and maintaining streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and street signage. The Street Maintenance Division asks residents to relay any issues to them via the Redlands 311 app. Most Redlands streets are included in the regular street sweeping schedule. • Redlands Conservancy maintains 26 miles of natural surface trails in the City. The Conservancy trains volunteers, called the Trail Care Crew, to help keep trails safe and clear of debris and ruts. The Conservancy also organizes Trail Care Days, and at San Timoteo Nature Sanctuary, shovels are left in public places to be used for hikers to voluntarily remove weeds as they walk. • Redlands offers opportunities for interested groups to adopt a section of the City's streets or trails. In return for the group completing regular clean ups on the street or trail, the City rewards the group with signage located on corridor. Clean ups must occur at least 4 times per year for a 1- or 2-year period. The Sustainable Master Plan also proposes maintenance strategies as part of planning process, and collaboration with different departments in Redlands: • Consider maintenance in the design of bicycle and pedestrian facilities to ensure they remain safe and comfortable to use. • Incorporate operational issues such as parking, traffic enforcement, and traffic operations during the design of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. • Update and request funding for annual maintenance costs, to ensure bicycle and pedestrian facilities are routinely maintained. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 155 IMPLEMENTATION Bicycle and Communities that have high rates of walking and Pedestrian bicycling consistently use a "H's" approach, which include Education, Encouragement, Engagement/ Programs Enforcement, Engineering, Equity, and Evaluation. Education Programs help support walking and bicycling by sharing Provide information to pedestrians, bicyclists, information, providing education and drivers related to safely sharing the road. on rules of the road, promoting Educate residents about the environmental and safe travel behaviors for all street financial benefits of using active transportation. users, and creating a vibrant Encouragement active transportation culture. Promote active transportation as fun and efficient methods of transportation, and provide special events that encourage walking and biking. Engagement/Enforcement A combination of community -based engagement and enforcement around unsafe travel behaviors can help establish norms and expectations of those using active transportation and those driving motor vehicles. Examples include crossing guards, driver safety education programs, increased enforcement near bicycle/pedestrian collision hotspots with vehicles, and speed -feedback signage. Engineering Install bicycle and pedestrian physical infrastructure to support safe and comfortable active transportation Equity All community members, particularly those from underrepresented communities, should have equal access to active transportation. Programming materials should be strategically targeted to reach these communities. Evaluation The City should monitor the success of the programming efforts to ensure the programs are achieving the desired outcomes. 156 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan IMPLEMENTATION Examples of 6E Programming The following lists examples of programs that fulfill at least one of the six E's. Some of these programs are already established in Redlands, and others can be considered for future implementation. Bike Light Checkpoints Bike light checkpoints are set up in the evening to stop bicyclists who are riding without a light. The checkpoints give lights to bicyclists who need them, and educate bicyclists about the dangers of riding at night. These checkpoints can also prevent future citations for bicyclists riding without a light. Bicycle Education Workshops and Campaigns Bicycle education workshops are beneficial for all bicyclists and motor vehicle drivers who can learn how to share the road with each other. Workshops and safety campaigns can teach residents about proper usage of bicycle infrastructure, how to bicycle defensively, and how to navigate the bicycle network. Workshops should be taught by the league of american cyclists certified instructors. BikeBBQ The Redlands BikeBBQ is a space where bicyclists can learn how to build and repair their bicycle, and meet other bicyclists in the community. The BikeBBQ is a volunteer run non-profit, and provides repair tools for very low, or no cost. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 157 IMPLEMENTATION Safe Routes for Seniors Safe Routes for Seniors programming caters to older residents of Redlands to ensure they have safe access to pedestrian infrastructure. These programs can encourage active, healthy habits through group walks and education classes, and can bring awareness to necessary street improvements such as longer crossing times for streets with high numbers of senior pedestrians. Surveys and Active Transportation Counts Surveys and active transportation counts can track walking and biking patterns before and after the installation of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and after a programmatic event to evaluate if the improvement increased active transportation use. Mini -Demonstration Projects Mini -demonstration projects allow Redlands to test out new infrastructure temporarily, and collect feedback from community members before permanent installation. Materials for mini -demonstrations can include traffic tape, temporary paint, or cones, and work best for demonstrating bike lanes, curb extensions, traffic circles, parklets, pedestrian islands, and slow streets. These projects can last as short as a few hours during a community event, or can last as long as several weeks. Cycling Clubs There are several bicycling clubs in Redlands which encourage safe and fun group bicycle riding. There are groups for adult riders such as the Redlands Water Bottle Transit Company, groups for teens like the Redlands Interscholastic Cycling Organization, and groups for families like Ride Yourself Fit. These organizations and others in Redlands also offer their own training classes, and often have different rides for varying skills levels. 158 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan IMPLEMENTATION Safe Routes to School National Safe Routes to School (SRTS) programs encourage walking and biking to school as a safe, and fun method of transportation. Often these programs involve an audit of streets around the school to determine needed improvements, or to create a preferred walking and biking route for students. Police may be involved to enforce unsafe traffic behavior by motor vehicles when students are present. Students learn how to safely cross the street, use pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and obey the rules of the road. Walking or biking to school can prepare students for the day through physical activity, and it also prevents traffic congestion around schools during pick up and drop off times. The following are the SRTS recommendations for Redlands. 1 The 2017 Redlands Safe Routes to School program was led by San Bernardino County Transit Authority, but these efforts only included Clement Middle School, Lugonia Elementary, and Franklin Elementary, leaving out many other Redlands schools. Site assessments completed by SBCTA and those completed in the SMP should be expanded to include all schools in the Redlands Unified School District (RUSD). 2 Partner with local organizations such as Ride Yourself Fit, the Inland Empire Bicycle Alliance, the Burrage Mansion and the Redlands Police Department to bring bicycle educational programming to schools. 3 Encourage all schools in the RUSD to fund active transportation programming such as bike rodeos, International Bike and Roll to School day, and walking school buses. 4 Reduce school zone speeds from 25 mph to 15mph, particularly in zones with high traffic volumes. 5 Continue to implement pedestrian recommendations from the SBCTA Safe Routes to School Plan Phase II. 6 Create best pedestrian route maps for parents and students walking to school. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 159 IMPLEMENTATION Bike Rodeos Bike Rodeos are interactive events for elementary school students to learn the rules of the road as a bicyclist. Children learn how to signal, where to ride their bikes, and how their helmets should fit. Bike Rodeos can be coordinated with the Redlands Unified School District as an afterschool program, and can encourage parents and their children to take active transportation to school. Past bike rodeos have been sponsored by the Redlands Police Department. Bike Safety Fair In sponsorship with the Redlands Police Department and Redlands Community Hospital, Ride Yourself Fit hosts the annual Children's Health & Bike Safety Expo. Children are encouraged to bring their bicycle to ride on a safety course and learn basic bicycle maneuvers. Helmet fitting is also available, as are booths for parents to learn more about bicycling as a family. Inland Empire Biking Alliance Children's Events The Inland Empire Biking Alliance hosts Kid's Bicycle Ambassador Programs and Bicycle Playgrounds for children to learn riding skills, basic mechanics, and gain confidence on their bicycles. These programs can be scheduled on an as -needed basis, and are led by certified instructors. Transportation Demand Management Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies can help Redlands reach its active transportation goals by incentivizing businesses who encourage walking and biking, and by disincentivizing driving by limiting parking, implementing rideshare systems, creating active transportation encouragement campaigns, and providing active transportation options. Bicycle Friendly Businesses Awarded by The League of American Bicyclists, bicycle friendly businesses are recognized for their efforts in encouraging employees to bike to work. Employers may offer incentives such as bicycle equipment subsidies, bicycle commuter tax benefits and guaranteed ride home programs. Employers can also encourage bicycling by participating in bike to work days and bicycle events in the community, offering shared bicycles for employees, providing bicycle parking, showers, and repair tools, and inviting instructors to teach employees safe bicycling skills. Redlands should encourage businesses in the City to implement these incentives and apply for the award. 3L6o Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan IMPLEMENTATION Reducing Parking Demand In order to deter residents from driving and parking in high traffic areas like downtown Redlands, parking should be limited or metered. Parking spaces can be time restricted to prevent long term parking, and can require payment which can then be used by the City to maintain and build better active transportation infrastructure. Redlands should reward businesses who subsidize bicycle costs, or transit pass costs, which in turn reduce parking demand. Transit passes should be highly encouraged for Redlands residents and employees ahead of the completion of the planned Arrow Rail Stations. Other Bicycle Infrastructure In addition to building new bicycle infrastructure on Redland's streets, other pieces of infrastructure should be considered to ensure commuters have a comfortable bike ride to and from work. Adequate long term bicycle parking should be available for commuters to park their bikes during the workday. Bicycle fix -it stations, hydration stations, showers and lockers will also encourage bicycle commuters and ultimately reduce parking demand in the City. Pump Tracks and Bike Parks It is important to also encourage a culture of cycling. Bike parks featuring pump tracks can be a great addition for Redlands. Residents can come together to improve riding techniques in a safe and controlled environment. Carpool, Vanpool and Telecommuting For commuters who must drive to work, carpool options limit the number of cars on the road and reduce parking spaces needed. SBCTA offers San Bernardino County residents incentives to take and organize carpool and vanpool routes. SBCTA also offers employers resources, marketing materials, and rewards for encouraging rideshare programs. In addition, SBCTA has resources for employers who want to implement permanent telecommuting systems. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan WL A DDe a x Plan Policy Review PLAN POLICY REVIEW Review Of Existing Plans Several local and regional plans have been completed in the area that directly or indirectly address active transportation and public space planning and design in the City of Redlands. This review summarizes these plans in order to identify relevant goals and recommendations that may influence the development of the City of Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan (SMP).The purpose of this review is to identify existing policies related to active transportation and public space development/design. Such policies may need to be updated upon completion of the project. This review includes summaries of the following plans and policies: • City of Redlands General Plan 2035 (2017) • City of Redlands Bicycle Master Plan (2015) • City of Redlands Transit Villages Specific Plan (2020) - DRAFT • SBCTA Passenger Rail Accessibility Plan (2014) • SBCTA Safe Routes to School Report • SBCTA Employer Outreach Study • SBCTA Non -Motorized Transportation Plan (Revised 2018) Active transportation is an integral component of many of the existing planning documents and features strongly in the City's vision and goals. There is particular attention given to bicycle and pedestrian access in Downtown and the Transit Villages, where considerable improvements are already planned. In order to enable residents in all parts of Redlands to access these destinations, as well as others located outside this core, the SMP must build on these facilities to create a complete network that increases walking, biking, and transit connections for all Redlands communities. This will include understanding which other destinations residents would like to reach without the use of an automobile and what barriers currently prevent them from doing so. Especially important will be the General Plan's principle of designing a multi -modal system that is accessible and comfortable for users of various ages, needs and abilities - including children, senior citizens, and those with disabilities. 3L64 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan PLAN POLICY REVIEW City of Redlands General Plan 2035 (2017) Study Area Citywide Plan Type Plan Overview Comprehensive Plan Includes general recommendations for each aspect of the City of Redlands' planning and development. Influence on SMP Many of the principles and actions recommended in the plan relate to pedestrian and bicycle network improvement, citing specific priority routes and areas. The plan also includes guidance on related issues such as wayfinding, support facilities, land use, and pedestrian -focused street design. Key Recommendations (relating to sustainable and active transportation) Pedestrian and Bicycle Network Improvement: 2-A.5 Develop new roadway connections, pedestrian paths, and bicycle routes that facilitate transportation in the north -south direction traversing the 1-10 freeway. 2-A.6 Improve and make more efficient traffic flow for all modes of transportation along corridors that link north -south thoroughfares through techniques such as signal timing, additional lanes, sidewalks, bike paths, and other improvements. • 2-A.101 Improve connections from Downtown to adjacent neighborhoods, including areas north of 1-10, through streetscape enhancement and multi -modal improvements. • 4-A.89 Complete and enhance the sidewalk system along both East and West Redlands Boulevard. Make pedestrian enhancements to facilitate the safe crossing of the street. • 4-A.97 [Colton Avenue and Orange Street Commercial Corridor] Encourage the development of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit access that reduces the need for on -site parking. Improve the pedestrian experience within these corridors through street trees and landscaping. • 4-A.147 Improve pedestrian and roadway access to facilitate safe access to and from the airport. • 5-P.1 Maintain a cohesive circulation system through a "layered network" approach promoting complete Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 3L65 PLAN POLICY REVIEW Key Recommendations (relating to sustainable and active transportation) streets and mobility for all modes while emphasizing specific transportation modes for specific corridors and geographic areas. 5-P.2 Use the layered network approach to identify, schedule, and implement roadway improvements as development occurs in the future, and as a standard against which to evaluate future development and roadway improvement plans. 5-P.3 Review the layered network with neighboring jurisdictions and seek agreement on actions needing coordination. • 5-P.4 Support transportation infrastructure improvements such as safer street crossings and attractive streetscapes to encourage bicyclists, walkers, and users of mobility devices. • 5-P.9 Design a layered transportation network for individuals of all ages and abilities. • 5-P.16 Strengthen active transportation circulation routes within Downtown and the Transit Villages, and to/ from adjacent neighborhoods. • 5-P.18 Encourage creative walking paths pursuant to City planning codes, local, State, and federal laws. • 5-P.20 Establish and maintain a comprehensive network of on- and off -roadway bike routes to encourage the use of bikes for both commuter and recreational trips. • 5-P.21 Develop bike routes that provide access to rail stations, Downtown, schools, parks, the University, employment, and shopping destinations. • 5-A.12 Engage the community and neighborhoods in street design and redesign. Consult with the Traffic and Parking Commission on major street design projects. • 5-A.14 Close the gaps in the sidewalk network where streets are built out but sidewalks are not complete. • 5-A.16 Prepare an Active Transportation Plan that provides a method of prioritizing City streets to best accommodate all road users including cars, bikes, pedestrians, transit, and logistics. • 5-A.17 Locate public parking facilities to serve the downtown around the periphery so as not to draw additional vehicles into the core areas. Ensure that easily identifiable pedestrian connections exist between public parking areas and the downtown core. 5-A.19 Create appropriate enhancements to pedestrian crossings at key locations across minor arterials, boulevards, and collectors with a target of providing pedestrian crossings no further than 600 feet apart in appropriate areas and in accordance with State standards. 5-A.20 Provide pedestrian routes between offices, neighborhoods, Downtown, and Transit Villages. Plan for direct connections from the interiors of residential tracts to neighboring parks, schools, retail, and other services using sidewalks, trails, and paseos. 5-A.21 Strengthen trail connections to Downtown (such as Orange Blossom Trail, Lugonia Trail, 3L66 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan PLAN POLICY REVIEW Key Recommendations (relating to sustainable and active transportation) Citrus Avenue, and Church Street). • 5-A.23 Coordinate with San Bernardino County and the Santa Ana River Conservancy on implementing the objectives of the Santa Ana River Trail Parkway and Open Space Plan. • 5-A.24 Use the City's Bicycle Master Plan as the primary resource for planning and implementing bikeway improvements. • 5-A.25 Implement bicycle and trail improvements that provide strong east -west connections between Transit Villages and in the city's wider bicycle network. Routes would include the Orange Blossom Trail, the Mission Creek Zanja Trail, routes on Colton Avenue and Citrus Avenue, Santa Ana River Trail, and the San Timoteo Canyon Trail. connect to trail systems in Loma Linda, Highland, Yucaipa, San Bernardino, and the Santa Ana River Trail 5-A.32 Work with neighboring cities and the County to seek grants for bike routes and facilities that span jurisdictions. 5-A.36 Allow for flexibility and creativity in the roadway standards, where appropriate, to preserve historic features, specimen trees and significant landscaping, accommodate turn lanes, parking, wider sidewalks, bike paths, turnouts for buses, public art, and landscaped medians. • 7-A.37 Prioritize completing incomplete sidewalks within a half -mile radius of existing commercial development. • 5-A.26 Implement bicycle and trail improvements • 5-A.44 Establish new boulevards Downtown and that provide strong north -south connections, in the Transit Villages that include planted center especially with major eastwest trails, including medians, accommodations for transit, wider routes on Mountain View Avenue, California Street, sidewalks, and amenities for pedestrians. Nevada Street, Alabama Street, Texas Street, . 5-A.50 Plan an integrated network of collector New York Street, Orange Street, Church Street, and local streets serving new neighborhoods. Dearborn Street, and Wabash Avenue. Design cul-de-sacs so they have pedestrian/bike • 5-A.27 Implement safety improvements in mid - block areas that allow for bicycles to safely cross heavily traveled roads. Improvements can include stop signs for cyclists, warning beacons, and illuminated signs initiated by pedestrians and cyclists. • 5-A.30 Implement bicycle route improvements that provide inter -city and regional connections, connections at the terminus. • 7-A.35 Implement street design features that facilitate walking and biking in both new and established areas. Require a minimum standard of these features for all new developments. • 7-A.41 Improve the conditions for youth walking and bicycling in the areas surrounding schools Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 167 PLAN POLICY REVIEW Key Recommendations (relating to sustainable and active transportation) by working with the school district on the Safe Routes to School program. Assess and prioritize identified Safe Routes to School infrastructure improvements in annual transportation improvements budgets. 7-A.42 Work with interested community members and organizations to plan and develop a course of exercise circuits that take advantage of existing parks, trails, and other pedestrian infrastructure. The course should be clearly marked, and contain simple stations and diagrams for self -guided training. Landscaping and Trees 2-P.18 Reinforce Redlands' identity as a "Tree City' through cohesive streetscapes that enhance its sense of place and its heritage, and that promote pedestrian comfort 2.A.77 Prepare and maintain a citywide inventory and streetscape plan that includes the following components: Streetscape strategies for major arterial streets that may include items such as tree species; median or parkway landscape treatment; and curbs and sidewalk location and materials; and An updated official Street Tree List that is tied to streetscape strategies, which promotes use of native and water efficient trees, and trees that provide pedestrian shade and comfort. Public Spaces and Street Design • 3-A.40 Enhance and expand the public spaces Downtown (streetscapes, plazas, parks) to improve the pedestrian experience. • 4-A.113 [New York Street Transit Village] Provide streetscape improvements along the major corridors of Colton Avenue, Texas Street, and Redlands Boulevard to enhance comfort and safety for all modes of travel and increase accessibility to and from surrounding areas. • 4-A.120 Complete and implement an update of the Downtown Specific Plan to create a cohesive town center with amenities and pedestrian - oriented streets. • 5-P.11 Implement standards for pavement design and roadway and intersection striping so streets are accessible by all users and all modes, and safety is improved. • 5-P.13 Ensure streets are designed to accommodate bicyclists per the Bicycle Master Plan. • 5-P.14 Design streets to accommodate various modes according to roadway classification and reduce conflicts and safety risks between modes. • 5-P.17 Provide a safe, direct, and healthful pedestrian environment through means such as providing separate pedestrian -ways in parking lots, avoiding excessive driveway widths, and providing planting strips between sidewalks and streets where feasible. 3L68 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan PLAN POLICY REVIEW Key Recommendations Wayfinding (relating to sustainable • 5-P.12 Develop and implement a comprehensive and active transportation) wayfinding program serving all modes of transportation. • 7-A.40 Improve signs directing residents and visitors to public parks and recreational facilities from all parts of the community. Integrate parks signage with bikeway and pedestrian -oriented signage systems throughout Redlands. Amenities and Support Facilities • 5-P.19 Enhance street lighting for pedestrians where current lighting is inadequate. • 5-A.22 Include amenities such as shade trees, transit shelters and other transit amenities, benches, trash and recycling receptacles, bollards, public art, and directional signage that can enhance the pedestrian experience. Site Development, Land Use and Access: • 2-P.27 Conserve Downtown's character and historic assets while infusing it with new uses, buildings, and activities. New development should proportionately relate to and complement existing structures and the pedestrian environment 2-A.92 [Downtown] Provide public improvements for traffic and pedestrian circulation, flood control, utility services, and aesthetic amenities that will attract new private investment and economic development. • 2-A.99 Ensure that new development along Redlands Boulevard is pedestrian -oriented. 2-A.101 Address parking demand by finding additional areas to provide parking for Downtown, and by developing creative parking management strategies, such as shared parking, maximum parking standards, "smart" metering, utilizing on -street parking for reuse of existing buildings, paid parking, etc. Monitor the impacts of new technology such as the autonomous vehicle and car hire /car share services on the total demand for parking. • 4-P.41 Foster a connected, accessible, and active community by creating attractively designed pedestrian- and transit -oriented villages with a mix of uses in a compact area. • 4-P.44 Provide choices for travel options, including walking, biking, vehicular, and transit. • 4-P.46 Improve connectivity between Transit Villages and existing neighborhoods. • 4-P.50 Allow for density bonuses in the Transit Village Overlay Zone contingent on the provision of public benefits. Density bonuses shall be a minimum of 25 percent within a quarter -mile of each transit station, and 10 percent in areas located between a quarter -mile and a half -mile radius of each transit station. Public benefits may include but are not limited to amenities such as a public park, plaza, or playground; enhanced streetscaping; public art; or participation in a voluntary transfer of development rights program. • 4-A.16 Improve vehicular accessibility, traffic flow, and parking availability as well as pedestrian access and amenities within office, commercial, and industrial areas Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 169 PLAN POLICY REVIEW Key Recommendations (relating to sustainable and active transportation) • 4-A.114 [New York Street Transit Village] Establish boulevards along Redlands Boulevard and Colton Avenue with pedestrian -oriented streetscape improvements and ground -floor active uses • 4-A.126 [Downtown Redlands Transit Village] Establish boulevards along Orange Street, Colton Avenue, and Redlands Boulevard with pedestrian - oriented streetscape improvements and ground floor active uses. • 5-P.10 Require developers to construct or pay their fair share toward improvements for all travel modes consistent with the layered network. • 5-A.3 Ensure new street design and potential retrofit opportunities for existing streets minimize traffic volumes and/or speed as appropriate within residential neighborhoods without compromising connectivity for emergency vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and users of mobility devices. This could be accomplished through: Management and implementation of complete street strategies, including retrofitting existing streets to foster biking and walking as appropriate; Short block lengths, reduced street widths, and/or traffic calming measures; and Providing pedestrians and bicyclists with options where motorized transportation is prohibited. 5-A.4 Consider innovative design solutions to improve mobility, efficiency, connectivity, and safety through the use of traffic calming devices, roundabouts, curb extensions at intersections, separated bicycle infrastructure, high visibility pedestrian treatments and infrastructure, and signal coordination. • 5-A.5 As part of street redesigns, plan for the needs of different modes - such as shade for pedestrians, lighting at pedestrian scale, mode - appropriate signage, transit amenities, etc. 5-A.6 Add bike and pedestrian facilities on roads with excess capacity where such facilities do not exist, using supporting transportation plans as guidance. Excess capacity includes street right-of- ways or pavement widths beyond the standards, or excess capacity in roadways based on actual vehicular travel versus design capacity. 5-A.7 Add new streets to create a finer -grained, pedestrian -scaled road network where the roadway network is characterized by particularly long blocks, connecting residential areas to parks and Transit Village cores. Ensure the street systems in Transit Villages support development of connected and accessible communities. • 7-A.38 Revise development standards to require pedestrian connections into and inside commercial projects. 170 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan PLAN POLICY REVIEW City of Redlands Bicycle Master Plan (2015) Study Area Plan Type Citywide Master Plan Plan Overview The Plan provides a vision, strategies and actions for the improvement of bicycle infrastructure in the City of Redlands. Plan Vision Statement This Plan provides a vision for improving the bicycling environment by providing direction for the expansion of the existing bikeway network, connection of gaps, recommendations for bicycle support facilities, and education and awareness programs. Influence on SMP This Plan establishes an inventory of all bicycle infrastructure and recommended priority network improvements, as well as providing goals and recommendations for accommodating and encouraging bicycling. Key Recommendations (relating to sustainable and active transportation) Goals (see page 1-3 to 1-4) • Create an environment where people can circulate without a car. • Expand the role of bicycling as a contributor to economic vitality. • Increase the number of non -motorized trips in Redlands by encouraging people to bicycle instead of drive. • Decrease the number of bicyclist and pedestrian collisions, injuries and fatalities by 50 percent. • Promote the health of Redlands residents by making bicycling a safe and attractive option. • Facilitate the economic viability of Redlands by making Redlands an attractive place to live, shop and operate a business. • Work with transit agencies (OmniTrans, Metrolink) to promote first and last mile connections. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 171 PLAN POLICY REVIEW Key Recommendations (relating to sustainable and active transportation) Objectives (see page 1-4 to 1-6) • Provide connections to major destination points and trip generators. • Close gaps between existing facilities. • Create opportunities for usage of exclusive rights - of -way (i.e. for Class I facilities). • Analyze physical characteristics of roadways and suitability for accommodation of bicycle facilities (i.e. for Class II and III facilities). • Improve technology to ensure that cyclists can activate traffic signals at vehicle -activated intersections. • Provide secure and convenient bicycle parking throughout Redlands. • Create a network of pathways so that every neighborhood is within 1 /4 mile of an effective multi -use facility. • Reduce parking requirements near transit hubs. • Update the General Plan to include the facilities and programs proposed in this Bicycle Master Plan. Other recommendations: • The recommended facilities in this plan should be largely accomplished alongside the street repaving program. (4-1) • The critical remaining link of the Orange Blossom trail from Alabama Street to Grove Street was a high priority at the time the BMP was written. (4-1) • Traffic calming devices, such as speed tables and flashing beacons, should be included with every OBT crossing of a city street. (4-1) • The City should work in close collaboration with the County of San Bernardino to ensure that the Redlands portion of the Santa Ana Rail Trail is completed. (4-2) • Provide a connection to the City of Highland via Orange Blvd. • The Plan lists 12 priority intersection improvements. (Table 4-3 on page 4-5) • Consider the installation of bike boxes at intersections that are difficult for bicyclists. (4-5) • The City should consider installing bicycle detection at all actuated intersections. (4-6) • This Plan recommends the City consider green lanes through conflict areas on roadways with bike lanes. (4-6) • Short-term and long-term bike parking is needed close to destinations and should be convenient and visible (4-6 to 4-8) • Citywide bicycle network needs to be accompanied by a comprehensive wayfinding system, including distances to destinations. (4-8) • Bike stations - bike parking, repair, changing facilities, etc. (4-9 to 4-10) • Development of a maintenance schedule for bike, pedestrian, and multi -use path maintenance (4- 10) 172 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan PLAN POLICY REVIEW Key Recommendations (relating to sustainable and active transportation) Programs: • Education programs including (youth, adult, senior) bicycle safety and skills classes/clinics and a "share the road" campaign. (page 4-10 to 4-14) • Encouragement programs including bike valet at City events, youth -oriented and family -oriented bike rides, a bike light campaign, bike festivals, launch parties for new bikeways, a Bicycle Friendly Community designation, commuter incentive programs, Safe Routes to School programs, Bike Friendly Business Districts, bicycle hubs, Open Streets/Cyclovia events, bicycle tourism, bicycle maps, and a bikeshare program. (page 4-14 to 4-21) • Enforcement programs including speed radar trailers/feedback signs and bike patrol units (Police Department). (page 4-21 to 4-22) • Evaluation and Policy programs including a bicycle counts and survey program, adoption of a locally - appropriate Complete Streets policy, mapping bikeway investments, a bicycle report card, a bicycle parking development policy, and automatic bicycle counters. (page 4-22 to 4-24) Policy Changes • Redlands could use the Complete Streets Policy Workbook (see link below) to create a locally - appropriate Complete Streets policy. The code should require sufficient high -quality bicycle parking, installed correctly, based on land use classification. This requirement should be enforced. • A maintenance program specific to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure should be created that tales into account issues that pose safety hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists. (page 4-24 to 4-25) Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 173 PLAN POLICY REVIEW City of Redlands Transit Villages Specific Plan (2020) -DRAFT Study Area Transit Villages within Redlands Plan Type Plan Overview Specific Plan (Draft as of August 2020) Describes a vision and detailed guidelines for the development of each Transit Village. Plan Vision Statement This document outlines the City's plan for transportation, land use, and street design in the areas surrounding the three rail stations, including a major portion of Downtown. Key Recommendations Transportation Recommendations: (relating to sustainable • a network of complete, multi -modal streets that provide a positive environment for all users, including and active transportation) pedestrians, cyclists, transit patrons, and motorists (5:2) • calm traffic in pedestrian -oriented areas while maintaining vehicular flow capacity and accommodating emergency vehicles. (5.2) • Interconnected streets that enable a variety of alternative paths of movement between destinations. (5:2) • Short block lengths and strategically located street offsets to calm traffic without the need for post - construction interventions (such as speed bumps). Offset blocks also provide an opportunity to introduce buildings on parcels that occupy the terminus of the offset, enhancing the overall sense of place. (5:2) • Streets that accommodate two-way traffic and on -street parking to facilitate navigation, provide convenient parking in front of stores and residences, reduce the amount of required off-street parking, and calm traffic speeds. (5:2) • Narrow lane widths, tight curb radii, and short street crossings to calm traffic and provide a more comfortable and safe environment for pedestrians, cyclists, and automobiles. (5:2) 174 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan PLAN POLICY REVIEW Key Recommendations • Ample sidewalks, street trees, and generous (relating to sustainable streetscapes that provide shady, comfortable, and active transportation) and inviting places for pedestrians to walk, while defining the Village's unique and memorable sense of place. (5:2) • Lighting that generates an inviting and safe environment for pedestrians, cyclists, and commerce. (5:2) • Convenient access to the train stations, whether by foot, bicycle, scooter, bus, car, or transit network companies such as Uber and Lyft. (5:2) • Pedestrian -scaled blocks (new development built on megablocks includes new streets that form blocks less than 500 by 500 feet) (5:4) • Intersection improvements along corridors with higher vehicular volumes (at minimum, update to continental stripes but consider bulb -outs and pedestrian priority signal intervals) (5:4) • Mid -block intersection crossings should be updated with pedestrian -activated caution signals, continental striping, and adequate lighting. (5:4) • New signalized intersections to provide safer crossing opportunities (ex. Intersection of Shoppers Lane and Orange Street) (5:4) • Highway underpass improvements (5:5) • Downtown rail crossing (5:5) • New sidewalks along University Street and Redlands Blvd. (5:5) • Provision of key bicycle amenities such as bicycle parking, bike repair facilities, and on -site changing facilities within the plan area (5:8) New York Street Transit Village: Goals • Generate active, walkable streets with wide sidewalks, shade trees, and safe pedestrian crossings. Provide pedestrian and bicycle connections between the train station and the neighborhoods located north of the freeway. • Introduce pocket parks, plazas, and greens that accommodate playgrounds, dog parks, and public a rt. • Complete the Orange Blossom Trail as a link between the three stations and between Jennie Davis Park, Sylvan Park, and new parks, greens, and plazas along the way. Key Components The improvements of Redlands Boulevard with the introduction of missing sidewalks, a planted center median, bicycle lanes, and a crosswalk at New York Street. Recommended Improvements • Transform New York Street north of the New York Street/Esri Station into a gateway into a new transit -oriented residential neighborhood and/or office district. • Provide east -west bicycle connectivity by introducing bike lanes along Redlands Boulevard, Colton Avenue, and completing the Orange Blossom Trail through Downtown. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 175 PLAN POLICY REVIEW Key Recommendations (relating to sustainable and active transportation) Provide north -south bicycle connectivity by accommodating bicycles along New York Street and Texas Street. • As large blocks redevelop, introduce new streets to generate walkable blocks in keeping with Redlands traditional street and block pattern. Improve pedestrian connectivity by introducing pedestrian safety improvements, including introducing a crosswalk at the intersection of Redlands Boulevard and New York Street, upgrading existing crosswalks, and introducing pedestrian bulb -outs at key intersections (See Section 5.3). Downtown Redlands Transit Village Goals: • Create a mixed -use, multi -modal village around the Downtown Station. • Generate active, walkable streets with wide sidewalks, shade trees, benches, outdoor dining, and safe pedestrian crossings. • Recalibrate Downtown streets to create a balanced and safe environment for all travel modes: walking, biking, and driving. Provide pedestrian and bicycle connections between the train station and Downtown's unique destinations (Redlands Bowl, C.K. Smiley Library, etc.) and surrounding residential neighbor- hoods, especially those located north of the freeway. Replace the Redlands Mall with an interconnected street and paseo network lined with street trees and urban buildings. • Introduce pocket parks, plazas, and greens that accommodate playgrounds, dog parks, and public a rt. • Complete the Orange Blossom Trail as a link between the three stations and between Sylvan Park, Jennie Davis Park, and new parks, greens, and plazas along the way. Key components: • Rehabilitation of the Santa Fe Depot. A garage that provides parking for rail commuters and for patrons of nearby businesses. The garage also provides bicycle storage for commuters who ride their bikes to the train station. • A pedestrian passage across the railroad tracks along the Third Street alignment that enables pedestrians to cross between the north and south side of the tracks and provides access to the train platforms buses parked on Stuart Avenue and/or Shoppers Lane. The pedestrian passage is lined with stores and restaurants. • A plaza located south of the tracks that welcomes commuters and visiors arriving into Downtown Redlands. Bus parking along Stuart Avenue or Shoppers Lane within sight of, and walking distance of, the depot. 176 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan PLAN POLICY REVIEW Key Recommendations (relating to sustainable and active transportation) Recommended Improvements: Transform Orange Street into a gateway street into Downtown by introducing a landscaped median down its center. Also consider reducing the number of vehicular travel lanes from two in each direction to one, and introducing buffered bike lanes. • In conjunction with the introduction of streets within the Redlands Mall site, turn State Street between Orange Street and Seventh Street into a two-way street to provide more efficient circulation and facilitate access to businesses along the entire length of State Street. • Work with the owner of the Studio Movie Grill Theater to detail the parking aisle along the Shoppers Lane alignment between Third Street and Eureka Street as a street with sidewalks and street trees • in order to provide a more formal, urban connection between Eureka Street, future development that occurs west of Eureka Street, and the Downtown Station. • Provide east -west bicycle connectivity by introducing bike lanes along Redlands Boulevard, Colton Avenue, and completing the Orange Blossom Trail through Downtown. • Provide north -south bicycle connectivity by introducing bike lanes along Orange Street, or if Orange Street retains two vehicular lanes in each direction, along Sixth Street and along Eureka Street. • As large blocks redevelop, introduce new streets to generate walkable blocks in keeping with Redlands traditional street and block pattern. • Improve pedestrian connectivity by introducing upgraded crosswalks, introducing pedestrian bulb -outs at key intersections (designed • in conjunction with bike lanes, where present), and introducing improved lighting in the underpasses (see Section 5.3). University Transit Village Key components: • Strong pedestrian connections from the station to the Village and across University Street to Sylvan Park Recommended improvements: • Transform University Street into a geteway to the University of the Redlands • Introduce new streets that generate an interconnected network of walkable blocks • Improve east -west bicycle connectivity by completing the Orange Blossom Trail • Improve north -south bicycle connectivity by introducting bike lanes along University Street and designating Grove Street as a bike route • Improve pedestrian connectivity by introducing new and/or upgrading existing sidewalks (especially along University Street) and making the freeway underpasses more appealing for pedestrians. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 177 PLAN POLICY REVIEW SBCTA Passenger Rail Accessibility Plan (2020) Study Area Citywide ...................................................................................................................................................................... . Plan Type ...................................................................................................................................................................... . Plan Overview This project identifies existing barriers surrounding the planned station areas and proposes planning - level improvements based on analysis, relevant plans, community input, and industry best practices. ...................................................................................................................................................................... . Influence on SMP This plan specifically focuses on how to improve bicycle and pedestrian access to the new stations. ...................................................................................................................................................................... . Key Recommendations Recommendations: (relating to sustainable . Comprehensive Wa findin Plan (Signs, but Wa indin can also include virtual elements b providing digital and active transportation) p Wayfinding g Wayfinding y p g g applications (apps) and websites that help display walking or biking routes, time and distances.) • Pavement Markings: Bicycle Markings (or "sharrows") can be used on streets where traffic speeds and volume are low and it is important to communicate to roadway users that they are traveling along a shared roadway .Conflict markings at intersections help with overall safety and awareness for all and should be included in any intersections along bicycle facilities, trail access points and corridors in need of pedestrian enhancement. Network Development: The Rail Access Plan Includes recommended updates to the networks identified in the City of Redlands Bicycle Master Plan (2015) and the SBCTA Non -Motorized Transportation Plan (2018). (Figure 40 on page 88 details the changes from these plans. Pages 99 to 107 show detailed improvements for each station.) These recommendations are intended to complement and be consistent with the 2019 Draft Redlands Transit Villages Specific Plan. 178 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan PLAN POLICY REVIEW Key Recommendations • Roadway Resurfacing and Regular Maintenance (relating to sustainable and Monitoring: Roadway resurfacing should be and active transportation) prioritized for designated bikeways. In addition, ongoing maintenance of the on -street bikeway network should include street sweeping and periodic checks to identify areas where bike lane striping, stencils, and signs have been worn or damaged. Any signage that is missing should be replaced and any striping or stenciling that has become well-worn should be refreshed. Maintenance activities should be incorporated into current road checks and by maintenance requests from the public. • Bike Parking • Placemaking Elements and Amenities: increasing the desirability of the station areas through public art, small-scale retail operations, and safety enhancements such as additional pedestrian -scale lighting and gathering spaces, which encourage "eyes on the street," further mitigating the perception found at several stations of an unsafe environment. Recommended Criteria for network selection: Low -Stress: Most people who bike, or are interested in biking, prefer to bike on calm, low volume streets or streets that are separated from vehicular traffic. The proposed bikeway network strives to provide low stress routes that allow for families, and those that are interested but concerned about safety, to reach their destinations. Similarly, the pedestrian station area plans focus on high -stress intersections and segments that have the greatest potential to make the walking environment more comfortable, if improved. • Connectivity: The proposed recommendations close gaps in the existing active transportation network so that people can conveniently access Arrow stations, key destinations, activity centers, and existing facilities. • Safety: The proposed active transportation network and countermeasures improve safety by decreasing conflicts with motor vehicles. • Community: The community vision established by previous and concurrent planning efforts as well as the community input obtained through this planning process Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 179 PLAN POLICY REVIEW SBCTA Passenger Rail Accessibility Plan (2020) Study Area Plan Type Citywide Non -Motorized Transportation Plan Plan Overview The goal of this Plan is to develop a cohesive, integrated strategy for the development of a countywide network of active transportation facilities and identify funding sources to implement that plan. Influence on SMP Plans for countywide facilities will influence mobility decisions within Redlands, especially when it comes to facilitating greater connectivity between urban areas. ...................................................................................................................................................................... . Key Recommendations Priorities: (relating to sustainable • Deliver the Class I backbone bicycle system. Key elements of the backbone system: Santa Ana River Trail, and active transportation) Pacific Electric Trail, Orange Blossom Trail, San Timoteo Canyon Trail, Riverwalk Trail, Cajon Pass Connector - Route 66 Heritage Trail • Although the Class I facilities can be considered a backbone bicycle system, there is much more to the network than just Class I facilities. Other types of facilities can also be delivered more quickly and less expensively, improving regional connectivity. • Increase connectivity on Class 11 and Class III bicycle facilities by prioritizing the "low- hanging fruit" - parts of the regional system that are low-cost, close gaps in the system, and provide connections to key destinations • Development of regional trails and pathways which provide improved pedestrian access to destinations • Develop a better "sense of a system" through improved signage, markings, and way- finding for both cyclists and pedestrians • Improving pedestrian access to transit; Proactively coordinate integration of cycling and walking access accommodations to and from transit stations 180 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan PLAN POLICY REVIEW Key Recommendations (relating to sustainable and active transportation) • Proactively coordinate integration of cycling and walking accommodations with the State of California's Complete Streets requirements • Aggressively pursue grant funding and devote additional programmatic funding to non - motorized facilities Policies: • Develop better bicycle connectivity between cities and suburban areas of the County by coordinating the location and staging of network improvements. This must include improved collaboration with Caltrans, given the number of State highways connecting the subareas. Connectivity on Class II and Class III bicycle facilities can be increased by prioritizing the "low - hanging fruit" - parts of the regional system that are low-cost, close gaps in the system, and provide connections to key destinations. • Local jurisdictions are the agencies responsible for the identification of non -motorized transportation projects within their jurisdiction for inclusion into the Plan. SANBAG shall only serve in an advisory capacity with respect to the identification of projects on the regional network. SANBAG shall provide advice on the inclusion of projects that may serve to better establish connectivity between jurisdictions, intermodal facilities and regional activity centers. However, local jurisdictions have sole authority over all projects included in the Plan Local jurisdictions are also responsible for implementation of the projects included in the NMTP. SANBAG may provide advisory support to jurisdictions in the project development process on request. Should SANBAG be requested to provide assistance delivering a project in the Plan, such instances should be limited to development of regional non -motorized transportation facilities that provide connectivity to more than one jurisdiction or complete gaps within the regional non -motorized transportation network or serve to provide better access to transit facilities. • SANBAG shall prepare and update the comprehensive map identifying the County's non -motorized transportation system using its in-house GIS capabilities. Maintenance of the maps is also an important element of SANBAG's proposed 511 Traveler Information System. • SANBAG shall work with and encourage member agencies to incorporate non -motorized transportation facilities into general and specific plans as well as provide assistance in identifying design standards that provide for pedestrian- and bicycle -friendly access to transit facilities. Identify individuals within SANBAG, local jurisdictions, Caltrans, and transit agencies to be points of contact on non -motorized facility implementation and ensure communication on non -motorized topics among the agencies. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 181L PLAN POLICY REVIEW Key Recommendations • SANBAG shall work with its member agencies (relating to sustainable to develop a regional way -finding system to and active transportation) assist travelers to identify the non -motorized transportation system. Any such system developed shall be developed in collaboration with local jurisdictions, will afford an opportunity for member agency customization, and promote connectivity to transit facilities, park and ride lots, and other regional activity centers. • SANBAG shall work with member agencies to coordinate delivery of the NMTP and projects contained in the Nexus Study. • SANBAG shall work with and encourage transit operators to provide end -of -trip pedestrian and bicycle -serving facilities, such as bike lockers, racks, and capacity on transit vehicles to carry bicycles and better facilitate the integration and use of non- motorized transportation within the regional transportation system. • SANBAG shall, when feasible, support local education and safety efforts currently being implemented through local law enforcement, highway patrol, Caltrans and schools to better educate children and adults on the safe use of bicycles and to promote the non- motorized transportation system. • SANBAG and member agencies shall conduct regular bicycle and pedestrian counts to monitor the effects of implementation of the NMTP. SANBAG shall work to identify funding for the monitoring of Class I, separated shared -use facilities, so that no financial impact is borne by the local jurisdictions for collection of count information. Counts conducted on Class II and Class III, on -street bicycle facilities, shall correspond with counting for intersections that are both on the non -motorized network and require CMP Monitoring as outlined in the Congestion Management Program. When counts for non-CMP intersections are desired, SANBAG shall be responsible for identifying funding for such counts. • SANBAG shall use their Non -Motorized Transportation plan as the basis to allocate state, federal, and local funds for delivery of non - motorized transportation improvements. Fund types may include, but are not limited to, federal Transportation Enhancement (TE), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), state Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA), and Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds • SANBAG shall work with member agencies to identify state/federal bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure or planning grant opportunities. When funding opportunities arise, SANBAG shall work to support local jurisdiction grant applications or collaborate with local jurisdictions to directly submit grant applications for projects in the Plan. 182 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan PLAN POLICY REVIEW Key Recommendations Recommendations: (relating to sustainable • Deliver the Class I, II and III identified in the and active transportation) subarea maps referenced in Chapter 3. Although the Class I facilities can be considered a backbone bicycle system, there is much more to the network than just Class I facilities. Other types of facilities can also be delivered more quickly and less expensively, improving regional connectivity. • Develop a better "sense of a system" through improved signage, markings, and way- finding for both cyclists and pedestrians. • Develop an improved inventory of end -of -trip facilities, particularly at transit stations, schools, other public buildings, and major employment centers. • Proactively coordinate integration of cycling and walking access accommodations to and from transit stations. • Continue safety education and promotion of cycling through schools, newsletters, and public websites. • Proactively coordinate integration of cycling and walking accommodations with the State's Complete Streets requirements, once guidelines are finalized by the State. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 183 PLAN POLICY REVIEW SBCTA Passenger Rail Accessibility Plan (2020) Study Area Plan Type Countywide Master Plan Plan Overview This phase of the Regional Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Plan was created with the purpose of guiding strategic improvements to the safety and accessibility of non - motorized transportation networks around San Bernardino County schools. Influence on SMP Three schools within Redlands are included as selected school sites (Clement Middle School, Franklin Elementary School, and Lugonia Elementary School). Key Recommendations Goals of Phase ll: (relating to sustainable • Support the overall Countywide Vision and implementation strategy for providing safe routes to schools in and active transportation) San Bernardino County that encourage alternate mode choices for students and parents. • Build upon the Phase I inventory and prioritization study to better integrate SRTS sites and corridors with Countywide active transportation efforts including the other components of the Active Transportation Plan. • Develop a student data collection strategy to document the benefits of active transportation in order to leverage more SRTS funding for local jurisdictions.Conduct and document walk audits to better identify their exact infrastructural needs and provide access accommodations for students to bicycle and walk to school. • Define a series of possible implementation efforts to identify and remove barriers, over time, to active transportation for all of the schools in the County. • Address both actual and perceived safety concerns, together with strategies that could significantly decrease bicycle and pedestrian facilities and injuries. 184 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan PLAN POLICY REVIEW Key Recommendations Goals of SBCTA Regional SRTS Plan: (relating to sustainable • Increased bicycle and pedestrian access. Expand and active transportation) bicycle and pedestrian facilities and access within and between neighborhoods, to employment centers, shopping areas, schools, and recreational sites. • Increased travel by cycling and walking. Make bicycling and walking an integral part of daily life in San Bernardino County, particularly (for bicycle) for trips of less than five miles, by implementing and maintaining a bikeway network, providing end -of -trip facilities, improving bicycle/transit integration, encouraging bicycle use, and making bicycling safer and more convenient. • Routine accommodation in transportation and land use planning. Routinely consider bicyclists and pedestrians in the planning and design of land development, roadway, transit, and other transportation facilities, as appropriate to the context of each facility and its surroundings. • Improved bicycle and pedestrian safety. Encourage local and statewide policies and practices that improve bicycle and pedestrian safety. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 185 PLAN POLICY REVIEW Applicable Regulations Iy4a WITMR: Icto] W_NIIQ 0 F►1 American with Disabilities Act (ADA) These federal regulations include a set of standards for removing accessibility barriers in public places. PROWAG (Public Right -of -Way Access Guidelines) PROWAG are federal standards proposed by the United States Access Board. While this resource is in draft status as of 2020, many agencies apply PROWAG as a minimum in anticipation of formal adoption. STATE REGULATIONS California Complete Streets Act (AB 1358) This act requires that the legislative body of a city or county, upon any substantive revision of the circulation element of the general plan, modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways, defined to include motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods, and users of public transportation, in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan. Active Transportation Program (ATP) Requirements for ATP- compliant Active Transportation Plans, which are eligible for funding, include: The estimated number of existing bicycle trips and pedestrian trips in the plan area, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of all trips, and the estimated increase in the number of bicycle trips and pedestrian trips resulting from implementation of the plan. The number and location of collisions, serious injuries, and fatalities suffered by bicyclists and pedestrians in the plan area, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of all collisions and injuries, and a goal for collision, serious injury, and fatality reduction after implementation of the plan. A map and description of existing and proposed land use and settlement patterns which must include, but not be limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools, shopping centers, public buildings, major employment centers, and other destinations. A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transportation facilities. A map and description of existing and proposed end -of - trip bicycle parking facilities. A description of existing and proposed policies related to bicycle parking in public locations, private parking garages and parking lots and in new commercial and residential developments. A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transport and parking facilities for connections with and use 3L86 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan PLAN POLICY REVIEW of other transportation modes. These must include, but not be limited to, parking facilities at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, ferry docks and landings, park and ride lots, and provisions for transporting bicyclists and bicycles on transit or rail vehicles or ferry vessels. A map and description of existing and proposed pedestrian facilities at major transit hubs. These must include, but are not limited to, rail and transit terminals, and ferry docks and landings. A description of proposed signage providing wayfinding along bicycle and pedestrian networks to designated destinations. A description of the policies and procedures for maintaining existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including, but not limited to, the maintenance of smooth pavement, freedom from encroaching vegetation, maintenance of traffic control devices including striping and other pavement markings, and lighting. A description of bicycle and pedestrian safety, education, and encouragement programs conducted in the area included within the plan, efforts by the law enforcement agency having primary traffic law enforcement responsibility in the area to enforce provisions of the law impacting bicycle and pedestrian safety, and the resulting effect on accidents involving bicyclists and pedestrians. A description of the extent of community involvement in development of the plan, including disadvantaged and underserved communities. A description of how the active transportation plan has been coordinated with neighboring jurisdictions, including school districts within the plan area, and is consistent with other local or regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation plans, including, but not limited to, general plans and a Sustainable Community Strategy in a Regional Transportation Plan. A description of the projects and programs proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities for implementation, including the methodology for project prioritization and a proposed timeline for implementation. A description of past expenditures for bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs, and future financial needs for projects and programs that improve safety and convenience for bicyclists and pedestrians in the plan area. Include anticipated revenue sources and potential grant funding for bicycle and pedestrian uses. A description of steps necessary to implement the plan and the reporting process that will be used to keep the adopting agency and community informed of the progress being made in implementing the plan. A resolution showing adoption of the plan by the city, county or district. If the active transportation plan were prepared by a county transportation commission, regional transportation planning agency, MPO, school district or transit district, the plan should indicate the support via resolution of the city(s) or county(s) in which the proposed facilities would be located. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 11.87 PLAN POLICY REVIEW California Government Code §65302 (Complete Streets) (2) (A) Commencing January 1, 2011, upon any substantive revisions of the Circulation Element, the legislative body shall modify the Circulation Element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan. (B) For purposes of this paragraph, 'users of streets, roads, and highways' means bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, users of public transportation, and seniors. California Green Code (CALGreen) - Part 11 of the California Building Standards Code These bicycle parking requirements apply to all new residential and non-residential buildings: • Bicycle Parking and Changing Rooms: Comply with sections 5.106.4.1 and 5.106.4.2; or meet local ordinance or the University of California Policy on Sustainable Practices, whichever is stricter. • Short -Term Bicycle Parking: If the project is expected to generate visitor traffic, provide permanently anchored bicycle racks within 100 feet of the visitors' entrance, readily visible to passers-by, for 5 percent of visitor motorized vehicle parking capacity, with a minimum of one two -bike capacity rack. • Long -Term Bicycle Parking: For buildings with over 10 tenant -occupants, provide secure bicycle parking for 5 percent of motorized vehicle parking capacity, with a minimum of one space. Acceptable parking facilities shall be convenient from the street and may include: • Covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored racks for bicycles • Lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored racks • Lockable, permanently anchored bicycle lockers Deputy Directive 64 (DD- 64-111) Caltrans must address the "safety and mobility needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users in all projects, regardless of funding." Traffic Operations Policy Directive 09-06 This directive is designed to ensure the provision of bicycle and motorcycle detection on all new and modified approaches to traffic -actuated signals in the state o f California. California Assembly Bill 1193 (2014) This bill allows local bikeway designs to deviate from the California Highway Design Manual if designs are based on standards crafted by a national association of public agency transportation officials. The bill also enabled local governments to build protected cycle tracks. California Assembly Bill 2245 (2014) Planners are no longer required to conduct environmental impact reports (EIRs) for bike lane projects. Instead, cities and counties are required to prepare a traffic and safety study of the proposed bicycle lane project, file a CEQA-exemption notice with the state and County, and lgg Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan PLAN POLICY REVIEW conduct public hearings to discuss the project's impact. California Senate Bill 1183 (2014) Senate Bill 1183 allows jurisdictions to propose a small vehicle registration fee on their local ballot to fund bike trails and paths on park district lands. The fee must be no more than five dollars and requires approval from at least 2/3 of local voters Article 3. California Bicycle Transportation Act • Section 887: Construction of non -motorized transportation facilities on state highways • Section 889: The state can identify and promote bicycle routes or significance • Section 891: Local agencies must utilize minimum safety criteria established pursuant to Section 890.6 • Section 892.a: Rights -of - way established for other purposes by cities, counties, or local agencies shall not be abandoned unless the governing body determines that the rights -of -way or parts thereof are not useful as a non -motorized transportation facility. California Government Code Title 7 Division 2 Chapter 4 Article 3 (Subdivision Dedications) • 66475.1: Whenever a subdivider is required pursuant to Section 66475 to dedicate roadways to the public, the subdivider may also be required to dedicate additional land as may be necessary and feasible to provide bicycle paths for the use and safety of the residents of the subdivision California Streets and Highways Code Chapter 8 - Non -Motorized Transit: • Division 13: Pedestrian Malls, Pedestrian Mall Law of 1960 LOCAL REGULATIONS Redlands Municipal Code 10.48.010: Establishment of Crosswalks between intersections • 10.48.020: Establishment of Crosswalks at intersections • 10.48.040: Pedestrians must cross at right angles to the curb • 12.12.110: Tress not to obstruct: It is unlawful to permit the branches or foliage of any tree, plant, hedge or bush growing on private property to obstruct the free passage of vehicles in the roadway of any street or of pedestrians upon the sidewalk portion thereof, or to hang over such portion of sidewalk within seven feet (7) of the surface thereof. • Chapter 12.22: Dedication and Improvements for Nonsubdivision development projects - the developer must dedicate rights of way necessary to construct facilities identified in the City's General Plan. (This is also true when alteration work exceeds $1 OK) • Chapter 12.52: Trees and Tree Protection Along Streets and in Public Places • Chapter 12.55: Signs on Public Property • Chapter 17.15: Subdivision dedications, reservations, and development fees: • With parkland dedication, principal consideration shall be given to lands that offer (among other criteria) integration with hiking, riding and bicycle trails, natural stream reserves and other open space Chapter 18.16: Districts and Zoning Map • 18.164.070: Minimum Requirements for parking spaces • 18.164.310: Requirements for parking areas (including landscaping) Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 189 PLAN POLICY REVIEW Roadway Maintenance The City of Redlands Street Maintenance Division is responsible for the maintenance of roadways within city limits, including sidewalks and bike lanes. The Facilities & Community Services Department maintains a full-time crew responsible for pothole patching and other related asphalt pavement repairs. Sidewalk repairs are scheduled according to the following criteria: If vertical displacement is less than �/2 inch along the entire length of the developed crack, no work will be required on the sidewalk. If the maximum vertical displacement is between 1/2 and 3 inches, the condition shall be rectified by wedging the uplifted sidewalk with asphalt or any other product approved by the Director. Vertical displacement exceeding 3 inches shall be wedged as described above and the damage sidewalk shall be scheduled for replacement as the budget allows. Management Program (PMP) In 2012, the City Council adopted a comprehensive Pavement Management Program (PMP) which provided a condition assessment of all City streets and guidelines for prioritization of street maintenance work. In developing the PMP, the physical condition of City streets was evaluated, rated, and the remaining projected life cycle determined. The PMP further identifies a schedule for maintenance and reconstruction of City streets at specified time intervals in order to extend the overall life -expectancy of all City streets in the most efficient and economical manner possible. In addition, the PMP establishes a comprehensive process to prioritize the rehabilitation of City streets and is a powerful tool to aid in the decision making process in order to best utilize financial resources. The PMP takes into account the fact that patching and rehabilitating streets in poor condition can quickly decimate the City's street maintenance budget. Streets that are in relatively good condition require routine maintenance to prevent them from deteriorating to the point where more costly repairs will be required, which is why these streets may be prioritized over "failed" or "crisis" streets. Preventing the cycle of deterioration from beginning allow is staff to best utilize financial resources. However, full resurfacing is scheduled for poor condition streets and reconstruction is recommended for failed streets through the Department's capital improvement program. Igo Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan PLAN POLICY REVIEW As a part of the pavement management program update, a major element of work was to complete a comprehensive assessment of the existing street network and PMS database within the City. The 2020 Pavement Management Program (PMP) Report established segment priorities for repair and resurfacing, taking into account cost, distress quantity, area extent, type and severity of damage. Recommendations in the City of Redlands Bicycle Master Plan • Develop a schedule for bike, pedestrian, and multi -use path maintenance: (page 1-5). • Maintain bicycle network and facilities on a regular basis. Include bicycle lane maintenance within the operating budget, and continue on an ongoing basis • Establish guidelines for maintenance of multi -use paths and bikeways that serve as bicycle commuter routes by 2020. • Add bicycle lane sweeping as a standalone item. • Bikeway maintenance and repair phone number should be included on a Redlands bicycle website Recommendations in the Redlands Passenger Rail Accessibility Plan • Roadway Resurfacing and Regular Maintenance and Monitoring: Roadway resurfacing should be prioritized for designated bikeways. In addition, ongoing maintenance of the on -street bikeway network should include street sweeping and periodic checks to identify areas where bike lane striping, stencils, and signs have been worn or damaged. Any signage that is missing should be replaced and any striping or stenciling that has become well worn should be refreshed. Maintenance activities should be incorporated into current road checks and by maintenance requests from the public. Active Transportation Program (ATP) Requirements The California Department of Transportation Active Transportation Program (ATP) is designed to increase walking and bicycling trips and safety, enhance environmental benefits from active transportation facilities, improve public health, cater to the needs of disadvantaged communities and provide a variety of projects for many types of non motorized facility users. For an ATP- compliant Active Transportation Planto be eligible for funding, it must include (among other requirements) a description of the policies and procedures for maintaining existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including, but not limited to, the maintenance of smooth pavement, freedom from encroaching vegetation, maintenance of traffic control devices including striping and other pavement markings, and lighting. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan igi PLAN POLICY REVIEW Existing Programs EDUCATION PROGRAMS • Redlands Police Department Bike Safety Rodeos • Redlands Children's Bicycle Health and Safety Expo (annual event hosted by RPD) • Inland Empire Bicycle Alliance (IEBA) Education Programs (including maintenance clinics, Safe Routes to School, adult and youth education classes, Buddies Program) ENCOURAGEMENT PROGRAMS • Redlands International Bicycle Classic • Bike BBQ (Bike Kitchen with permanent location and pop - UPS) • Redlands Interscholastic Cycling Organization • Redlands Waterbottle Transit Company (RWBTC) • Ride Yourself Fit and Walk Yourself Fit clubs • Moore Middle School Bike Club • Strada Corsa • Inland Empire Biking Alliance (IEBA) Encouragement Programs (including events, a Bicycle Friendly Business program, bicycle valet, trailbuilding partnership, employer bikeshare, bike rentals, Lights for Life program, and Student Survival Kits) EVALUATION PROGRAMS • IEBA Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts 192 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan PLAN POLICY REVIEW This page intentionally left blank Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 193 nnd'x B List of Data Sources LIST OF DATA SOURCES Data Sources SOURCE Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS)/ The data set listed in Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) the following table were ................................................................................... downloaded and used throughout this document. City of Redlands ................................................................................... California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) ................................................................................... Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) ................................................................................... California Department of Education ................................................................................... The California Healthy Places Index (HPI) ................................................................................... San Bernardino County Transit Authority ................................................................................... US Census / Census Reporter ................................................................................... OmniTrans ................................................................................... 196 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan LIST OF DATA SOURCES This page intentionally left blank Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 197 A DDe a x Walk/Bike Aud0 it 0 Observations WALK/BIKE AUDIT OBSERVATIONS Bicycle and Pedestrian Walk Audit #1 The first Bicycle and Pedestrian Audit was conducted on September 22, 2020. The walk audit location included Lugonia Elementary School and Clement Middle School, bounded by Lugonia Avenue, Orange Street, San Bernardino Avenue, and Church Street. Ten community members participated in the audit to share their experiences walking and biking around the audit location. Within the area, important topics of conversation and areas of focus included, the Community Park during football and baseball season, the two schools and the safety of the surrounding streets, lack of shade, and narrow sidewalks. The project team made stops at intersections, crossings, bike facilities, and other popular streets that community members identified. The audit was framed as an ongoing conversation, during which participants were encouraged to call out comments or add them to the chat. Key Attendee Observations Participants who attended this Bicycle and Pedestrian Audit were very familiar with this area and were eager to share their experiences navigating most of these facilities. Narrow sidewalks were seen as a common obstacle for pedestrians. Participants also brought up the lack of shade around this location. Participants found the walking environment to be very uncomfortable, especially during the summer months, and expressed the importance of having shade at bus stops and along sidewalks. Lack of crossing opportunities along San Bernardino Avenue and Church Street were brought up as an obstacle, especially during the football and baseball seasons at the Community Park. For bicycle facilities, participants expressed concern about the lack of bike facilities along Lugonia Avenue and Orange Street. Participants were generally happy with the protected bike lane on San Bernardino Avenue and Church Street, but noted that there should be more protection for bicyclists on San Bernardino Avenue. 200 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan Figure 51. Walk Audit #1 Comments W S_n B_rnardino Ave Bernardino E San A Ave 1 I Lugonia Elementary School & Clement Middle School Walk Audit Comment Locations 1 I @ Bicycle Infrastrucutre Q Personal Security 1 ® Pedestrian Infrastrucutre srar Traffic Volume and Speed 1 © Clement Lack of ••• Walk Audit Route Middle School Community Park W Pennsylvania Ave V Kimberly 0 Of Gail Ave San Juan Ave J 1 Denise Ave in San Marcos Ave (D Lalania Ave 1 rn m � O ' 1 ; @ mr E Penns-1--i- A— ■ 1 1 1 ' Lugonia JurupaAv Elementary School �, 1 ® M 1 Q ' 1 Hidalgo Av 1 1 a 1 1 1 W Delaware Ave 1 1 p` W Lugonia Ave e 01 1 Delaware Ave E Delaware Ave E 1 1 U 1 = 1 1 1 1 IE Orange St Holly Ln ' 1 1 1 t 1 ' Orange St E Sharon I 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 I E Lugonia Ave State Rte 38 250 500 (n (n o FeeQ � Map produced by Alta Planning +Design May 2¢�jlj Data Sources City of Redlands, SCAG, SBCTA, WALK/BIKE AUDIT OBSERVATIONS Bicycle and Pedestrian Walk Audit #2 The second Bicycle and Pedestrian Audit was conducted on September 24, 2020. The audit location included Citrus Valley High School, Pioneer Avenue, Texas Street, Orange Street, and San Bernardino Avenue. Five community members participated in the audit to share their experiences walking and biking around the audit location. Within the area, important topics of conversation and areas of focus included, access to the Mountain Grove Shopping Center, freeway underpasses, lack of sidewalks, and future improvements around the school. The walk audit was framed as an ongoing conversation, during which participants were encouraged to call out comments or add them to the chat. Key Attendee Observations Participants who attended this Bicycle and Pedestrian Audit were very familiar with this area and were eager to share their experiences navigating most of these facilities. For pedestrians, one major theme was the lack of pedestrian facilities near the freeway underpasses. Participants mentioned that many people walk on the street due to missing sidewalks. Also, participants mentioned that sidewalks should be wider on Pioneer Avenue and obstacles such as trees located in the middle of the sidewalk should be moved elsewhere. There were concerns about future development removing street trees. Community members want to make sure there is shade in the northwestern part of the city. For bicycle facilities, one major theme was access to the Mountain Grove Shopping Center. A few avid bicyclists said that it is almost impossible to navigate the freeway underpasses going eastbound. Participants also talked about the lack of bicycle facilities in this area, especially since the high school is located here. Participants mentioned that they wanted to see an increase in bicycle facilities in this part of Redlands. 202 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan in CITRUS VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL Walk Audit Comment Locations • Bicycle Infrastrucutre • Pedestrian Infrastrucutre © Lack of Shade QPersonal Security smr Traffic Volume and Speed • • • - Walk Audit Route W D_mesticAve Springs Ln Israel Beal Park Figure 52. Walk Audit #2 Comments Domestic Ave Riverview Dr` c M m Blue Jay Ln Mountain Vista Cir 1 ' M of Citrus Valley 1 c = o Dubois St o High School —0 1 XI v � Midway St 12 1 1 Virginia St Deodar St 1 � 1 W Pioneer Ave STOP 1 1 Baldwin Ave 1 1 1 1 aa) No Dreka Ave O 1 1 � c 1 1 I 0 rn � 1 1 N 1 ��. W San Bernardino Ave Garr � 1 lan. n — — — — iIli — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 7 O E Elise Dr Cq 1 1 in O o � M Elise Dr 1 E 1 rn Elise Dr c Elise Dr Canterbury Cir U Elise Dr Elise Dr I 0 500 1,000 ° Feet Y Map produced by Alta Planning +Design�vlay 202 Data Sources City of Redlands, SCFG, SBCT� WALK/BIKE AUDIT OBSERVATIONS Bicycle and Pedestrian Walk Audit #3 The third Bicycle and Pedestrian Audit was conducted on September 29, 2020. The walk audit location included the ESRI campus, Redlands Adventist Academy, and several large apartment complexes, bounded by Redlands Boulevard, Tennessee Street, Brookside Avenue, and Center Street. Five community members participated in the audit to share their experiences walking and biking around the area. Within the area, important topics of conversation and areas of focus included commuting to and from the ESRI campus, the future Arrow station, challenges with biking along and crossing major streets, and incomplete sidewalks. The project team made stops at intersections, crossings, bike facilities, and other popular streets that community members identified. The audit was framed as an ongoing conversation, during which participants were encouraged to call out comments or add them to the chat. Key Attendee Observations Participants who attended this Walk Audit were very familiar with the area and had ample experience navigating most of the facilities. For pedestrians, the inconsistent or incomplete sidewalk facilities were seen as a problem needing attention. There were also missing curb ramps at Redlands and Tennessee, raised medians at Brookside and Center, and other hazards for pedestrians using a mobility device. Participants also brought up that Brookside is a common street for people to try to cross mid -block and they felt that adding some mid -block crossings would make this safer. Tennessee was mentioned as a good walking street that felt safe for school -age children and the many other users who travel that corridor. In terms of bicycle facilities, attendees generally felt neutral to positive about Tennessee Ave as a biking street, and State Street was also a very popular route, especially for ESRI employees. While the bike lanes on Brookside were seen favorably, there were concerns about lack of buffering between bicyclists and cars. The other issue along Brookside was the difficulty of safely getting from the bike lane to make a left turn across traffic. Audit attendees mentioned that they considered this a more advanced maneuver, limiting who could use the Brookside bike lanes. Intersections with large streets in general were a consistent concern, including large street crossings (such as those at Redlands Blvd) and also those with poor visibility and lack of consideration (especially State Street and Center). 204 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan Figure 53. Walk Audit #3 Comments U a5 a U co 0 ca y Y Citrus Ave W Citrus Ave Orange Ave U a 0 3 m m 0 Parker Ct Milburn Ave 500 1,000 Feet �', N a� c H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Y 3 ESRI Campus z Walk Audit Comment Locations iD Bicycle Infrastrucutre ® Pedestrian Infrastrucutre © Lack of Shade �r Jennie Davis Par % q 1b =i3 W State St � , 2 1 ' 00� 1 A 'Si 1 I 1 z ' IP_ 1 1 ` d 1 , 3d � 1 ems, f 1 � 1 ��r 1 1 � gin. 1 Pine Ave Gp. 'G i � �e,,�♦ 1 Palrnbrook lei i 1 Dr °°�, ems. s 1` �a�e° ♦'' IPr 1 %i'� ♦ S of r o1 •°'� ♦ •' w� Gti Sr %,r d G �i9s �d ORjm <'?0 cPr Rio W i !� Sr QPersonal Security sTa. Traffic Volume and Speed •••. Walk Audit Route 'iental Ave W Pearl Ave U) Y N Y Z W Z Z N A- ��0� io„ Sr tr eP�e cP dL. O"� 2%• sd w� 5ti 00 V` 0 gyp. Map pr?&-ced by Alta Planning +Design May 2020. d'r Data Sources City of Redlands, SCAG, SB20S WALK/BIKE AUDIT OBSERVATIONS Bicycle and Pedestrian Walk Audit #4 The fourth and final Bicycle and Pedestrian Audit was conducted on October 1, 2020. The walk audit location included the Citrus Valley Shopping Center, bounded by Cypress Avenue, Cajon Street, Highland Avenue, and Roosevelt Street. Six community members participated in the audit to share their experiences walking and biking around the audit location. Within the area, important topics of conversation and areas of focus included shopping center, Prospect Park, Cajon Street, and concerns about Redlands Blvd. We made stops at intersections, crossings, bike facilities, and other popular streets that community members identified. The audit was framed as an ongoing conversation, during which participants were encouraged to call out comments or add them to the chat. Key Attendee Observations Participants who attended this Bicycle and Pedestrian Audit were very familiar with this area and were eager to share their experiences navigating most of these facilities. Participants were generally pleased with the walking environment along Cajon St, especially the fact that pedestrians are separated from vehicle traffic by landscaping. Some of the obstacles identified for pedestrians in this study area included long blocks without mid -block crossings, shopping center entrances where drivers tended to be distracted, the lack of sidewalks on Redlands Blvd or Highland Ave, and crossings where visibility could be improved. The area near Prospect Park was highlighted as a place where greater attention could be given to creating an inviting pedestrian environment, since this is a popular destination. In terms of bicycle facilities, participants expressed their enthusiasm regarding Highland Avenue as a bike route. They felt that this street was an enjoyable and comfortable route that many bicyclists used. Cajon was also mentioned as being extremely popular despite the dangers created by the adjacent parking lane (such as potential to be hit by opening doors and cars that are parked partially in the bike lane). Participants had concerns about Redlands Blvd being developed as an on -street bicycle route, since many felt the speeds were simply too high to make this change safely. 2o6 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan hN ' o G , Figure 54. Walk Audit #k4 w oo Cypress Avenue `� �d Walk Audit Comment Locations `3 * ♦`♦ ON Pie ;� Bicycle Infrastrucutre O Personal Security O^°�5 L `♦ °fie 01 © Pedestrian Infrastrucutre nun Traffic Volume and Speed an. �a O ♦ O 6�� O ♦�o o^ e © Lack of Shade •••• Walk Audit Route �� G� ♦;s° _ _3�' rya ♦ w P16\0 O 01 ♦♦ N 'oO e`s °� ♦ r` 40 odd ,♦♦ G\\ �0�eeG dle` ` Pie Oe ♦,♦ S� Ga`ae�� G- , �y° ♦ �Qe� ♦ O^ ♦ O �J� ♦ °� Pie G cxwo�G` �� ado �e S; �� r�°� G� `♦`♦ a ^co co SP 6. Q s ♦ 01 I c +Oe co O ♦♦ �e`e 0� 9i Qr\° S Eureka Ct ♦ � ate � a `.°5, �A cC'�� a t��a �e % kf 6a�e a fie P i O ♦♦ d� ♦ W01 I `♦ � s t03 � �' dr w^ ♦ O^ i wos� ♦,, 01- O ♦♦ � Pie rFc4jG Gram ��w Fih S o� tr ` �, °en e� Or J �^ J`P�e � , (tee S� e ° e 0 tiP250 500 Feet d'r Comments Ford Park V" I/' Nl�ced by Alta Planning 46esign May Data Sources City of Redlands, SCAG, SI \DDe n aI x School S0 ite Assessfr, SCHOOL SITE ASSESSMENTS School Site The Project Team identified the existing conditions at a quarter mile buffer around 12 schools serving Redlands. Assessing the existing conditions around schools is an important component when Assessments creating recommendations. The overall school site assessment reviewed existing conditions, including existing bikeways, existing sidewalks, missing sidewalks, stop signs, curb ramps, signage, etc. Below are the 12 schools that were reviewed: • Bryn Mawr Elementary School • Citrus Valley High School • Cope Middle School • Crafton Elementary School • Franklin Elementary School • Kingsbury Elementary School • McKinley Elementary School • Mentone Elementary School • Moore Middle School • Orangewood High School • Smiley Elementary School • Victoria Elementary School * Note: Bryn Mawr Elementary School, Mentone Elementary School, and Victoria Elementary School are not within the City Boundary, but are in the City's School Enrollment Boundaries. The SMP will evaluate the accessibility to these three schools within the City of Redlands. 210 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan BRYN MAWR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Existing Conditions I Existing / Proposed Bikeway •• Class I Bike Path —�-• Class II Bike Lane ••••• Sidewalk ••••• Missing Sidewalk I I 1 1 I 1 ----------� 1 1 , I / I I I I I I 1 -----------� -----------� I I I I I I I , 1 I I I I I s -------------------------/ Stop Sign School Boundary I I 1 _ I- ® Curb Ramp Park I /� ODrop off/Pickup i RE i Leonard I 1 I BaileySir D IF -, 1 R 17 `-- ---� �PICTON$T -- CI ` , r, c1 `------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - / ------�4- I 1-------_,_.% I Bryn Mawr I --------------------- �' `• `. , Elementary W I Z' I 1 I I School I - --------------------- ----- -.---- . 7�e1 - 1 1------_ T+ i ;I �++�•� I ------------------------ I I I 1 VVV���-------GEORISEST ————— — — 1 — — —— ---� ------- /-------- - - - - - ------1111-------------------------------------- / '. I /---' 0 1 2�6—'/ 500 �___-------' 1 I — — — ' I I�� Map produced by Alta Planning +Design May 20', Data Sources City of Redlands, SCAG, SBCT 211 CITRUS VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL Existina Conditions I" Sidewalk ----- Missing Sidewalk — Walking Path I I , 1 , , ' f Signalized Intersection School Boundary I I I I I I I , I Stop Sign Park j I , I ---------------------------, Q----� I---- ---' --— — — — — — � p Curb Ramp O Drop off/Pick up DOMESTIC AVE I 1 I I I I � I I _ I --- � —� i I I I I I I 1 I I I i Citrus Valley g High School I I I I I I „ , I „ , 1 „ , I p I � � 1 I 1 I -------------------------------------------------------- ' PIONEERAVE ��-------------------- ------------� i-------------------------------------------------------------�----------------------------------------� -- ------------ BALDWINAVE--------------------- 1 I -------------------- --------------------I , I 1 I i i ICI I I 1 I IWI N 1 I 1 I 1 y 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 1 L e ' 0 I I I I I I 1 I 250 500 1 I I I I Feet i Map produced by Alta Planning +Design May a020. Data Sources City of Redlands, SCAG, s TA, 212 COPE MIDDLE SCHOOL Existing Conditions Existing / Proposed Bikeways , / "/, ` ` ♦`, \`\ \`, `�.. Class II Bike Lane O Drop off/Pick up School Advance `� —i•-• Class III Bike Route � Stop Sign warning ® Rectangular Rapid Sidewalk V Curb Ramp © Flashing Beacon ..... Missing Sidewalk ® Speed Feedback Sign School Boundary \�\ \`♦ ``♦ \`\ \ �yJ`♦\ ♦` `\ `\ \ Cope \' \ Middle School ♦ `\ `, RFD ` `\ ""/ `\ `\ `, `\ --, \ \ ♦ ` \ ` \\ Smiley �`. ♦\, ♦`; `\ \`,; ., X'� Elementary ♦:� " `; School �" �� aFeet Map produced by4 a Pjernnitlg -�pesign May 2020. \ ♦ `♦ Data Sowces pity of Redlands SCAG, SBCTA, 213 CRAFTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Existing Conditions I I Existing / Proposed Bikeways I Grafton ' --• Class I Bike Path Stop Sign City Boundary ' —�-• Class II Bike Lane V Park Curb Ramp School Boundary � I ----- Sidewalk v Bus Stop Park ; ----- Missing Sidewalk O Drop off/Pickup --------------------- - INDEPENDENCEAVE I I , I I ' I 1 , Crafton Elementary Ij School lit , / I ------------ a 1 1 / / / A Feet I I 1 I I I �\ 1 ' ECITRUS AVE -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — —�_ I \ I 1 , 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I \ r- r------1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 I � I Map produced by Alta Planning +Design May 2020. Data Sources City of Redlands, SCAG, SBCTA, 214 FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL , ---------- Existing Conditions I , 1 , I I I T I I 1 Iml 1 Signalized Intersection School Boundary Stop Sign Park I I I I —®�I p Curb Ramp tI Drop off/Pickup—— — — — --- --------- , --- Speed Feedback Sign ----------- I------------------ I I-------- -------- i i 1 1" 1 ' 1 University of 1, Redlands 1 , , , -------------------------------r--------------- ---' ------ _ --------------���--- - ECOLTONAVE -- -- - 1-------------------------------------- ----- -- ---1 ------------- , Franklin 1 t ' Elementary I �' I I I o STILLMANAVE I ' ------------ School ----------------�� :21 IT , -------- --------------------------------- �I_________—______J I , 1 , , E HIGH AVE ' '----------;------------------------------ -- -- - -- Sylvan I 1 -- 'Par • -- '-------------- I k ' ----- STUART AVE 1 �' —_-------_ 1 1 777 I I I b 250 500 I I I 1 I Feet ; i \ Map produced by Alta Planning +Design May 2020 Data Sources City of }2edlhnds, SCAG, SBCTA, Existing / Proposed Bikeways •• Class I Bike Path •• Class II Bike Lane —d •• Class III Bike Route ••••• Sidewalk ••••• Missing Sidewalk I -_______—__ - ----_______________-- ----------� ----------------, I gig �a `\ \\ �` - ♦ \ KINGSBURY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL • \ , Existing Conditions \ •• ` \ . Existing /Proposed Bikeways .' � \ f'" � \ --- Class I Bike Path Stop Sign O Drop-Off/Pick-Up `\ `♦ \` ` \` Class 11 Bike Lane IL;X Curb Ramp School Boundary \`\ ♦\ ``\ /-'""' �/' '`\ `` �- -- Class III Bike Route\ Signalized Intersection ..... Sidewalk ..... Missing Sidewalk Kingsbury Elementary ' School \� ` Feet`� ._, \ ♦♦ \ \` ,/ `� ,•'' `; `�`� \ `> t Mapproduce`d yAlta Planning �0esigrWay202C ,_'� // ` \ 1 Data Sources City of Redlands,3•CAG. SBCTA McKINLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Existing Conditions `\ , \ - Existing Proposed Bikeways Class II Bike Lane Signalized Intersection School Boundary Sidewalk Stop Sin Park "� \ p 9 '"®] Smiley ` �\` ..... Missing Sidewalk p Curb O Drop off/Pickup ` \\ \\\ �\ ,. Sacred \ Park " Rectangular Rapid Heart ' Flashing Beaconit \ \ \ - `Academy \\�W\ `\ \ \ � \ \ \ \ �•\ \\ ff�\ yak `\ \ McKinle Elementary 1 School ` \` \` / PeetR(l \ / Map protiBoed by Alta Planning +Design ay 2020. G\ `\ ` ,'Da#6Sources City of Redlands, SLAG, BCTA, 217 --------------, MENTONE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Existing Conditions j Existing / Proposed Bikeways ' 1 I , �... Class II Bike Lane � Signalized Intersection v Bus Stop ' 1 1 1 ..... Sidewalk Stop Sign I City Boundary ' ..... Missing Sidewalk p Curb Ramp School Boundary , I I . School Advance Warning I O Drop off/Pick up ' j _____________1-____-___ , 1 I � , I 1 I I I 1 I I I N � , ' la' a I � I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 I ' � ' I 1 � ' , I ' ' I ' ' I ' 1 ' 1 1 I I I_ I 1 --------------- ______-___ - - - - - jo------ ---------------------- 1 I , I 1 , I I 1 1 I , I I , I 1 , I , , 1 , , II - - - - - - - - - ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 e 0 i f 2b6---t7 Q--� Feet -------------MADEIRAAVE— SIERRA PINE DR ' �� 1 1 Mentone-----"�� 1 Elementary 1 g, School I p I I I Iol 1 I I I I=I I I I I 1 I I 1 I -------------------------------------- --- \---i------ -------- WOUILVII-------------------- ________________________ ------------------------ I -----� Q--------- ----------------- r------- 1 1 I I I I �I � 1 � 1 � I � I I 1 I I I 1 , 1 � I , I � I I 1 .1 -r I , I Map produced by Alta PlenrlWg +Design May Data Sources City o' Redlands, SCAG, SI I 1 I I I I I 1 1 MOORE MIDDLE SCHOOL Existing Conditions 1 1 Existing / Proposed Bikeways --• Class II Bike Lane �--• Class III Bike Route ----- Sidewalk ..... Missing Sidewalk ' I I ' I I ' , I ' I I Stop Sign School Boundary 1 , I I p Curb Ramp O Drop off/Pick up I 1 ®Rectangular Rapid v Bus stop 1 I I or - 1 s , ' Flashing Beacon , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .' '-------------- I Speed Feedback Sign , I I I I IZI -------------` �`,' ♦♦ ♦ _/ I 1 EHIGHAVE—--------- --- 1 I I � • I I Moore 1 Middle I School I , 1 I ----- --------------------------------------------- 1 I YYY 1 I 1 - I I 1\ I I I 1 `\ `\ I I♦-___/ I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I I ------------- el I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 'l I I \\ \\ 1 I 1 \ ` 1 , 1 I , � I ♦ / 1 � 1 I I I /' ♦' 1 � 1 ' I I I I \ ��- \ 1 I 1 , \ \ ' / 1 ' I 1 1 1 .-- - STHAVE ,l1� ------------------------ -- - - -` Feet -- -- ` �.�\ i i M4 produced by Alta Planning+Design May 202C - 1 ! I I D4ta Sources City of Redlands, SCAG, SBCTA, 1 219 ORANGEWOOD HIGH SCHOOL I , Existing Conditions Proposed / Existing Bikeways 4•• Class I Bike Path —+.. Class II Bike Lane .• Class III Bike Route ..... Sidewalk ..... Missing Sidewalk wRED 4AWS81V6 - — — — I ---------- I '• ' '• ' —COLT AVE Signalized Intersection --------- II Stop Sign School Boundary I I I I P Curb Ramp Park ' n I I I I Drop off/Pickup m! , 11 I II I II I � I�I I I I I I 1 , H I I I � I .r• I I ; Orangewood ; ; ; H ; ` I High School I I I I 1 ` ---`-------------------II_t1----------------- WSTUARTAVE-------------------�------- ciW - 1�5iiWW I , _ ' Jennie Davis ___ ___ _______ _ ___ _ I I I I -------------------ORIENTAL AYE _- -------------- - - - - -� Park - I � , I ,---------------- - - - - -- ' 1 ----------------��}---��@__ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I I I - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - `-I - i .Y'i� . ` -- — — I Feet � �� \ \ �\ M oduced by Alta Planning +Design May' 020. ata Sources City of Redlands, SCAG`, SB�TA, 220 SMILEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Existing Conditions ' Existing / Proposed Bikeways .. Class II Bike Lane `�•- Class III Bike Route Sidewalk ..... Missing Sidewalk / N01` Cope ` Signalized Intersection . School Advance Warning � Middle Stop Sign School Boundary `` `` School V Curb Ramp %MIS Drop off/Pickup ® Speed Feedback Sign \ `i\1*100 Smile Elementary School SPa� \ , �F5 ` < /' / NO\ `� `� Map produced k y Alta\Planning +Design May 2020 "IN ` ` ` Data Sources'\City�Qf Redlands, SCAG, SBCTA, 221 VICTORIA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Existing Conditions -- Sidewalk p Curb Ramp ----- Missing Sidewalk O Drop off/Pick up I9 Stop Sign = City Boundary I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I ----------: ----------1 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I __________ 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 _---------- 0 I 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 ------------------------------OO----- -------------------- - - - - - - - - C----- School Boundary Park I ------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------- --------------------------VI(T----E---- ------------------------ 1 ' 1 ' I ' I ' 1 , I , 1 , i I I ' I ' 1 ' I Victoria ----------- ------T------------------- r Elementary Victori HARDTS ® -------------------------------------(IIIIIl�l 1 School Park -HARDTST ------------- �-------- I �_--_-------- --- ----------------- I I � ' I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- EGOULDST- - - -------------------- I ---- l oo I -------------- Ai' la -------------------- --�------------ Io ____ EGOULDST _ F�,�• � � AI to 1 1 I AI I I E DAVIDSON ST_ _------- ------ ---- � I 1 1 1 � -- � L J -- --' I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ^ ------------------------ ' I 1 250 500 J_`------------------------------------------ �. _�---,------ ------ 222 This page intentionally left blank \DDUnd'X Bi0 0 cycle & Pedestrlot Network Recommel BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS Proposed Bicycle Network The table below lists all of the recommended projects that were sourced from previous plans and community input. STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT LENGTH (MI) Santa Ana River Trail Mountain View to Greenspot Rd 1 8.2 ............................................................................................................................................. Ford St Highland Ave to Elizabeth St II 1.7 ............................................................................................................................................. Pioneer Ave Citrus Valley HS to Orange St 1 0.5 ............................................................................................................................................. Orange St North City Limit to Pioneer Ave 1 1.2 ............................................................................................................................................. Orange Blossom Trail Mountain View Ave to Bryn Mawr Ave 1 1.4 ............................................................................................................................................. Zanja Creek Trail 0BTto Grove St 1 0.7 ............................................................................................................................................. Orange Blossom Trail New York St to Naples St 1 2.0 ............................................................................................................................................. San Timoteo Creek Trail Beaumont Ave to South City Limit 1 3.9 ............................................................................................................................................. Nevada St Santa Ana River Trail to Palmeto St 1 0.2 ............................................................................................................................................. Palmetto Ave California St to Nevada St 1 0.3 ............................................................................................................................................. San Jacinto St Highland Ave to Crescent Ave III 0.2 ............................................................................................................................................. San Timoteo Canyon Rd Barton Rd to Live Oak Rd 111 4.1 ............................................................................................................................................. 226 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT LENGTH (MI) Serpentine Dr and Sunset Dr Highland Ave to Alessandro Rd III 1.3 .............................................................................................................................................. Sunset Dr S Alessandro Rd to Alta Vista Dr III 3.4 ............................................................................................................................................. Highland Ave Serpentine Dr to Redlands Blvd III 1.7 ............................................................................................................................................. Wabash Ave Reservoir Rd to Palo Alto Dr III 1.0 ............................................................................................................................................. Alessandro Rd Crescent Ave to San III 1.6 Timoteo Canyon Rd ............................................................................................................................................. Hilton Ave and Sunset Dr Garden St to Alta Vista Dr III 3.0 Mariposa Dr Sunset Dr to Rossmont Dr III 1.0 ............................................................................................................................................. Reservoir Rd Ford St to Wabash Ave III 1.1 ............................................................................................................................................. Elizabeth St Crescent Ave to Mariposa Dr III 1.5 ............................................................................................................................................. Garden St Cajon St to Elizabeth St III 0.8 ............................................................................................................................................. South Ave Cajon St to Henrietta St III 0.2 ............................................................................................................................................. Beaumont Ave San Timoteo Canyon Rd to City Limit II / III 0.4 ............................................................................................................................................. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 227 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT LENGTH (MI) Cajon St Highland Ave to South Ave 111 0.6 ............................................................................................................................................. Redlands Blvd Fern Ave to Ford St III 1.4 ............................................................................................................................................. Alta Vista Dr Outer Highway 10 to Sunset Dr III 0.8 ............................................................................................................................................. Henrietta St South Ave to Elizabeth St III 0.2 Church St Santa Ana River Trail to III 0.7 San Bernardino Ave Cajon St Citrus Ave to Olive Ave III 0.2 ............................................................................................................................................. Orange St Colton Ave to Citrus Ave II / III 0.5 ............................................................................................................................................. Highland Ave Ford St to Dearborn St III 0.5 ............................................................................................................................................. Church St Riverview Dr to San Bernardino Ave III 0.5 ............................................................................................................................................. Orange St N City Limit to Colton Ave II 2.5 ............................................................................................................................................. Redlands Blvd Fern Ave to Ford St II 1.4 ............................................................................................................................................. Eureka St State St to Brookside Ave II 0.1 ............................................................................................................................................. Zanja/Orange Connect Zanja Creek Trail to II 0.1 Orange Blossom Trail ............................................................................................................................................. 228 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT LENGTH (MI) San Timoteo Canyon Rd .............................................................................................................................................. Barton Rd to Nevada St II 0.4 Mountain View Ave OBT to 1-10 ramp II 0.3 .............................................................................................................................................. Alabama St Santa Ana River Trail to Donut Hole II 0.2 .............................................................................................................................................. San Bernardino Ave Wabash Ave toward Suffel St II 0.1 .............................................................................................................................................. Naples Ave .............................................................................................................................................. Wabash St to OBT II 0.1 Colton Ave Dearborn St to OBT II / IV 0.5 .............................................................................................................................................. Live Oak Rd San Timoteo Canyon Rd II 2.7 .............................................................................................................................................. to W City Limits Mentone Blvd .............................................................................................................................................. Crafton Ave to Brant St II 0.8 Garnet Ave .............................................................................................................................................. City Limits II 0.2 Greenspot Rd .............................................................................................................................................. City Limit to Florida Ave II 0.2 Orange Grove Trail Bryn Mawr Ave to San II 0.7 .............................................................................................................................................. Bernardino Ave Center St State St to Crescent Ave 11 1.8 .............................................................................................................................................. University St .............................................................................................................................................. San Bernardino Ave to Cypress Ave 11 1.7 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 229 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT LENGTH (MI) Lincoln St Lugonia Ave to Highland Ave II 1.2 .............................................................................................................................................. Park Ave OBT to Kansas St II 1.2 .............................................................................................................................................. Orange Blossom Connector Stuart Ave to Redlands Blvd II 0.0 .............................................................................................................................................. 6th St Stuart Ave to OBT II 0.0 .............................................................................................................................................. Stuart Ave .............................................................................................................................................. New York St to 6th St 11 0.8 New York St Lugonia Ave to Stuart Ave 11 0.7 .............................................................................................................................................. New York St 0BT to End of New York St 11 0.2 .............................................................................................................................................. Texas St .............................................................................................................................................. Santa Ana River Trail to State St 11 2.2 Grove St Brockton Ave to Citrus Ave 11 0.7 .............................................................................................................................................. Redlands Blvd .............................................................................................................................................. Colton Ave to Fern Ave 11 2.2 San Bernardino Ave OBT to California St 11 1.0 .............................................................................................................................................. Wabash Ave Sessums Dr to Reservoir Rd 11 2.6 .............................................................................................................................................. Lugonia Ave .............................................................................................................................................. California St to Wabash St 11 4.2 ego Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT LENGTH (MI) Pioneer Ave Buckeye St to Wabash Ave 11 3.6 .............................................................................................................................................. State St Alabama St to Eureka St II 1.4 .............................................................................................................................................. Nevada St .............................................................................................................................................. Lugonia Ave to Barton Rd II 1.5 Alabama St N City Limit to Santa Ana River Trail II 0.7 .............................................................................................................................................. Santa Ana River Trail Greenspot Dr to Cone Camp Rd II 0.2 .............................................................................................................................................. Brockton Ave / Nice Ave Wabash Ave to Opal Ave II 0.2 .............................................................................................................................................. Colton Ave California St to Dearborn St II 4.0 .............................................................................................................................................. Ford St Santa Ana River Trail to II 0.5 .............................................................................................................................................. San Bernardino Ave Tennessee St San Bernardino Ave to State St II 1.2 .............................................................................................................................................. Fern Ave San Timoteo Canyon Rd II 0.4 .............................................................................................................................................. to Terracina Blvd Brookside Ave Terracina Blvd to Lakeside Ave II 0.6 .............................................................................................................................................. Dearborn St .............................................................................................................................................. Pioneer Ave to Lugonia Ave II 0.9 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 231 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT LENGTH (MI) Terracina Blvd Olive Ave to Smiley Heights Dr II 0.5 ............................................................................................................................................. San Bernardino Ave E Donut Hole to Texas St II 0.5 ............................................................................................................................................. Alabama St Lugonia Ave to Park Ave II 0.8 ............................................................................................................................................. None California St 1 0.2 None Santa Ana River Trail to 1 0.6 San Bernardino Ave None City Limits to Santa Ana River Trail II / III 0.2 ............................................................................................................................................. None Sylvan Blvd to Wabash Ave 1 0.7 ............................................................................................................................................. 6th St Lugonia Ave to Olive Ave 11 1.1 ............................................................................................................................................. Clay St Colton Ave to Pioneer Ave 111 1.2 ............................................................................................................................................. Eureka St Citrus Ave to Fern Ave III 0.5 .............................................................................................................................................. Eureka St Colton Ave to Citrus Ave II 0.5 .............................................................................................................................................. None Redlands HS Stadium 1 0.1 ............................................................................................................................................. 232 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT LENGTH (MI) W Park Ave Bike Rack at Post Office Tennesee St at OBT Intersection Improvement ............................................................................................................................................. Kansas St Bike/Ped Bridge ............................................................................................................................................. W Citrus Ave and New York St Intersection Improvement ............................................................................................................................................. W State St and N Center St Intersection Improvement ............................................................................................................................................. Texas St b/w W Stuart Safer grate Ave and Oriental Ave ............................................................................................................................................. W Redlands Blvd and 3rd St Better bike detection ............................................................................................................................................. Brookside Ave and N Center St Make more intuitive (signage?) ............................................................................................................................................. Linda Place and S Center St Left turn safety improvements for bikes traveling south ............................................................................................................................................. W Citrus Ave and Cajon St Better bike detection ............................................................................................................................................. Orange St and E State St Better bike detection ............................................................................................................................................. S 5th St Bike parking needed here ............................................................................................................................................. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 233 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT LENGTH (MI) E State St Bike parking needed here .............................................................................................................................................. E Citrus Ave and Olive Ave Improved left turns from Citrus to .............................................................................................................................................. Olive when traveling west E State St and E Citrus Ave .............................................................................................................................................. Intersection Improvement Citrus Ave and S Church Improved crossing safety for left turns from Citrus .............................................................................................................................................. to Church; Bicycle sensor needs to detect bikes Cypress Ave and Redlands Blvd .............................................................................................................................................. Improved turning from Cypress onto Redlands Blvd E Stuart Ave and S Church St .............................................................................................................................................. Improved crossing safety from Stuart onto Church E Lugonia Ave and Church St .............................................................................................................................................. Bike rack needed at shopping center W Lugonia Ave and 6th St .............................................................................................................................................. Redesigned medians N University Stand Lugonia Ave Improved safety conditions for bicycles .............................................................................................................................................. traveling through this intersection N University St and E Brockton Ave .............................................................................................................................................. Improved turning N University Stand Campus Ave .............................................................................................................................................. Improved crossing safety University St and Sylvan Blvd .............................................................................................................................................. Mid -block crossing Improvement 234 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT LENGTH (MI) E Citrus Ave and Grove St Improved turning from Citrus onto Grove ............................................................................................................................................. E Palm Ave and Redlands Blvd Improved turning from Palm onto Redlands ............................................................................................................................................. Ford Park (W corner) Improved entrance to park with bike racks, smooth sidewalks, signage, etc. ............................................................................................................................................. University St and San Improved turning safety for left turns Bernardino Ave from University to San Bernardino ............................................................................................................................................. Dearborn St and E Lugonia Ave Better bike detection ............................................................................................................................................. Alabama St and Orange Tree Ln Improved turning safety for left turns from Alameda to Orange Tree ............................................................................................................................................. N Center St and Buena Vista St Improved turning safety for turns from Center to Buena Vista ............................................................................................................................................. W State St and ............................................................................................................................................. Tennessee St Improved turning safety for bikes New York St at ............................................................................................................................................. OBT Improved wayfinding at this crossing N San Mateo St and Brookside Ave Separate bike signal ............................................................................................................................................. W San Bernardino Ave Better bike detection and Orange St ............................................................................................................................................. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 235 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS Proposed Pedestrian Network The table below lists all of the recommended projects that were sourced from previous plans and community input. STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT Texas Street Between 1-10 and Redlands Blvd Pedestrian Path ........................................................................................................................................................ Redlands Blvd Between Kansas and 1st Pedestrian Path ........................................................................................................................................................ New York St / Stuart Ave ........................................................................................................................................................ Between Colton and Texas Pedestrian Path Park Ave Between Church and Cook Pedestrian Path ........................................................................................................................................................ Parallel to Redlands Rail Corridor ........................................................................................................................................................ University to Grove Pedestrian Path Central Ave ........................................................................................................................................................ Between University and Judson Pedestrian Path Sylvan Blvd ........................................................................................................................................................ Between University and Judson Pedestrian Path Cook St Between Sylvan and Citrus Pedestrian Path ........................................................................................................................................................ University ........................................................................................................................................................ Between Central and 1-10 off -ramp Pedestrian Path University ........................................................................................................................................................ Between Park and Central Pedestrian Path University ........................................................................................................................................................ Between Brockton and Sylvan Pedestrian Path New Street ........................................................................................................................................................ Between Sylvan and Central Pedestrian Path 236 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT Pioneer Ave SR 210 Improved sidewalks ........................................................................................................................................................ W San Bernardino Ave SR 210 Improved sidewalks ........................................................................................................................................................ W Lugonia Ave ........................................................................................................................................................ SR 210 Improved sidewalks Nevada St 1-10 Improved sidewalks ........................................................................................................................................................ W Lugonia Ave ........................................................................................................................................................ Mountain View Ave Off-street path Barton Rd California St to Nevada St Improved sidewalks ........................................................................................................................................................ Iowa St Hyacinth to Park Improved sidewalks ........................................................................................................................................................ Orange Ave Orangewood Ct to Kansas St Improved sidewalks ........................................................................................................................................................ New off-street path Tennessee to Brookside Off-street path ........................................................................................................................................................ Brookside Ave ........................................................................................................................................................ Tennessee Street Improved sidewalks W Olive Ave San Rafael St to San Mateo St Improved sidewalks ........................................................................................................................................................ W Olive Ave Roberts Rd to Bellevue Ave Improved sidewalks ........................................................................................................................................................ W Fern Ave ........................................................................................................................................................ San Timoteo Canyon Rd to Terracina Blvd Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 237 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT San Timoteo Canyon Rd W Fern Ave to Frontage Rd Pedestrian Access ....................................................................................................................................................... W Crescent St Alessandro Rd to S Center St Sidewalk ....................................................................................................................................................... Cajon St / E Franklin Ave ....................................................................................................................................................... Summit Ave to Garden St Improved sidewalks W Sunset Dr Crown St to Ridge St Improved sidewalks and lighting ....................................................................................................................................................... Alessandro Rd ....................................................................................................................................................... W Sunset Dr to San Timoteo Canyon Rd Improved pedestrian safety W Lugonia Ave Texas St to Clay St Improved sidewalks ....................................................................................................................................................... New off-street path Riverside Dr to Riverside Dr Off-street path ....................................................................................................................................................... New off-street path ....................................................................................................................................................... Domestic Ave to Orange St Off-street path W Stuart Ave Small area between Texas St and Lawton St Sidewalk ....................................................................................................................................................... Orange Blossom Trail ....................................................................................................................................................... Tennessee St to Alabama St Sidewalk Alabama St Calvary Cir to Orange Ave Sidewalk ....................................................................................................................................................... E Redlands Blvd E Fern Ave to Ford St Sidewalk ....................................................................................................................................................... Ford St ....................................................................................................................................................... Crestview Dr S to sidewalk Sidewalk egg Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT Ford St 1-10 Sidewalk ........................................................................................................................................................ E Highland Ave 1-10 Sidewalk ........................................................................................................................................................ E Palm Ave 1-10 Sidewalk ........................................................................................................................................................ Lytle St E Cypress Ave to S University St Lighting ........................................................................................................................................................ E Cypress Ave 1-10 underpass to E Citrus Ave Sidewalk ........................................................................................................................................................ Church St 1-10 Sidewalk ....................................................................................................................................................... N Lincoln St Sylvan Blvd to Laramie Ave Sidewalk ....................................................................................................................................................... S University Ave E Citrus Ave to E Cypress Ave Sidewalk ....................................................................................................................................................... Highland Ave Monterrey St to 1-10 Sidewalk ....................................................................................................................................................... Church St E Pennsylvania Ave to Church PI Sidewalk ........................................................................................................................................................ Pioneer Ave Tennessee St to Furlow Dr Sidewalk, Lighting, Shade ........................................................................................................................................................ Texas Street North of W Pioneer Ave Sidewalk ........................................................................................................................................................ San Bernardino Ave Tennessee St to Webster St Sidewalk ........................................................................................................................................................ Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 239 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT San Bernardino Ave Hanford St to Torino St Sidewalk ....................................................................................................................................................... Extension path to Redlands HS stadium Pedestrian Path ....................................................................................................................................................... Pedestrian promenade Pedestrian Path ....................................................................................................................................................... Pedestrian promenade Pedestrian Path ....................................................................................................................................................... Sunset Dr Walking Path ....................................................................................................................................................... New York St Underpass Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Texas St Underpass Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Eureka St Underpass Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Orange St Underpass Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... 6th St Underpass Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Park Ave Underpass Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... University St Underpass Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Citrus Ave Underpass Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... 240 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT Texas St and Colton Ave Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Eureka St and Colton Ave Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Orange St and Colton Ave Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... 6th St and Colton Ave Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Tennessee St and Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... New York Stand Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Texas St and Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Eureka St and Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Orange St and Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... 5th St and Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ 6th St and Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ Citrus Ave and Eureka St Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ Citrus Ave and Orange St Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 241 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT Citrus Ave and 6th St Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... 4th St and Vine St Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... 6th St and Vine St Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Parkwood Dr and Glenwood Dr Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... University Stand Park Ave Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Citus Ave and Cypress Ave Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Colton Ave and University St New Signalized Intersection ....................................................................................................................................................... Central Ave and University St New Signalized Intersection ....................................................................................................................................................... University St and Sylvan Blvd Mid -block crossing Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Orange St and Oriental Ave New Signalized Intersection ....................................................................................................................................................... Citrus Ave and 4th St Mid -block crossing Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Brookside Ave and Grant St Mid -block crossing Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Grant St and Glenwood Dr Mid -block crossing Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... 242 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT Eureka St Mid -block crossing Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Olive St and Grant St Mid -block crossing Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... E Cypress Ave Underpass Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Brookside Ave and N Center St Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Brookside Ave and Brookdale Dr Mid -block crossing Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Cajon St and W Vine St Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... 9th St and E Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Citrus Ave and E Olive Ave Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Cajon St and W Home St Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... E State St and E Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... 6th St and E Stuart Ave Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... N University Stand Campus Ave Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... W Sun Ave and Orange St Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 243 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT 6th St and Lugonia Ave Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ Texas St and W Brockton Ave Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ Pioneer Avenue underpass SR 120 Underpass Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ Domestic Ave and Clementine St Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ W State St and N Center St Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ New York St and State St Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Tennesee St at OBT Mid -block crossing Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Kansas St North of Orange Ave Bridge ....................................................................................................................................................... W Olive Ave and San Mateo St Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Dana St and W Palm Ave Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ W Highland Ave and Alvarado St Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ E Palm Ave and Hibiscus Dr Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ E Palm Ave and La Paloma St Mid -block crossing Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ E Cypress Ave and Lytle St Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ 244 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT E Cypress Ave and S University St Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ N Grove St at OBT Access improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ Ford St and Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ Ford St underpass at 1-10 Underpass Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ Ford St and Parkford Dr Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ E Sunset Dr S and Rossmont Dr Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Orange Ave and Tennessee St Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... E Cypress Ave and Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Redlands Blvd at Shopping Center Driveway crossing improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Cajon st and W Highland Ave Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ W Cypress Ave and Cajon St Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ W Pennsylvania Ave and Orange St Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ W Pennsylvania Ave and Church St Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ Lugonia Ave and Church St Bus stop improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 245 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS STREET TO/FROM Texas Street north of Pioneer Ave E Brockton and N University St Brookside Ave and N Buena Vista St PROPOSED PROJECT Mid -block crossing Improvement New Signalized Intersection Mid -block crossing Improvement 246 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Network on Mojor Corridors The table below lists all of the recommended projects organized by major corridors in Redlands. STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT Colton Ave California S to Dearborn St Class II Bike Lane ........................................................................................................................................................ Colton Ave Dearborn St to OBT Class II Bike Lane or Class IV Protected Bike Lane ........................................................................................................................................................ Colton Ave University Ave New Signalized Intersection ........................................................................................................................................................ Highland Ave Serpentine Dr Class III Bike Route ........................................................................................................................................................ Highland Ave Monterrey St to 1-10 Pedestrian Path ........................................................................................................................................................ E Highland Ave I-10 Pedestrian Path ........................................................................................................................................................ Cajon st and W Highland Ave Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ W Highland Ave and Alvarado St Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ Lugonia Ave California St to Wabash St Class II Bike Lane ........................................................................................................................................................ W Lugonia Ave & 6th St Redesign Median ........................................................................................................................................................ E Lugonia Ave and Church St Bike rack needed at shopping center ........................................................................................................................................................ Lugonia Ave Texas St to Clay St Pedestrian Path Connection ........................................................................................................................................................ Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 247 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT Lugonia Ave Church St Bus Stop Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... W Lugonia Ave SR 210 Pedestrian Path ....................................................................................................................................................... W Lugonia Ave Mountain View Ave Pedestrian Path ....................................................................................................................................................... Orange St Colton Ave to Citrus Ave Class II Bike Lane or Class III Bike Route ....................................................................................................................................................... Orange St N City Limit to Colton Ave Class II Bike Lane ....................................................................................................................................................... Orange St N City Limit to Pioneer Ave Class I Bike Path ....................................................................................................................................................... Orange St & E State St Bike Detection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Orange St Colton Ave Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Orange St 1-10 Underpass Underpass Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Orange St Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Orange St Oriental Ave New Signalized Intersection ....................................................................................................................................................... Redlands Blvd Colton Ave to Fern Ave Class II Bike Lane ....................................................................................................................................................... Redlands Blvd Fern Ave to Ford St Class II Bike Lane ....................................................................................................................................................... Redlands Blvd Fern Ave to Ford St Class III Bike Route ....................................................................................................................................................... 248 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT W Redlands Blvd and 3rd St Better bike detection ........................................................................................................................................................ Redlands Blvd Between Kansas and 1st Pedestrian Path Connection ........................................................................................................................................................ E Redlands Blvd E Fern Ave to Ford St Pedestrian Path ........................................................................................................................................................ 9th St and E Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ E State St and E Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ Tennessee St and Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Eureka St and Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Redlands Blvd at Shopping Center Driveway crossing improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... E Cypress Ave and Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Ford St and Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ San Bernardino Ave OBT to California St Class II Bike Lane ........................................................................................................................................................ W San Bernardino Ave & Orange St Bike Detection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ San Bernardino Ave E Donut Hole to Texas St Class II Bike Lane ........................................................................................................................................................ San Bernardino Ave Wabash Ave toward Suffel St Class II Bike Lane ........................................................................................................................................................ Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 249 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS STREET TO/FROM University St and San Bernardino Ave San Bernardino Ave W San Bernardino Ave San Bernardino Ave Tennessee St to Webster St SR 210 Hanford St to Torino St PROPOSED PROJECT Improved left turns from Univ onto SB Pedestrian Path Connection Pedestrian Path Pedestrian Path ego Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS This page intentionally left blank Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 251 Append'x F BICycle & Pedestrian 0Prioritized Projects BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PRIORITIZED PROJECTS Tier 2 Bicycle Prioritized Projects The table below lists the Tier 2 bicycle prioritized projects. STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT Brookside Ave Terracina Blvd to Lakeside Ave Class II Bike Lane ..................................................................................................................................... Eureka St Citrus Ave to Fern Ave Class III Bike Route ..................................................................................................................................... Eureka St Colton Ave to Citrus Ave Class II Bike Lane ..................................................................................................................................... Santa Ana River Trail Mountain View to Greenspot Rd Class I Bike Path ..................................................................................................................................... Orange Blossom Connector Stuart Ave to Redlands Blvd Class II Bike Lane ..................................................................................................................................... San Timoteo Canyon Rd Barton Rd to Nevada St Class II Bike Lane .................................................................................................................................... Ford St Highland Ave to Elizabeth St Class II Bike Lane .................................................................................................................................... Wabash Ave Sessums Dr to Reservoir Rd Class II Bike Lane ..................................................................................................................................... Zanja/Orange Connect Zanja Creek Trail to Orange Blossom Trail Class II Bike Lane ..................................................................................................................................... Brockton Ave / Nice Ave Wabash Ave to Opal Ave Class II Bike Lane ..................................................................................................................................... Redlands Blvd Fern Ave to Ford St Class II Bike Lane ..................................................................................................................................... Redlands Blvd Fern Ave to Ford St Class III Bike Route ..................................................................................................................................... 254 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PRIORITIZED PROJECTS STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT Highland Ave Serpentine Dr to Redlands Blvd Class III Bike Route ..................................................................................................................................... Orange St North City Limit to Pioneer Ave Class I Bike Path ..................................................................................................................................... Alabama St ..................................................................................................................................... N City Limit to Santa Ana River Trail Class II Bike Lane Eureka St State St to Brookside Ave Class II Bike Lane ..................................................................................................................................... San Timoteo Canyon Rd ..................................................................................................................................... Barton Rd to Live Oak Rd Class III Bike Route Alabama St Santa Ana River Trail to Donut Hole Class II Bike Lane ..................................................................................................................................... Mountain View Ave ..................................................................................................................................... OBTto 1-10 ramp Class II Bike Lane San Bernardino Ave ..................................................................................................................................... Wabash Ave toward Suffel St Class II Bike Lane Naples Ave Wabash St to OBT Class II Bike Lane ..................................................................................................................................... None ..................................................................................................................................... Redlands HS Stadium Class I Bike Path Lincoln St Lugonia Ave to Highland Ave Class II Bike Lane ..................................................................................................................................... Pioneer Ave Citrus Valley HS to Orange St Class I Bike Path ..................................................................................................................................... Church St ..................................................................................................................................... Riverview Dr to San Bernardino Ave Class III Bike Route Fern Ave ..................................................................................................................................... San Timoteo Canyon Rd to Terracina Blvd Class II Bike Lane Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 255 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PRIORITIZED PROJECTS STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT Hilton Ave and Sunset Dr Garden St to Alta Vista Dr Class III Bike Route .................................................................................................................................... Orange Grove Trail Bryn Mawr Ave to San Bernardino Ave Class II Bike Lane .................................................................................................................................... W Redlands Blvd and 3rd St Better bike detection .................................................................................................................................... E Stuart Ave and S Church St Improved crossing safety from Stuart onto Church .................................................................................................................................... Citrus Ave and S Church Improved left turns from Citrus to Church .................................................................................................................................... N University St and E Brockton Ave Left turn improvements .................................................................................................................................... N University St and Campus Ave Improved crossing safety .................................................................................................................................... W State St and N Center St Intersection Improvement .................................................................................................................................... N Center St and State St Improved turns from Center to BV .................................................................................................................................... W Citrus Ave and New York St Intersection Improvement .................................................................................................................................... University St and San Improved left turns from Univ onto SIB Bernardino Ave ..................................................................................................................................... Brookside Ave and N Center St Make more intuitive (signage?) ..................................................................................................................................... S 5th St Bike parking needed here ..................................................................................................................................... N San Mateo St and Brookside Ave Separate bike signal ..................................................................................................................................... 256 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PRIORITIZED PROJECTS Tier 3 Bicycle Prioritized Projects The table below lists the Tier 3 bicycle prioritized projects. STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT Dearborn St Pioneer Ave to Lugonia Ave Class II Bike Lane ................................................................................................................................. Elizabeth St Crescent Ave to Mariposa Dr Class III Bike Route ................................................................................................................................. San Timoteo Creek Trail Beaumont Ave to South City Limit Class I Bike Path ................................................................................................................................. Sunset Dr S Alessandro Rd to Alta Vista Dr Class III Bike Route ................................................................................................................................. Terracina Blvd Olive Ave to Smiley Heights Dr Class II Bike Lane ................................................................................................................................. Highland Ave Ford St to Dearborn St Class III Bike Route ................................................................................................................................. Garden St Cajon St to Elizabeth St Class III Bike Route ................................................................................................................................. Mariposa Dr Sunset Dr to Rossmont Dr Class III Bike Route ................................................................................................................................. Nevada St Santa Ana River Trail to Palmeto St Class I Bike Path Ford St Santa Ana River Trail to San Bernardino Ave Class II Bike Lane ................................................................................................................................. Cajon St Highland Ave to South Ave Class III Bike Route ................................................................................................................................. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 257 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PRIORITIZED PROJECTS STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT Mentone Blvd Crafton Ave to Brant St Class II Bike Lane .................................................................................................................................. None California St Class I Bike Path .................................................................................................................................. San Jacinto St .................................................................................................................................. Highland Ave to Crescent Ave Class III Bike Route Wabash Ave Reservoir Rd to Palo Alto Dr Class III Bike Route .................................................................................................................................. Garnet Ave .................................................................................................................................. City Limits Class II Bike Lane Palmetto Ave California St to Nevada St Class I Bike Path .................................................................................................................................. Greenspot Rd City Limit to Florida Ave Class 11 Bike Lane .................................................................................................................................. Henrietta St .................................................................................................................................. South Ave to Elizabeth St Class III Bike Route None Santa Ana River Trail to San Bernardino Ave Class I Bike Path .................................................................................................................................. None .................................................................................................................................. Sylvan Blvd to Wabash Ave Class I Bike Path Serpentine Dr and Sunset Dr .................................................................................................................................. Highland Ave to Alessandro Rd Class III Bike Route Reservoir Rd Ford St to Wabash Ave Class III Bike Route .................................................................................................................................. Alessandro Rd .................................................................................................................................. Crescent Ave to San Timoteo Canyon Rd Class III Bike Route egg Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PRIORITIZED PROJECTS STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT Alta Vista Dr Outer Highway 10 to Sunset Dr Class III Bike Route ................................................................................................................................. Beaumont Ave San Timoteo Canyon Rd to City Limit Class II Bike Lane / Class III Bike Route ................................................................................................................................. None ................................................................................................................................. City Limits to Santa Ana River Trail Class II Bike Lane /Class III Bike Route Live Oak Rd San Timoteo Canyon Rd to W City Limits Class II Bike Lane ................................................................................................................................. South Ave ................................................................................................................................. Cajon St to Henrietta St Class III Bike Route Santa Ana River Trail ................................................................................................................................. Greenspot Dr to Cone Camp Rd Class II Bike Lane E State St Bike parking needed here ................................................................................................................................. Texas St b/w W Stuart Safer grate Ave and Oriental Ave ................................................................................................................................. E Citrus Ave and Grove St Improved turning from Citrus onto Grove ................................................................................................................................. Cypress Ave and Redlands Blvd ................................................................................................................................. Improved turning from Cypress onto Redlands Kansas St Bike/Ped Bridge ................................................................................................................................. Linda Place and S Center St Improve left turn for bikes traveling south ................................................................................................................................. E Lugonia Ave and Church St ................................................................................................................................. Bike rack needed at shopping center Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 259 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PRIORITIZED PROJECTS STREET TO/FROM W Park Ave E Palm Ave and Redlands Blvd Dearborn St and E Lugonia Ave Ford Park(W corner) PROPOSED PROJECT Bike Rack at Post Office Improved turning from Palm onto Redlands Better bike detection Improved entrance to park 26o Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PRIORITIZED PROJECTS Tier 2 Pedestrian Prioritized Projects The table below lists the Tier 2 pedestrian prioritized projects. STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT Iowa St Hyacinth to Park Pedestrian Path ....................................................................................................................................................... New off-street path Tennessee to Brookside Pedestrian Path ....................................................................................................................................................... Pedestrian promenade Pedestrian Path ....................................................................................................................................................... Pioneer Ave Tennessee St to Furlow Dr Pedestrian Path ....................................................................................................................................................... Pedestrian promenade Pedestrian Path ....................................................................................................................................................... S University Ave E Citrus Ave to E Cypress Ave Pedestrian Path ....................................................................................................................................................... Barton Rd California St to Nevada St Pedestrian Path ....................................................................................................................................................... Church St 1-10 Pedestrian Path ....................................................................................................................................................... Extension path to Redlands HS stadium Pedestrian Path ....................................................................................................................................................... Brookside Ave Tennessee Street Pedestrian Path ....................................................................................................................................................... Texas Street North of W Pioneer Ave Pedestrian Path ....................................................................................................................................................... W Olive Ave San Rafael St to San Mateo St Pedestrian Path ........................................................................................................................................................ Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 263L BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PRIORITIZED PROJECTS STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT W San Bernardino Ave SR 210 Pedestrian Path ....................................................................................................................................................... W Lugonia Ave SR 210 Pedestrian Path ....................................................................................................................................................... Nevada St 1-10 Pedestrian Path ....................................................................................................................................................... New off-street path Domestic Ave to Orange St Pedestrian Path ....................................................................................................................................................... W Olive Ave Roberts Rd to Bellevue Ave Pedestrian Path ....................................................................................................................................................... E Redlands Blvd E Fern Ave to Ford St Pedestrian Path ....................................................................................................................................................... Highland Ave Monterrey St to 1-10 Pedestrian Path ....................................................................................................................................................... Orange Ave and Tennessee St Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Olive St and Grant St Mid -block crossing Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... New York St Underpass Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... 9th St and E Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Citrus Ave and 4th St Mid -block crossing Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... New York St and Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... 262 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PRIORITIZED PROJECTS STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT Eureka St and Colton Ave Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ E State St and E Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ Tennessee St and Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ 6th St and E Stuart Ave Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ Tennesee St at OBT Mid -block crossing Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ 6th St and Vine St Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ Eureka St and Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ Citrus Ave and E Olive Ave Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ N University Stand Campus Ave Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ Texas St Underpass Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ E Brockton and N University St New Signalized Intersection ........................................................................................................................................................ Brookside Ave and Buena Vista St Mid -block crossing improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ Eureka St Mid -block crossing Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 263 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PRIORITIZED PROJECTS STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT Brookside Ave and N Center St Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... 4th St and Vine St Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Cajon St and W Vine St Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... E Cypress Ave and S University St Intersection Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... Brookside Ave and Brookdale Dr Pioneer Avenue underpass SR 120 New York St and State St Mid -block crossing Improvement Underpass Improvement Intersection Improvement 264 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PRIORITIZED PROJECTS Tier 3 Pedestrian Prioritized Projects The table below lists the Tier 2 pedestrian prioritized projects. STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT Lytle St E Cypress Ave to S University St Pedestrian Path ........................................................................................................................................................ New off-street path Riverside Dr to Riverside Dr Pedestrian Path ........................................................................................................................................................ Pioneer Ave ........................................................................................................................................................ SR 210 Pedestrian Path Ford St Crestview Dr S to sidewalk Pedestrian Path ........................................................................................................................................................ N Lincoln St ........................................................................................................................................................ Sylvan Blvd to Laramie Ave Pedestrian Path W Lugonia Ave Mountain View Ave Pedestrian Path ........................................................................................................................................................ Ford St 1-10 Pedestrian Path ........................................................................................................................................................ E Cypress Ave ........................................................................................................................................................ 1-10 underpass to E Citrus Ave Pedestrian Path W Crescent St Alessandro Rd to S Center St Pedestrian Path ........................................................................................................................................................ San Timoteo Canyon Rd ........................................................................................................................................................ W Fern Ave to Frontage Rd Pedestrian Path W Fern Ave San Timoteo Canyon Rd to Terracina Blvd Pedestrian Path ........................................................................................................................................................ Alessandro Rd W Sunset Dr to San Timoteo Canyon Rd Pedestrian Path ........................................................................................................................................................ Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 265 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PRIORITIZED PROJECTS STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT E Highland Ave 1-10 Pedestrian Path ........................................................................................................................................................ Cajon St / E Franklin Ave Summit Ave to Garden St Pedestrian Path ........................................................................................................................................................ E Palm Ave ........................................................................................................................................................ 1-10 Pedestrian Path W Sunset Dr Crown St to Ridge St Pedestrian Path ........................................................................................................................................................ San Bernardino Ave Hanford St to Torino St Pedestrian Path ........................................................................................................................................................ Sunset Dr Pedestrian Path ........................................................................................................................................................ W State St and N Center St Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ Texas St and W Brockton Ave Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ W Olive Ave and San Mateo St Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ W Pennsylvania Ave and Church St Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ Eureka St Underpass Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ Texas Street north of Pioneer Ave Mid -block crossing Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ Citus Ave and Cypress Ave Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ 266 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PRIORITIZED PROJECTS STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT Parkwood Dr and Glenwood Dr Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ Domestic Ave and Clementine St Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ Cajon St and W Home St Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ Kansas St North of Orange Ave Bridge ........................................................................................................................................................ Redlands Blvd at Shopping Center Driveway crossing improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ E Cypress ....................................................................................................................................................... Ave and Lytle St Intersection Improvement E Cypress ....................................................................................................................................................... Ave and Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement N Grove St at OBT Access improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... W Cypress Ave and Cajon St Crosswalk Improvement ....................................................................................................................................................... E Cypress Ave Underpass Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ Cajon st and W Highland Ave Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ Ford St underpass at 1-10 Underpass Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ Ford St and Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement ........................................................................................................................................................ Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 267 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PRIORITIZED PROJECTS STREET TO/FROM Ford St and Parkford Dr W Highland Ave and Alvarado St E Palm Ave and Hibiscus Dr E Palm Ave and La Paloma St Dana St and W Palm Ave E Sunset Dr S and Rossmont Dr PROPOSED PROJECT Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Mid -block crossing Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement 268 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PRIORITIZED PROJECTS This page intentionally left blank Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 269 ADDU a x Funding Opportunities FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES Funding Opportunities LOCAL Redlands Measure T In November 2020 Redlands voters passed Measure T, a one - cent sales tax to preserve the quality of life and city services in Redlands. Measure T funds can be used to keep public areas such as parks and recreation areas clean and maintained. The money can also be used to maintain sidewalks and curbs. All Measure T money is required to be used in the City. Redlands Adopt- a- Street and Adopt -a -Path The City offers opportunities for interested groups to adopt a section of the Citys streets or trails . In return for the group completing regular clean ups on the street or trail, the City rewards the group with signage located on corridor. Clean ups must occur at least 4 times per year for a 1- or 2-year period. The City provides the cleanup supplies to the groups. SBCTA Measure I Measure I is a half -cent sales tax in San Bernardino County used for transportation improvements. The original measure was approved for the years 1989- 2004, but it was extended to 2040. Funding is distributed based on the Measure 1 2010- 2040 Ordinance and Expenditure Plan and the Strategic Plan. 20% of Measure I revenue is devoted to Local Streets Programs and 20% is devoted to Major Streets Programs. SBCTA administers the revenue and is responsible for ensuring funds are used properly. 272 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES SBCTA Transportation Development Act (TDA) In 1999 Article 3 of the TDA approved funding for building and maintaining bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Funds can also be distributed to improve public transit stops, including construction of new sidewalk near a bus stop. SBCTA oversees the distribution of these funds. Bicycle projects must be included in the SBCTA Non - Motorized Transportation Plan. Funding is available to cover up to 90% of total project costs, and 50% of the total funding available is reserved for smaller projects under $250,000. SCAG Sustainable Communities Program Created in 2005, SCAG's Sustainable Communities Program has provided resources and assistance to jurisdictions to complete local planning efforts. The SCP provides resources to support active transportation and multimodal efforts and sustainability, equity in transportation planning, reductions in motorized vehicle miles traveled and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The SCP also supports quick build projects, and network visioning to help jurisdictions install active transportation networks. SCAG Local Community Engagement and Safety Mini -Grants As part of SCAG's Go Human Campaign, community -based organizations may apply for up to $10,000 in funding for projects which increase the safety of vulnerable street users, including pedestrians and bicyclists. Mini -grants fund projects which educate mobility users on safe practices, increase access to safe routes for users, and envision safety improvements to transportation infrastructure that prioritizes vulnerable users. Development Impact Fees Developer impact fees are collected from new developments by local governments. These fees offset the costs of building and maintaining new facilities for transportation, parks, and other public facilities. 25% of Redlands development impact fees are devoted to the Open Space Fund to be used for preserving and improving outdoor recreation, open space, and conservation. The Open Space Fund can be used to preserve scenic routes and trails. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 273 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES REGIONAL California Office of Traffic Safety Grants The Office of Traffic Safety's goal is to prevent serious injury and death from motor vehicle crashes. Funding is available for projects which relate to one of the priority program areas, including pedestrian and bicycle safety. Bike and pedestrian safety programs include educational outreach particularly for high - risk populations, youth bicycle trainings and walking courses, and outreach for underserved older communities to identify safety issues. Grant applications must be submitted byJanuary 30. Caltrans Transportation Development Act (TDA) The Transportation Development Act (TDA) provides funding annually to be allocated to transit and non -transit related purposes that comply with regional transportation plans. Funding is based on sales tax collected in each county, but has generated approximately $1.9 million. The TDA funds a wide variety of transportation programs, including planning and program activities, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, community transit services, public transportation, and bus and rail projects. California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program This program provides $200 million in funding for local and regional transportation agencies with voter approved taxes, tolls, or fees, which are dedicated solely to transportation improvements. The program provides funding for aging infrastructure, road conditions, active transportation, transit and rail, and health and safety benefits. The Local Partnership Program funds are distributed through a 40% statewide competitive component and a 60% formulaic component. California Department of Parks and Recreation Habitat Conservation Fund This fund allocates approximately $2 million each year to cities, counties, and districts for nature interpretation programs to bring urban residents into park and wildlife areas, protection of various plant and animal species, and the acquisition and development of wildlife corridors and trails. Funds are available for trail maintenance, interpretive signage, lighting and waysides. The program requires a 50% match. 274 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES Caltrans State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) The STIP is a multi -year capital improvement program of transportation projects on and off the State Highway System, funded with revenues from the Transportation Investment Fund and other funding sources. Funding consists of two components: Caltrans' Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) and regional transportation planning agencies' Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). Pedestrian and bicycle projects may be programmed under ITIP and RTIP. STIP programming occurs every two years. Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) The California Strategic Growth Council funds healthier communities and protects the environment by increasing the supply of affordable places to live near jobs, stores, transit, and other daily needs. Funded by Cap -and -Trade revenue, the AHSC program makes it easier for Californians to drive less by engaging in active transportation, such as walking, biking, and using transit. Eligible projects include sustainable transportation infrastructure, such as new transit vehicles, sidewalks, and bike lanes; transportation - related amenities, such as bus shelters, benches, or shade trees; and other programs that encourage residents to walk, bike, and use public transit. Previous projects have been awarded up to $30 million. Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) The California Strategic Growth Council funds community - led development and infrastructure projects that achieve major environmental, health, and economic benefits in California's most disadvantaged communities. Funded by California's Cap - and -Trade Program, TCC empowers the communities most impacted by pollution to choose their community vision, strategies, and projects to enact transformational change - all with data -driven milestones and measurable outcomes. Approximately $56.4 million is available to use for implementation and planning projects. Rubberized Pavement Grant Program The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (Cal Recycle) provides the Rubberized Pavement Grant Program, formerly called the Rubberized Asphalt Concrete (RAC) Grant Program, to promote markets for recycled -content surfacing products derived from waste tires generated in California and decrease the adverse environmental impacts created by unlawful disposal and stockpiling of waste tires. There is $4,000,000 available funding. $350,000 is the maximum for individual application. If applying for a regional application, the maximum is $500,000. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 275 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP) The Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program is the largest park related grant program in California. The California Department of Parks and Recreation provides this competitive grant program that will create new parks and new recreation opportunities in critically underserved communities. The types of projects that are eligible for funding include new parks, expanding an existing park, and renovating an existing park. All projects must create or renovate at least one recreation feature such as non - motorized trails, equestrian centers, aquatic centers, regional sports complexes, playgrounds, open spaces, plazas, public art, lighting etc. Applicants can receive funding between $200,00 and $8,500,000. There is no match required. Regional Park Program The California Department of Parks and Recreation provides a Regional Parks Program which provides competitive grants that will create, expand, and improve regional parks. Projects will create at least one new recreation feature that attracts visitors from at least a 20-mile radius or county -wide population to a regional park. Applicants can receive funding between $200,0043 million. Projects eligible for this grant should include new recreation features such as non -motorized trails, equestrian centers, aquatic centers, regional sports complexes, playgrounds, open spaces, plazas, public art, lighting etc. There is no match required. Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Funds The California Natural Resources Agency provides grants to projects that indirectly mitigate the environmental impacts of new transportation facilities. Funds are available for land acquisition and construction and should fall into one of the following three categories: urban forestry projects, resource lands projects, or mitigation projects beyond the scope of the lead agency. The local Caltrans district must support the project. The maximum award amount is $500,000. The application deadline usually falls in June. Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program The Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program supports transportation planning processes which address local and regional transportation needs and issues. The program offers two types of grants: Strategic Partnerships and Sustainable Communities. The Sustainable Communities Grants has $29.5 million in funding to encourage local and regional planning that furthers state goals. The Strategic Partnership Grant has $4.5 million to identify and address statewide or regional deficiencies on the State highway system in partnership with Caltrans. The overarching objectives to guide grant applications are sustainability, preservation, mobility, safety, innovation, economy, health and social equity. 276 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES Active Transportation Program (ATP) The California State Legislature created the Active Transportation Program to encourage active modes of transportation. Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) stipulates that $100,000,000 of revenues from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account will be available annually to the ATP. The ATP consolidates existing federal and state transportation programs, including the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA), and State Safe Routes to School (SR2S), into a single program with a focus to make California a national leader in active transportation. Applications are to be submitted typically in July. Eligible projects include infrastructure projects, education, encouragement and enforcement non - infrastructure projects which further the goals of the ATP, a combination of infrastructure and non -infrastructure activities, and development of active transportation plans in disadvantaged communities. Funding Sources: • State and Federal Funding • $34 million in State Highway Account (per -year) • $88.5 million In Federal (per - year) • $10 million (California Climate Investments) -Cycle 3 one-time program • $100 million (SB1 State Funds per -year) Goals of the ATP are currently defined as the following: • Increasing the proportion of trips accomplished by walking; • Increasing safety and mobility for active transportation users; • Advancing active transportation efforts of regional agencies to achieve the greenhouse gas reduction goals; • Enhancing public health; • Ensuring that disadvantaged communities fully share in the benefit of the program; and, • Providing a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of active transportation users. FEDERAL Highway safety Improvement Program (HSIP) The Highway Safety Improvement program's purpose is to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roads. Eligible projects include installation of pedestrian hybrid beacons, roadway improvements that provide separation between pedestrians and motor vehicles, and other physical infrastructure projects. The HSIP requires a data -driven, strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads that focuses on performance. Funding is available up to $10 million. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 277 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES The Better Utilization Investments to Leverage Development Discretionary Grant (BUILD) Since 2009 the Program has provided $9 billion in funding to projects across the nation. The BUILD (formerly TIGER) reimbursement grant, available through the U.S. Department of Transportation, allows sponsors at the State and local levels to obtain funding for multi -modal, multi -jurisdictional projects that are more difficult to support through traditional funding initiatives. Eligible projects include road or bridge projects, public transportation projects, and surface transportation facilities. Federal Transit Administration Urbanized Area Formula Program The Urbanized Area Formula Funding program funds transit capital and transportation - related planning projects. Funding is available to governors, local officials and private transit operators and can be used for planning, engineering, and design as well as transit -related studies, crime prevention and security equipment, construction and maintenance of passenger facilities, and mobility management programs. The federal share is not to exceed 80% of the net project cost for capital expenditures. Federal Transit Administration Enhanced Mobility Grants The Enhanced Mobility Grant program provides formula funding to states for the purpose of assisting private nonprofit groups in meeting the transportation needs of older adults and people with disabilities when the transportation service provided is unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate to meeting these needs. Recipients in urban areas are chosen by the governor. Eligible activities include building an accessible path to a bus stop including curb -cuts, sidewalks, and pedestrian signals; and improved wayfinding signage. The federal share of eligible capital costs may not exceed 80%, and 50% for operating assistance. The 10% that is eligible to fund program administrative costs including administration, planning, and technical assistance may be funded at 100% federal share. National Endowment for the Arts Our Town The Our Town grant program supports projects that integrate arts, culture, and design activities into efforts that strengthen communities by advancing local economic, physical, and/or social outcomes. Creative placemaking is when art is deliberately integrated into community revitalization work - placing arts at the table with land - use, transportation, economic development, education, housing, infrastructure, and public safety strategies. Grant applicants require partnerships between arts organizations and government. Funding ranges from $25,0004200,000 per project with a minimum cost share/match equal to the grant amount. This program occurs on 278 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES a yearly basis and the application deadline typically falls in August. People for Bikes Established in 1999, and funded by partners in the industry, PeopleForBikes is a partnership of bicycle advocates that has awarded more than $3.5 million dollars in grants for bike projects and bike advocacy initiatives. In 2019, PeopleForBikes contributed $700,000 for investments in bicycle infrastructure, education for children who bike, mountain biking trails, and bike share technology. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is the nation's largest philanthropy dedicated to health. Some grants offered by RWJF support planning and demonstration projects and programs which are devoted to expanding public health in the built environment. Grants are developed in consultation with leading experts in the field and can provide funding and technical assistance. America Walks Community Change Grant In partnership with the CDC's Active People, Healthy Nation initiative, America Walks awards grants of $1,500 for projects related to creating healthy, active, and engaged places to live, work, and play. Projects should have a foundation of equity, and should lead to increased physical activity and active transportation in a community. Projects can infrastructure related, or programmatic such as Safe Routes to School programs. Kresge Foundation The Kresge Foundation is a national foundation which invests in arts and culture, education, environment, health, human services, and community development with the goal of creating pathways for people with low incomes to improve their life circumstances and join the economic mainstream. One of the foundation's eight focus areas is American Cities, which provides funding to make cities more connected and create reliable public transportation options. Another of the foundation's focuses is the Environment, which offers grants to projects which helps communities reduce and prepare for the impacts of climate change. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 279 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES Potential Funding Strategies for Tier 1 Bicycle Projects The table below lists potential funding stratgies for Tier 1 bicycle recommendations STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT POTENTIAL FUNDING STRATEGIES Redlands Blvd Colton Ave to Fern Ave Class II Bike Lane HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, AHSC, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local ................................................................................................................................................................................... Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation New York St Lugonia Ave to Stuart Ave Class II Bike Lane HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local ................................................................................................................................................................................... Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation Colton Ave California St to Dearborn St Class II Bike Lane HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local ................................................................................................................................................................................... Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation Orange Blossom Trail New York St to Naples St Class I Bike Path HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, Regional Park Program, California Department of Parks and Recreation Habitat Conservation Fund, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, Development Impact Fees, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership ................................................................................................................................................................................... Program, TCC, SPP, Kresge Foundation 280 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT POTENTIAL FUNDING STRATEGIES Lugonia Ave California St to Wabash St Class II Bike Lane HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, AHSC, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation Orange St Colton Ave to Citrus Ave Class II Bike Lane or HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, AHSC, SCP, Local Class III Bike Route Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation Orange St N City Limit to Colton Ave Class II Bike Lane HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, AHSC, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation Texas St Santa Ana River Trail State St Class II Bike Lane HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation Alabama St Lugonia Ave to Park Ave Class II Bike Lane HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 281 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT POTENTIAL FUNDING STRATEGIES 6th St Lugonia Ave to Olive Ave Class II Bike Lane HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation ................................................................................................................................................................................... State St Alabama St to Eureka St Class II Bike Lane HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation San Bernardino Ave OBT to California St Class II Bike Lane HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation Tennessee St San Bernardino Ave to State St Class II Bike Lane HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, AHSC, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation Church St Santa Ana River Trail to San Bernardino Ave Class II Bike Lane HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation 282 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT POTENTIAL FUNDING STRATEGIES University St San Bernardino Ave to Cypress Ave Class III Bike Route HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation ................................................................................................................................................................................... New York St OBT to End of New York St Class II Bike Lane HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation Stuart Ave New York St 6th St Class II Bike Lane HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation Cajon St Citrus Ave Olive Ave Class II Bike Lane HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation Grove St Brockton Ave Citrus Ave Class III Bike Route HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 283 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES STREET TO/FROM W Lugonia Ave & 6th St W San Bernardino Ave & Orange St PROPOSED PROJECT POTENTIAL FUNDING STRATEGIES Class II Bike Lane HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation Redesign Median HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC Nevada St Lugonia Ave to Barton Rd Bike Detection HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, AHSC, Improvement SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC 6th St Stuart Ave to OBT Class II Bike Lane HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation San Bernardino Ave E Donut Hole to Texas St Class II Bike Lane HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, AHSC, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation 284 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT POTENTIAL FUNDING STRATEGIES Park Ave 0BT to Kansas St Class II Bike Lane HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local ................................................................................................................................................................................... Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation W Citrus Ave & Cajon St Bike Detection HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, BUILD, Improvement Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission ................................................................................................................................................................................... Local Partnership Program, TCC University St & Sylvan Blvd Mid -block Crossing HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Improvement Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local ................................................................................................................................................................................... Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation Orange St & E State St Bike Detection HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Improvement Community Mini Grants, BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission ................................................................................................................................................................................... Local Partnership Program, TCC E State St & E Citrus Ave Intersection Improvement HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 285 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT POTENTIAL FUNDING STRATEGIES Colton Ave Dearborn St to OBT Class II Bike Lane or Class HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local IV Protected Bike Lane Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation ................................................................................................................................................................................... Pioneer Ave Buckeye St to Wabash Ave Class II Bike Lane HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation Orange Blossom Trail Mountain View Ave to Bryn Mawr Ave Class I Bike Path HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation Center St State St to Crescent Ave Class II Bike Lane HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation Zanja Creek Trail 0BT to Grove St Class I Bike Path HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation 286 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT POTENTIAL FUNDING STRATEGIES Clay St Colton Ave to Pioneer Ave Class III Bike Route HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation ................................................................................................................................................................................... Tennessee St at OBT W State St & Tennessee St New York St at OBT Alabama St & Orange Tree Ln Intersection Improvement HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation Intersection Improvement HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation Improve Wayfinding HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation Intersection Improvement HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 287 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES STREET E Citrus Ave & olive Ave N University St & Lugonia Ave TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT POTENTIAL FUNDING STRATEGIES Intersection Improvement HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation Safety Improvements HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, People for Bikes, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, Kresge Foundation 288 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES Potential Funding Strategies for Tier 1 Pedestrian Projects The table below lists potential funding stratgies for Tier 1 pedestrian recommendations. STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT POTENTIAL FUNDING STRATEGIES 6th St Colton Ave Intersection Improvement HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation University St Sylvan Blvd Mid -Block Crossing HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, Improvement STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation Orange St Colton Ave Intersection Improvement HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, AHSC, Federal Transit Administration Enhanced Mobility Grants, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation ................................................................................................................................................................................... Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 289 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT POTENTIAL FUNDING STRATEGIES Orange St 1-10 Underpass Underpass Improvement HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, AHSC, Federal Transit Administration Enhanced Mobility Grants, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation .................................................................................................................................................................................. Central Ave University St New Signalized HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Intersection Community Mini Grants, BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant University St 1-10 Underpass Underpass Improvement HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation Citrus Ave 6th St Intersection Improvement HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation 290 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT POTENTIAL FUNDING STRATEGIES Citrus Ave Orange St Intersection Improvement HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation ................................................................................................................................................................................... New York St Between Colton and Texas Pedestrian Path HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, Connection BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation ................................................................................................................................................................................... 6th St Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation Orange St Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, AHSC, Federal Transit Administration Enhanced Mobility Grants, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation .................................................................................................................................................................................. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 291 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT POTENTIAL FUNDING STRATEGIES Texas St Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation .................................................................................................................................................................................. 5th St Redlands Blvd Intersection Improvement HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation Citrus Ave Eureka St Intersection Improvement HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation 6th St 1-10 Underpass Underpass Improvement HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation 292 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT POTENTIAL FUNDING STRATEGIES University St Between Park and Central Pedestrian Path HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, Connection BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation ................................................................................................................................................................................... Redlands Blvd Between Kansas and 1 st Pedestrian Path HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, Connection ATP, STIP, AHSC, Federal Transit Administration Enhanced Mobility Grants, BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation Park Ave Between Church and Cook Pedestrian Path HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, Connection BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation .................................................................................................................................................................................. Brookside Ave Grant St Mid -Block Crossing HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, Improvement STIP, AHSC, Federal Transit Administration Enhanced Mobility Grants, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation .................................................................................................................................................................................. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 293 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT POTENTIAL FUNDING STRATEGIES Grant St Glenwood Dr Mid -Block Crossing HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, Improvement STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation .................................................................................................................................................................................. 6th St Lugonia Ave Intersection Improvement HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation Citrus Ave 1-10 Underpass Underpass Improvement HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation .................................................................................................................................................................................. University St Between Central and 1-10 Off Ramp Pedestrian Path HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, Connection BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation .................................................................................................................................................................................. Lugonia Ave Texas St to Clay St Pedestrian Path HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure 1, TDA, ATP, STIP, Connection BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation .................................................................................................................................................................................. 294 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT POTENTIAL FUNDING STRATEGIES Texas St Between 1-10 to Redlands Blvd Pedestrian Path HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, Connection BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation ................................................................................................................................................................................... University St Park Ave Intersection Improvement HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation Texas St Colton Ave Intersection Improvement HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation Pennsylvania Ave Orange St Intersection Improvement HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 295 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT POTENTIAL FUNDING STRATEGIES Lugonia Ave Church St Bus Stop Improvement HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, AHSC, Federal Transit Administration Enhanced Mobility Grants, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, Federal Transit Administration Urbanized Area Formula Program, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation .................................................................................................................................................................................. Colton Ave University Ave New Signalized HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Intersection Community Mini Grants, BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation Orange St Oriental Ave New Signalized HSIP, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Intersection Community Mini Grants, BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation Central Ave Between University and Judson Pedestrian Path HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, Connection BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation .................................................................................................................................................................................. 296 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT POTENTIAL FUNDING STRATEGIES Sylvan Ave Between University and Judson Pedestrian Path HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, Connection BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation ................................................................................................................................................................................... Sun Ave Orange St Intersection Improvement HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation Park Ave 1-10 Underpass Underpass Improvement HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, SCP, Local Community Mini Grants, BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation U n ive rs ity Ave Between Brockton and Sylvan Pedestrian Path HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, Connection BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation .................................................................................................................................................................................. Orange Ave Orangewood Ct to Kansas St Pedestrian Path HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, Connection BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation .................................................................................................................................................................................. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 297 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT POTENTIAL FUNDING STRATEGIES Alabama St Calvary Cir to Orange Ave Pedestrian Path HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, Connection BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation ................................................................................................................................................................................... Redlands Rail Corridor University Ave to Grove St Pedestrian Path HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, Connection BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation .................................................................................................................................................................................. Church St Pennsylvania Ave to Church PI Pedestrian Path HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, Connection BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation .................................................................................................................................................................................. Cook St Sylvan Ave to Citrus Ave Pedestrian Path HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, Connection BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation .................................................................................................................................................................................. Orange Blossom Trail Tennessee St to Alabama St Pedestrian Path HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, Connection BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation .................................................................................................................................................................................. 298 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES STREET TO/FROM PROPOSED PROJECT POTENTIAL FUNDING STRATEGIES Stuart Ave Between Texas and Lawton Pedestrian Path HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, Connection BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks .................................................................................................................................................................................. Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation New St Between Sylvan and Central Pedestrian Path HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, ATP, STIP, Connection BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks .................................................................................................................................................................................. Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation San Bernardino Ave Tennessee St to Webster St Pedestrian Path HSIP, Redlands Measure T, Measure I, TDA, Connection ATP, STIP, AHSC, Federal Transit Administration Enhanced Mobility Grants, BUILD, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, California Transportation Commission Local Partnership Program, TCC, America Walks .................................................................................................................................................................................. Community Change Grant, Kresge Foundation Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 299 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES Active Transportation Program Scoring Rubric The table below lists the scoring rublic from the 2019-2020 Active Transportation Program, and can be utilized to determine potential project competitiveness for grant awards POINTS APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO DEMONSTRATE THE PROJECT WILL RESULT IN A DIRECT BENEFIT TO THE DISADVATAGED COMMUNITY. 4 Points The application clearly and convincingly Explains how the project closes a gap, provides connections to, or addresses ....................................................................................................................................................... a deficiency in an active transportation network and/or meets an important disadvantaged community need. 3 Points The application convincingly explains how the project closes a gap, provides connections to, or addresses a ....................................................................................................................................................... deficiency in an active transportation network or meets an important disadvantaged community need. 2 Points The application somewhat explains how the project closes a gap, provides connections to, and/or addresses a ....................................................................................................................................................... deficiency in an active transportation network. It may meet an important disadvantaged community need. 1 Points The application does not clearly explain how the project closes a gap, provides connections to, or addresses a ....................................................................................................................................................... deficiency in an active transportation network. It minimally meets an important disadvantaged community need. 0 Points Evaluators can award a score of zero if they believe the application does not address ....................................................................................................................................................... how the project will directly benefit a disadvantaged community. POINTS APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO DEMONSTRATE THE PROJECTIS LOCATED WITHIN A DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY. 2 Points Project location(s) are/is fully (100%) located within a disadvantaged community. ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Point Project location(s) are/is partially (less than 100%) within a disadvantaged community. ...................................................................................................................................................... 0 Points None of the project location(s) are/is within a disadvantaged community. ...................................................................................................................................................... 300 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES POINTS MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME (MHI) CRITERIA — MHI = $56,982 0 Points Greater than 80%of the MHI Greater than 80%of the MHI ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Point 75% through <80% of MHI $53,421 through $56,982.40 ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 Points 70%through <75% of MHI $49,859.60 through $53,421 ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 Points 65%through <70% of MHI $46,298.20 through $49,859.60 ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 Points < 65% of MHI less than $46,298.20 ....................................................................................................................................................... POINTS CALENVIROSCREEN CRITERIA 0 Points Above 25% most disadvantaged less than 39.34 ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Point 20% through 25% most disadvantaged 39.34 through 42.86 ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 Points 15% through < 20% most disadvantaged 42.87 through 46.63 ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 Points 10% through < 15% most disadvantaged 46.64 through 51.18 ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 Points < 10% most disadvantaged 51.19 through 94.09 ....................................................................................................................................................... POINTS FREE OR REDUCED LUNCHES 0 Points ALess than 75% of students receive free or reduced lunches ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Point >_ 75% through 80% of students receive free or reduced lunches ...................................................................................................................................................... Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 301 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES POINTS FREE OR REDUCED LUNCHES 2 Points > 80% through 85% of students receive free or reduced lunches ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 Points > 85% through 90% of students receive free or reduced lunches ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 Points > 85% through 90% of students receive free or reduced lunches ...................................................................................................................................................... POINTS HEALTHY PLACES INDEX PERCENTILE 0 Points Healthy Places Index Score above 25 Percentile ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Point Healthy Places Index Score 20 through 25 Percentile ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 Points ...................................................................................................................................................... Healthy Places Index Score 15 through <20 Percentile 3 Points Healthy Places Index Score 10 through <15 Percentile ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 Points ...................................................................................................................................................... Healthy Places Index Score <10 Percentile CATEGORY POINTS OTHER DAC CRITERION Other MHI or 0 or 1 point If a project applicant believes a project benefits a disadvantaged community but the project does CalEnviroScreen not meet the aforementioned criteria due to a lack of accurate Census data or CalEnviroScreen Assessment data that represents a small neighborhood or unincorporated area, the applicant must submit for consideration a quantitative assessment, to demonstrate that the community's median household income is at or below 80% of that state median household income. Regional Definition 0 or 1 point If the applicant believes a project benefits a disadvantaged community based on an adopted regional definition, the applicant must submit for consideration the regional definition, as well as how their specific community qualifies under that definition. 302 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES CATEGORY POINTS OTHER DAC CRITERION Federally Recognized 4 points Projects located within Federally Recognized Tribal Lands (typically Tribal Lands within the boundaries of a Reservation or Rancheria). ........................................................................................................................................................ POINTS APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO DEMONSTRATE A SPECIFIC ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NEED. 19-24 Points The application compellingly demonstrates "need" in the project area, and documents all of the following in a clear narrative: • the lack of connectivity, • the lack of mobility for non -motorized users, • data showing the local health concerns, including a comparison to statewide health data AND if applicable • For projects benefiting a disadvantaged community - the need for the project in that community, • For NI components -the need for the education, encouragement and/or enforcement program ....................................................................................................................................................... 13-18 Points The application duly demonstrates "need" in the project area, and documents: only 2 of the following clearly, and at least one other partially: • the lack of connectivity, • the lack of mobility for non -motorized users, • data showing the local health concerns, including a comparison to statewide health data AND if applicable • For projects benefiting a disadvantaged community - the need for the project in that community, • For NI components -the need for the education, encouragement and/or enforcement program 7-12 Points The application demonstrates "need" in the project area, and documents: only 1 of the following clearly, and at least one other partially: • the lack of connectivity, • the lack of mobility for non -motorized users, • data showing the local health concerns, including a comparison to statewide health data AND if applicable • For NI components - the need for the education, encouragement and/or enforcement program Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 303 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES POINTS APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO DEMONSTRATE A SPECIFIC ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NEED. 1-6 Points The application minimally demonstrates "need" in the project area, and partially documents 1 of the following: • the lack of connectivity, • the lack of mobility for non -motorized users, • local health concerns AND if applicable • For NI components - the need for the education, encouragement and/or enforcement program 0 Points The application does not demonstrate "need" in any way in the project area in any of the three areas of need, and there is no mention of the need of the disadvantaged community and there is no mention of the NI program (if applicable). POINTS APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO DEMONSTRATE THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS OF STUDENTS. 2 Points ...................................................................................................................................................... The application addresses the active transportation needs of students 0 Points ...................................................................................................................................................... The application does not address or mention the active transportation needs of students POINTS APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO MAKE A CASE THAT THE PROJECT WILL ADDRESS NEED FOR ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION. 20-25 Points The application clearly and convincingly demonstrates that the project will best address the active transportation need presented in part A by: • creating or improving links or connections, • encouraging use of routes to very important destinations and community identified destinations. 13-19 Points The application demonstrates that the project will likely address the active transportation need presented in part A by: • creating or improving links or connections, • encouraging use of routes to very important destinations and community identified destinations. 304 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES POINTS APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO MAKE A CASE THAT THE PROJECT WILL ADDRESS NEED FOR ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION. 7-12 Points The application somewhat demonstrates that the project will address the active transportation need presented in part A by: (at least 1 of the following) • creating or improving links or connections, • encouraging use of routes to very important destinations and community identified destinations. 1-6 Points The application minimally demonstrates that the project may address the active transportation need presented in part A by: (partially 1 or more of the following) • creating or improving links or connections, • encouraging use of routes to very important destinations and community identified destinations. ....................................................................................................................................................... 0 Points The application did not demonstrate the project would address the need presented in Part A. ....................................................................................................................................................... POINTS APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO MAKE A CASE THAT THE PROPOSAL THAT WILL INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TRIPS ACCOMPLISHED BY STUDENTS. 1 Point The project will increase the proportion of active transportation trips accomplished by students ...................................................................................................................................................... 0 Points The project will not increase the proportion of active transportation trips accomplished by students ...................................................................................................................................................... Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 305 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO DEMONSTRATE THE PROJECT LOCATION REPRESENTS ONE OF THE AGENCY'S POINTS TOP PRIORITIES FOR ADDRESSING ONGOING SAFETY. AND APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY HAVE ANALYZED THEIR PAST CRASH/SAFETY DATA AND THE PROPOSED SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS CORRESPOND TO THE TYPES AND LOCATIONS OF THE PAST COLLISIONS. 9-12 Points The applicant included a Project Area Collision Map that demonstrates that the past collision locations are within the Influence Area of the proposed safety improvements. Collision Summaries and collision lists/reports demonstrate the overall number of collisions is significant and that collision trends, collision types, and collision details will be positively impacted by the proposed safety improvements, OR an applicant was able to clearly and convincingly explain why they are building the project despite the lack of collision data and why this location is one of the top safety concerns despite the collision history. The application clearly and convincingly shows: • That the past crash/safety data was analyzed by the applicant to identify the specific crash - type trends that will likely occur in the future if no action is taken, • Collision types and collision details will be positively impacted by the proposed safety improvements. • there are significant safety threats to pedestrians and/or bicycles that can be mitigated by ATP eligible improvements. AND if applicable • For NI components - clearly explains how the project educates bicyclists, pedestrians, and/or drivers about safety hazards and encourages safe behavior which can include enforcement. 5-8 Points The applicant included a Project Area Collision Map demonstrates that some of the past collision locations are within the "Influence area" of the proposed safety improvements. Collision Summaries and collision lists/reports demonstrate the overall number of collisions is significant and that collision trends, collision types, and collision details will be positively impacted by the proposed safety improvements, OR an applicant was able to convincingly explain why they are building the project despite the lack of collision data and why this location is one of the top safety concerns despite the collision history. The application convincingly shows: that the past crash/safety data was analyzed by the applicant to identify the specific crash -type trends that will likely occur in the future if no action is taken, • Collision trends, collision types, and collision details will be somewhat impacted by the proposed safety improvements. • there are moderate safety threats to pedestrians and/or bicycles that can be mitigated by ATP eligible improvements. AND if applicable • For NI components - moderately explains how the project educates bicyclists, pedestrians, and/ or drivers about safety hazards and encourages safe behavior which can include enforcement. 3o6 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO DEMONSTRATE THE PROJECT LOCATION REPRESENTS ONE OF THE AGENCY'S POINTS TOP PRIORITIES FOR ADDRESSING ONGOING SAFETY. AND APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY HAVE ANALYZED THEIR PAST CRASH/SAFETY DATA AND THE PROPOSED SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS CORRESPOND TO THE TYPES AND LOCATIONS OF THE PAST COLLISIONS. 1-4 Points The applicant included a Project Area Collision Map demonstrates that a few of the past collision locations are within the Influence Area of the proposed safety improvements. Collision Summaries and collision lists/reports demonstrate the overall number of collisions is significant and that collision trends, collision types, and collision details will be positively impacted by the proposed safety improvements, OR an applicant was able to somewhat explain why they are building the project despite the lack of collision data and why this location is one of the top safety concerns despite the collision history. The application somewhat shows: that the past crash/safety data was looked at by the applicant to identify the specific crash -type trends that will likely occur in the future if no action is taken, • Collision trends, collision types, and collision details will be minimally impacted by the proposed safety improvements. • there are minimal safety threats to pedestrians and/or bicycles that can be mitigated by ATP eligible improvements. AND if applicable • For NI components - minimally explains how the project educates bicyclists, pedestrians, and/or drivers about safety hazards and encourages safe behavior which can include enforcement. 0 Points The applicant included a Project Area Collision Map demonstrates that a few of the past collision locations are within the Influence Area of the proposed safety improvements. Collision Summaries and collision lists/reports demonstrate the overall number of collisions is significant and that collision trends, collision types, and collision details will be positively impacted by the proposed safety improvements, OR an applicant was able to minimally explain why they are building the project despite the lack of collision data and why this location is one of the top safety concerns despite the collision history. The application doesn't really show: that the past crash/safety data was analyzed by the applicant to identify the specific crash -type trends that will likely occur in the future if no action is taken, • •there are almost no safety threats to pedestrians and/or bicycles that can be mitigated by ATP eligible improvements. • AND if applicable • •For NI components - does not explain how the project educates bicyclists, pedestrians, and/or drivers about safety hazards or encourages safe behavior which can include enforcement. Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 307 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES POINTS APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO DEMONSTRATE THE PROJECT WILL REMEDY (ONE OR MORE) POTENTIAL SAFETY HAZARDS WITH THE PROJECT LIMITS. 11-13 Points The applicant clearly and convincingly demonstrates that: • the proposed countermeasure(s) have a proven track record for addressing the past crash/safety needs addressed in Part A, • the applicant has described remedies for each need addressed in Part A, AND • the proposed implementation of the countermeasure(s) should fully mitigate the potential for future non -motorized crashes in the area of the project. 7- 10 Points The applicant demonstrates fairly well that: • the proposed countermeasure(s) have a proven track record for addressing the past crash/safety needs addressed in Part A, • the proposed countermeasure(s) should significantly (but not fully) mitigate the potential for future non -motorized crashes in the area of the project. 4-6 Points The applicant somewhat demonstrates that: • the proposed countermeasure(s) address the past crash/safety needs addressed in Part A, • the proposed implementation of the countermeasure(s) should somewhat mitigate the potential for future non -motorized crashes in the area of the project. 1-3 Points The applicant minimally demonstrates that: • the proposed countermeasure(s) have a track record for addressing the past crash/safety needs addressed in Part A, • there are doubts as to whether the implementation of the proposed countermeasure(s) will mitigate the potential for future non -motorized crashes in the area of the project. 0 Points • Evaluators can award a score of zero if they believe that the application does not prove the safety need of the proposed project and the countermeasures explained do not have the potential to mitigate the potential for future collisions 308 Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO DEMONSTRATE WHAT THE PROCESS TO PREPARE FOR EXISTING AND FUTURE NEEDS POINTS OF USERS OF THIS PROJECT WAS, WHO WAS ENGAGED IN THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND PLANNING PROCESS AND HOW THE STAKEHOLDERS WILL CONTINUE TO BE ENGAGED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT. 9-10 Points The applicant clearly and convincingly demonstrates that: • The project scope was developed through a comprehensive technical planning process (appropriate for the complexity and magnitude of the project) • The planning process considered the existing and future needs of the project users and transportation system • The planning process was effectively integrated into the public participation process and reached out to all necessary stakeholders. • -AND the applicant attached documentation that supports a thorough and effective public engagement process. 6-8 Points The applicant demonstrates fairly well that: • The project scope was developed through a comprehensive technical planning process (appropriate for the complexity and magnitude of the project) • The planning process considered the existing and future needs of the project users and transportation system • The planning process was effectively integrated into the public participation process. • AND the applicant attached documentation that supports a thorough and effective public engagement process. 3-5 Points The applicant somewhat demonstrates that: • The project scope was developed through a technical planning process (appropriate for the complexity and magnitude of the project) • The planning process considered the existing and future needs of the project users and transportation system • The planning process was somewhat integrated into the public participation process. • AND the applicant attached documentation that supports a public engagement process. 1-2 Points The applicant minimally demonstrates that: • The project scope was developed through a technical planning process (appropriate for the complexity and magnitude of the project) • The planning process considered the existing and future needs of the project users and transportation system • The planning process was minimally integrated into the public participation process. • AND the applicant did not attach documentation or attached very little documentation to support a thorough public engagement process Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 309 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO DEMONSTRATE WHAT THE PROCESS TO PREPARE FOR EXISTING AND FUTURE NEEDS POINTS OF USERS OF THIS PROJECT WAS, WHO WAS ENGAGED IN THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND PLANNING PROCESS AND HOW THE STAKEHOLDERS WILL CONTINUE TO BE ENGAGED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT. 0 Points Evaluators can award a score of zero if they believe that the application does not prove the project scope is a result of technical planning, that the applicant did not consider the existing and future needs of the project users, and the planning process was not in anyway integrated into the public engagement process. POINTS EVALUATING LAYOUTS/MAPS 1 Point The submitted layouts/maps are complete, clear, and/or provide sufficient detail to determine the full scope of the proposed project. ....................................................................................................................................................... 0 Point The submitted layouts/maps are poorly developed or vague in outlining the various elements of the proposed project, or the applicant failed. ....................................................................................................................................................... POINTS EVALUATING ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE 1 Point The submitted estimate is thorough and consistent with the elements and phases of the proposed project. ...................................................................................................................................................... 0 Point The applicant failed to provide an estimate that matches the proposed elements. ...................................................................................................................................................... POINTS EVEVALUATING THE PROJECT SCHEDULE 1 Point The submitted schedule fully incorporates all necessary phases and provides adequate time to complete the phases (PA&ED, PS&E, ROW, CON and CON-NI). ....................................................................................................................................................... 0 Point The submitted schedule failed to incorporate all necessary phases and/or does not provide adequate time to complete the phases (PA&ED, PS&E, ROW, CON and CON-NI). ....................................................................................................................................................... 33LO Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES This page intentionally left blank Redlands Sustainable Mobility Plan 311 FtE CILA1\1 CIS