Resolution-PC 2017-044
Bicycle Master Plan
Revised Draft
April 17, 2017
This page is intentionally blank.
Bicycle Master Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 7
1.1 Setting ................................................................................................................................................. 7
1.2 Purpose of the Bicycle Master Plan .................................................................................................... 9
Eligibility for Funding ............................................................................................................................ 9
Identify Priority Projects ........................................................................................................................ 9
Close Gaps in the Existing Network ....................................................................................................... 9
Improve Safety and Comfort for All Cyclists .......................................................................................... 9
Improve Public Health ........................................................................................................................... 9
2. Anaheim General Plan Goals and Policies ....................................................................................... 10
3. Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 11
3.1 Existing Land Use .............................................................................................................................. 11
3.2 Bicycle Facility Types ........................................................................................................................ 23
Class I Bikeway: Bike Paths ................................................................................................................. 24
Class II Bikeway: Bike Lanes ................................................................................................................ 26
Class III Bikeways: Bike Routes ............................................................................................................ 28
Class IV: Cycle Track ............................................................................................................................ 29
3.3 Existing Bikeways .............................................................................................................................. 35
Class I Bike Paths ................................................................................................................................. 41
Class II Bike Lanes ................................................................................................................................ 42
Class III Bike Routes ............................................................................................................................. 42
3.4 Bicycle Parking and End-of-Trip Facilities ......................................................................................... 43
3.5 Multi-Modal Connections ................................................................................................................. 49
3.6 Education, Awareness and Enforcement Programs ......................................................................... 53
Employer Based Programs .................................................................................................................. 53
Anaheim Fire & Rescue ....................................................................................................................... 54
Anaheim Police Department ............................................................................................................... 55
Safe Routes to Schools ........................................................................................................................ 57
3.7 Constraints and Opportunities ......................................................................................................... 59
Topography ......................................................................................................................................... 59
Freeways ............................................................................................................................................. 59
Santa Ana River Trail ........................................................................................................................... 59
Grid Street System in the West/Central Areas .................................................................................... 60
Funding Availability ............................................................................................................................. 60
Street Improvement Projects and Roadway Maintenance ................................................................. 60
Vehicle Travel Lanes ............................................................................................................................ 61
Vehicle Parking .................................................................................................................................... 61
Areas for Future Study ........................................................................................................................ 62
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 3
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
3.8 Coordination with Other Plans and Programs .................................................................................. 63
2004 Bicycle Master Plan .................................................................................................................... 63
Green Element ..................................................................................................................................... 63
2009 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan ................................................................................. 63
Neighboring Local Jurisdictions ........................................................................................................... 63
OCTA Bikeways Strategies .................................................................................................................. 66
Orange County Loop ........................................................................................................................... 66
OCTA Outlook 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan ........................................................................ 66
2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy ................................ 66
State Implementation Plan ................................................................................................................. 67
4. Needs Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 71
4.1 Population and Employment Profile ................................................................................................ 71
4.2 Types of Bicyclists ............................................................................................................................. 71
4.3 Cyclist Comfort Level ........................................................................................................................ 73
4.4 Public Outreach ................................................................................................................................ 74
5. Bikeway Network Recommendations ............................................................................................. 77
5.1 Proposed Bikeways ........................................................................................................................... 77
5.2 Proposed Parking and End-of-Trip Facilities ..................................................................................... 89
5.3 Proposed Multi-Modal Connections ................................................................................................ 89
5.4 Proposed Education, Awareness, and Enforcement Programs ........................................................ 89
5.5 Bicycle Signal Detection .................................................................................................................... 89
5.6 Implementation Toolbox .................................................................................................................. 89
6. Implementation and Funding ......................................................................................................... 90
6.1 Project Prioritization ......................................................................................................................... 90
Demand Criteria .................................................................................................................................. 90
Utility Criteria ...................................................................................................................................... 90
Connectivity Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 90
Readiness Criteria ............................................................................................................................... 90
6.2 Bicycle Ridership Estimates and Forecasts ..................................................................................... 101
6.3 Past Expenditures on the Bikeway Network .................................................................................. 105
6.4 Proposed Bikeway Network Cost Estimates ................................................................................... 109
6.5 Implementation and Funding Opportunities .................................................................................. 110
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 4
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
FIGURES
Figure 1 – Regional Setting ........................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2 – Existing Land Use (West) ............................................................................................................ 15
Figure 3 – Existing Land Use (East).............................................................................................................. 17
Figure 4 – General Plan Land Use Designations (West) .............................................................................. 19
Figure 5 – General Plan Land Use Designations (East) ................................................................................ 21
Figure 6 – Bikeway Network (West)............................................................................................................ 31
Figure 7 – Bikeway Network (East) ............................................................................................................. 33
Figure 8 – Existing Bikeways (West) ............................................................................................................ 37
Figure 9 – Existing Bikeways (East) ............................................................................................................. 39
Figure 10 – Probable and Proposed Bicycle Parking and End-Of-Trip Facilities ......................................... 47
Figure 11 – Multi-Modal Connections ........................................................................................................ 51
Figure 12 – Four Types of Bicyclists ............................................................................................................ 71
Figure 13 – Proposed Bikeway Network (West) ......................................................................................... 85
Figure 14 – Proposed Bikeway Network (East) ........................................................................................... 87
Figure 15 – Bikeway Network Priority Ranking (West) .............................................................................. 97
Figure 16 – Bikeway Network Priority Ranking (East) ................................................................................. 99
TABLES
Table 1 – Summary of Bikeway Network Mileage ..................................................................................... 23
Table 2 – Reported Bicycle Thefts in Anaheim ........................................................................................... 56
Table 3 – Bicycle Related Vehicle Code Sections ....................................................................................... 56
Table 4 – Collisions and Citations Issued in Anaheim ................................................................................. 56
Table 5 – Bikeway Connections with Neighboring Jurisdictions ................................................................. 69
Table 6 – Level of Traffic Stress in Mixed Traffic ........................................................................................ 73
Table 7 – Proposed Bikeways ...................................................................................................................... 79
Table 8 – Priority Ranking of the Proposed Network – Tier 1 .................................................................... 91
Table 9 – Priority Ranking of the Proposed Network – Tier 2 .................................................................... 93
Table 10 – Priority Ranking of the Proposed Network – Tier 3 .................................................................. 95
Table 11 – Bikeway Network Ridership and VMT Reduction Estimates ................................................... 102
Table 12 – Bikeway Network Expenditures Since 2004 ............................................................................ 105
Table 13 – Safe Routes to Schools Grant Awards ..................................................................................... 106
Table 14 – Active Transportation Program Awards .................................................................................. 107
Table 15 – Proposed Bikeway Network Estimated Cost ........................................................................... 109
Table 16 – Recently Funded Bikeways Project ......................................................................................... 111
APPENDICES
Bicycle Transportation Account Compliance Checklist........................................................ Appendix A
General Plan Amendments................................................................................................. Appendix B
Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeway Network...................................................................... Appendix C
Anaheim Outdoors Bicycle Master Plan Update Survey Results.......................................... Appendix D
Bike Anaheim Ride With Us Fact Sheet............................................................................... Appendix E
Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores............................................................ Appendix F
Implementation Toolbox.................................................................................................... Appendix G
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 5
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 6
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
1. Introduction
The 2017 Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan (the Proposed Project/the Plan) is a policy document that will
guide the City of Anaheim in its implementation of citywide bicycle facilities. The Plan supersedes the
2004 Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan and is intended to improve bicycling safety, comfort, and
accessibility. The Plan identifies a network of existing and proposed bicycle facilities that will improve
multi-modal connectivity and increase bicycle mode share, especially for short trips. This is achieved
through a system of on-street bike lanes and routes and off-street bike paths to connect residents,
visitors, and workers to their destinations. The Plan does not propose to remove any vehicle travel lanes
in favor of bicycle lanes. The Plan has been prepared to meet the California State requirements for a
Bicycle Transportation Plan per Section 891.2 of the California Streets and Highways Codes.
1.1 Setting
Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center
The City of Anaheim, founded in 1857, is one of the nation’s premier municipalities and is one of
California’s most populous cities (Figure 1, Regional Setting). Anaheim covers over 50 square miles with
more than 358,000 residents, 124,000 private sector workers, and more than 3,000 City employees. The
City provides public safety through the Anaheim Police Department and Anaheim Fire & Rescue, water
and power service through Anaheim Public Utilities, parks, community centers, family services and
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 7
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
libraries through Anaheim Community Services, neighborhood improvements through Anaheim Public
Works, and assistance for entrepreneurs, businesses and homeowners through the Anaheim Planning
Department. The municipal corporation’s annual budget is $1.7 billion. Successful sports franchises call
Anaheim home, including the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Baseball, Anaheim Ducks, and the U.S.
Men’s and Women’s National Volleyball Teams. Anaheim also boasts world-class meeting and
entertainment venues with the Anaheim Convention Center (LEED-Certified and the largest on the West
Coast), Disneyland Resort, Anaheim GardenWalk, Honda Center, Angel Stadium of Anaheim, and the City
National Grove of Anaheim. In addition, Anaheim embraces its vibrant cultural arts community,
including the world-renowned Anaheim Ballet. Annually, Anaheim welcomes 25 million visitors, making
it a place where the world comes to live, work, and play.
Figure 1 – Regional Setting
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 8
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
1.2 Purpose of the Bicycle Master Plan
The Bicycle Master Plan provides the vision for building out the bikeway network in the City of Anaheim
over the next 20 years. The Plan identifies opportunities to close gaps in the existing network, connect
to regional routes, parks, employment centers, and multi-modal transportation hubs, and to maximize
the implementation of bike lanes within the planned roadway network without removing existing or
planned vehicle travel lanes. The Plan is important for many reasons:
Eligibility for Funding: A primary function of the Bicycle Master Plan is to meet the requirements of
regional, state and federal grant programs that provide funding for bicycle projects. To be eligible for
most grant programs, the Bicycle Master Plan must address the requirements of Streets and Highways
Code Section 891.2. A summary of how the Plan meets these requirements is provided in Appendix A,
Bicycle Transportation Account Compliance Checklist. Once the Plan is approved by the City Council and
the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), projects identified in the Plan will be eligible to
compete for grant funding. The Plan is current for five years from City Council approval.
Identify Priority Projects: The proposed bikeway network was evaluated on factors in the categories of
demand, utility, connectivity, and readiness. Three scoring tiers were identified for high, medium, and
low priority for implementation. Projects may be implemented out of scoring order as opportunities
such as grant funding, development projects, capital improvement projects, or roadway resurfacing
projects arise.
Close Gaps in the Existing Network: The Plan identifies several routes that will serve to close gaps in the
existing network to overcome physical barriers to cycling, such as crossing Interstate 5 and State Route
(SR) 91, and connectivity to the regional bikeways network. Gap closures are considered in the project
prioritization scoring and are reflected in their priority ranking.
Improve Safety and Comfort for All Cyclists: The Plan proposes bikeways both on and off street to
provide dedicated facilities for bicyclists to increase separation from motor vehicles. Additionally, the
Plan identifies bicycle safety education programs provided by the City that are implemented through
schools and community groups.
Improve Public Health: Bicycling is an active transportation mode that provides health benefits to
riders, as well as public health benefits such as reduced emissions, traffic congestion, and energy
consumption. Providing a comprehensive bikeway network increases accessibility to key destinations
and can help to reduce vehicle miles traveled as more commuters and recreational cyclists can reach
their desired destinations by bicycle.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 9
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
2. Anaheim General Plan Goals and Policies
State law requires every city and county in California to adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan.
The General Plan represents the community’s view of its future; it is a blueprint for a city’s or county’s
growth and development. City councils, boards of supervisors, and planning commissions use the goals
and policies of the General Plan as a basis on which to make their land use decisions.
The General Plan is considered “comprehensive” since it covers the territory within the boundaries of the
adopting jurisdiction and any areas outside of its boundaries that are within a jurisdiction’s sphere-of-
influence. It is also comprehensive in that it addresses a wide variety of issues that characterize a city or
county. These issues range from the physical development of the jurisdiction, such as general locations,
and extent of land uses and supporting infrastructure, to social concerns such as those identified in the
Housing Element of a General Plan.
The General Plan is considered “long-term” since it looks 20 years or further into the future. Individual
jurisdictions determine a time horizon that serves their individual needs. The General Plan projects
conditions and needs into the future as a basis for determining long-term objectives and policies for day-
to-day decision making. Throughout this horizon period, new information often becomes available and the
needs and values of a community may change. To adjust to these dynamics, General Plans are reviewed
and revised periodically.
1
The City of Anaheim General Plan contains goals and policies related to bicycle facilities. These goals
and policies include modifications that were proposed in conjunction with the Plan. Redlines of these
amended sections and maps showing the amendments to the bikeways network are provided in
Appendix B - General Plan Amendment.
1 http://www.anaheim.net/712/General-Plan
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 10
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
3. Existing Conditions
3.1 Existing Land Use
The City of Anaheim is geographically diverse, with the western and central portions of the City
characterized by relatively flat ground that slopes gently to the southwest. This portion of the City is also
characterized by a mix of suburban and urban development and is relatively built out. West Anaheim is
undergoing a Specific Plan effort that is focusing on improving the Beach Boulevard corridor and
surrounding neighborhoods. Central Anaheim is home to Downtown Anaheim (CtrCity) and the Anaheim
Colony Historic District. The existing land use patterns in the City is included as Figure 2 – Existing Land
Use (West) and Figure 3 - Existing Land Use (East).
Anaheim Central Library
The Anaheim Resort and the Platinum Triangle are located south of the downtown area, in the southern
portion of the City on either side of Interstate 5 (I-5). The Anaheim Resort, generally located west of I-5,
includes the Disneyland Resort, the Anaheim Convention Center and a mix of hotels, restaurants and
visitor-serving uses. The Platinum Triangle, located east of I-5, is a former industrial area surrounding
Angel Stadium that is transitioning into a vibrant mixed-use area. In addition to higher density
residential, commercial and office development, the Platinum Triangle also includes Honda Center, City
National Grove of Anaheim and the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). The
Platinum Triangle is bound on the east by the Santa Ana River Trail, which directly connects cyclists to
ARTIC and extends from the mountains to the beach.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 11
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station
Anaheim Canyon is a regional employment center consisting of office, industrial and commercial uses
that generally span the north side of the SR-91 between the Orange (SR-57) Freeway and Imperial
Highway. The Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan was adopted in January 2016, and envisions transforming
Anaheim Canyon into the leading center of the emerging Innovation Economy in Southern California. It
also establishes a safe and accessible multimodal transportation network that accommodates vehicles,
trucks, transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists to provide greater options and healthier living for area
residents and workers. The area is served by the Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 12
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
The eastern portion of the City extends generally east along either side of the Santa Ana River to the
Riverside County line. This part of the City includes primarily hillside terrain. Residential development in
the eastern portion of Anaheim largely consists of the various hillside communities on the south side of
the Riverside Freeway (SR-91) that extend to the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR-241). Other
relatively flat residential neighborhoods are located north of the Santa Ana River and east of Imperial
Highway, and generally south of the Santa Ana River at the intersection of the SR-91 and Costa Mesa
(SR-55) Freeways.
East Anaheim Branch Library and Police Department
The City of Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element includes a Land Use Plan with land use designations
for properties throughout the City. These designations indicate the City’s preferred future land use for
these properties. General Plan land use designations for the City are shown in Figure 4 – General Plan
Land Use Designations (West) and Figure 5 –General Plan Land Use Designations (East).
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 13
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 14
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Figure 2 – Existing Land Use (West)
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 15
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
This page intentionally left blank.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 16
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Figure 3 – Existing Land Use (East)
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 17
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
This page intentionally left blank.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 18
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Figure 4 – General Plan Land Use Designations (West)
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 19
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
This page intentionally left blank.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 20
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Figure 5 – General Plan Land Use Designations (East)
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 21
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
This page intentionally left blank.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 22
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
3.2 Bicycle Facility Types
The Plan refers to the four classes of bikeways as defined in Streets and Highways Code 890.4: Classes I,
II, III and IV. Until 2014, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) used three categories for
2
bikeways. Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill 1193, The Protected Bikeways Act of 2014, which
recognized cycle tracks as a fourth bikeway classification to promote active transportation and provide a
right-of-way adjacent to, and protected from, vehicular traffic. Due to the potential right-of-way impacts
for implementation, the City does not have and does not propose any Class IV cycle tracks at this time.
The bikeways described below will be implemented according to the latest design guidelines in the
3
Caltrans Highway Design Manual, as further described in Appendix G, Implementation Toolbox.
Table 1 provides a summary of the centerline miles of bikeways in the network. A complete inventory of
existing bikeways is included in Appendix C – Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeway Network and is shown in
Figure 6 –Bikeway Network (West) and Figure 7 – Bikeway Network (East).
Table 1 – Summary of Bikeway Network Mileage
Centerline Miles
Class
Existing Proposed Total
Class I: Bike Path 14.78 30.05 44.83
Class II: Bike Lane 43.80 71.13 114.93
Class III: Bike Route 1.28 19.13 20.41
Class IV: Cycle Track 0 0 0
Total 59.86 120.31 180.17
2 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB1193
3 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/hdmtoc.htm
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 23
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Class I Bikeway: Bike Paths
Anaheim Coves Bike Path (Bike ID 1)
890.4 (a): Class I bike paths, also referred to as “Class I Bikeways”,or shared use paths, provide a
completely separated right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with
crossflows by motorists minimized.
Class I bike paths provide critical connections to destinations not served by roadways for recreation and
as direct high-speed commute routes. The most common applications are along rivers, ocean fronts,
canals, utility right-of-ways, abandoned railroad right-of-ways, or within and between parks. A common
application of a Class I bike path is to close gaps to bicycle travel caused by freeways or natural barriers
4
such as a river.
The City is coordinating with the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) to allow the City to
access maintenance roads for OCFCD facilities for utilization as Class I bike paths. This agreement would
be the first step in the process to implement these proposed Class I bike paths through the life of the
Plan. Certain facilities exist in usable condition as a Class I bike path, such as the south side of the Santa
Ana River Trail east of Imperial Highway (Bike ID 177), and simply require access agreements to open
them. Other OCFCD facilities, such as those on the Carbon Creek Channel (Bike IDs 6, 7, 8, and 165),
4 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/pdf/chp1000.pdf
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 24
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
would require improvements to make them usable as a Class I bike path. The City will conduct additional
outreach to the local communities neighboring these facilities prior to implementing each proposed Bike
ID in order to address any safety or access concerns of the local residents and potential bicycle facility
users. The process for implementing a Class I Bike Path is outlined in Section 6.5, Implementation and
Funding Opportunities.
Bike paths can also serve as parallel routes to roadways with high vehicle volume and speed that also
have high potential bicycle demand. For example, La Palma Avenue from Blue Gum Street to Tustin
Avenue (Bike ID 19) was proposed as a Class II bike lane in the 2004 Bicycle Master Plan. The proposed
route was extended eastward to e/o Brasher Street in the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan. However, as
part of that analysis, this route has been changed in the Plan to reflect a Class I bike path on both sides
of the street to serve bicyclists and pedestrians with origins and/or destinations on La Palma Avenue.
The prevailing speed of 45-50 mph and relatively high traffic volume of over 35,000 ADT could deter the
potentially high bicycle travel demand, even with a Class II bike lane. A shared use Class I Bike Path is
proposed, however, with further study, Bike ID 19 could be implemented with a Class IV Cycle Track if
sufficient space is available within the public right-of-way.
There are 14.78 miles of existing Class I bike paths in the City and 30.05 new miles are proposed as part
of the Plan.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 25
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Class II Bikeway: Bike Lanes
Canyon Rim Road (Bike ID 52B)
890.4(b) Class II bike lanes, also referred to as “Class II bikeways”, provide a restricted right-of-way
designated for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or
pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and crossflows by pedestrians and motorists permitted.
Bike lanes are a space on the road for bicyclists adjacent to motor vehicle travel lanes and flow in the
same direction as motor vehicle traffic, and are designated with pavement markings and signage. Bike
lanes enable bicyclists to ride at their preferred speed without interference from prevailing traffic
conditions and facilitate predictable behavior and movements between bicyclists and motorists.
Buffered Bike Lane: Class II bike lanes that provide a painted buffer for lateral separation between
motor vehicle travel and/or parking lanes and bicycles are designed to visually reinforce Section 21760
of the California Vehicle Code that requires Three Feet for Safety when vehicles pass bicyclists. 74% of
survey respondents polled for the 2017 Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan preferred buffered bike lanes. This
treatment is appropriate for bike lanes on roadways with high motor vehicle traffic volumes and speed,
adjacent to parking lanes, or a high volume of truck or oversized vehicle traffic. Typically, this treatment
can be implemented where there are wide curb lanes or bike lanes. Areas that could be considered for
future study include Brookhurst Street (Bike IDs 48 and 49), Santa Ana Canyon Road (Bike ID 121), and
Tustin Avenue (Bike ID 133).
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 26
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Lane Reconfiguration: Often referred to as a “Road Diet”, lane reconfiguration is the removal of one or
more vehicle travel lanes to provide sufficient right-of-way for Class II Bike Lanes. Streets with excess
vehicle capacity provide opportunities for this type of retrofit project, and under these conditions, the
right-of-way for the excess vehicle capacity could be reallocated to bike lanes. Depending on a street’s
existing configuration, traffic operations, user needs, and safety concerns, various lane reduction
configurations exist. For instance, a four-lane street (with a center line and two travel lanes in each
direction) could be modified to include one travel lane in each direction, a center turn lane, and bike
lanes.
Miller Street, from La Palma Avenue to Orangethorpe Avenue (Bike ID 95), was recently implemented as
a road diet in the Anaheim Canyon. Miller Street was a four lane, undivided arterial with a forecasted
ADT of less than 15,000. As part of the traffic analysis for the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan, Miller
Street was analyzed for the conversion to a two lane divided street to ensure that the reduction in
vehicle travel lanes would not cause a significant adverse impact to adjacent streets and intersections.
The findings were favorable, and the proposed reduction in vehicle travel lanes required a General Plan
Amendment to reclassify the street in the Circulation Element, as well as an amendment to the Master
Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH), which is administered by OCTA. The approval of the reclassification by
OCTA finalized the change in the General Plan Circulation Element, which allowed for the road diet to be
implemented without conditions.
Similarly proposed Class II Bike Lanes identified in the Plan that meet the criteria for a road diet may be
implemented as such upon the completion of additional, site specific traffic analysis to identify overall
transportation impacts, including analysis of peak hour volumes. Studies from around the country
indicate that streets with high-end traffic volumes ranging from 22,000 – 30,000 ADT are candidates for
a road diet.
In several locations, Class II Bike Lanes do not continue through intersections, which reflect the
engineering standard details for the design of roadways in the City. All intersections shall be designed to
City Standards with the engineering design details addressing MUTCD and Caltrans Highway Design
Manual standards for bikeways through intersections. Examples of intersection treatments are included
in Appendix G - Implementation Toolbox.
There are 43.80 miles of existing Class II bike lanes, and 71.13 new miles are proposed in the Plan.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 27
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Class III Bikeways: Bike Routes
890.4(c) Class III bike routes, also referred to as “Class III bikeways”, provide a right-of-way on-street or
off-street, designated by signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians and motorists. Class
III bike routes provide shared use with motor vehicle traffic in the same travel lane.
Sharrows: Class III bike routes can be enhanced with signage and on-street pavement markings which
help reinforce that the travel lane is shared with motor vehicles and bicycles.
Bicycle Boulevard: Class III bike routes on local roads or residential streets designed to facilitate safe
and convenient bicycle travel are called bicycle boulevards. Treatments area intended to increase
motorists’ awareness of bicycle activity through the use of traffic calming devices such as signs,
pavement markings, and speed and volume management measures.
The City may implement proposed Class III bikeways as either a Sharrow or a Bicycle Boulevard, which
will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Design guidelines for sharrows and bicycle boulevards are
further described in Appendix G.
There are 1.28 miles of existing and 19.13 miles of planned Class III bike routes in the City.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 28
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Class IV: Cycle Track
http://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/cycle-tracks/two-way-cycle-tracks/
890.4(d) Class IV Cycle tracks or separated bikeways, also referred to as “Class IV bikeways”, promote
active transportation and provide a right-of-way designated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to a
roadway and which are separated from vehicular traffic. Types of separation include, but are not limited
to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking.
5
In situations where on-street parking is allowed, cycle tracks are located to the curb-side of the parking.
A two-way cycle track may be configured as a protected cycle track at street level with a parking lane or
other barrier between the cycle track and the motor vehicle travel lane and/or as a raised cycle track to
provide vertical separation from the adjacent motor vehicle lane.
Due to potential right-of-way impacts, the City is not proposing Class IV Cycle Tracks as part of this Plan.
However, Cycle Tracks are not precluded and may be considered on a case-by-case basis.
5 http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/cycle-tracks/
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 29
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 30
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Figure 6 – Bikeway Network (West)
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 31
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 32
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Figure 7 – Bikeway Network (East)
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 33
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 34
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
3.3 Existing Bikeways
The City of Anaheim has approximately 59.86 miles of existing bikeways in the City. The bikeways network
was inventoried with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software, and an interactive map is available
at www.anaheim.net/bikemap. 31.92 miles have been added to the City’s network in the last 12 years as
part of street rehabilitation, private development, and/or park and recreation facility projects and are
detailed in Appendix B. The existing bikeways network is shown in Figure 8 – Existing Bikeways (West)
and Figure 9 – Existing Bikeways (East).
It is important to note that bicycles are permitted on all roads in the State of California and in Anaheim
(with the exception of access-controlled freeways). As such, Anaheim’s entire street network is
effectively the city’s bikeway network, regardless of whether or not a bikeway stripe, stencil, or sign is
present on a given street. The designation of certain roads as Class II or III bicycle facilities is not
intended to imply that these are the only roadways intended for bicycle use, or that bicyclists should not
be riding on other streets. Rather, the designation of a network of Class II and III on-street bikeways
recognizes that certain roadways are optimal bicycle routes, for reasons such as directness or access to
significant destinations, and allows the City of Anaheim to then focus resources on building out this
primary network.
Additionally, existing bikeways built to their bikeway classification can be improved or upgraded.
Existing Class II bicycle lanes can be upgraded to buffered bike lanes where there is sufficient room.
Existing Class III bike routes could be upgraded to Class II bike lanes if needed. Also, Class II bike lanes
could be rebuilt as Class IV cycle tracks where there is sufficient room and adequate spacing between
driveways. Existing facilities should be reviewed as maintenance activities are performed or street
improvement projects are planned and implemented.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 35
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 36
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Figure 8 – Existing Bikeways (West)
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 37
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 38
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Figure 9 – Existing Bikeways (East)
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 39
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 40
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Santa Ana River Trail at ARTIC (Bike ID 27C)
Class I Bike Paths: The regional backbone of the bikeway network is the Class I Santa Ana River Trail
(SART), which extends along the Santa Ana River from the ocean to the mountains in the Inland Empire.
8.79 miles of the SART are located in the City of Anaheim along the SR-91, from east of Yorba Linda
Boulevard in the east to just west of Tustin Avenue in the west (Bike IDs 27A, 28, and 177). The trail crosses
the City boundary into Orange and re-enters Anaheim near Katella Avenue (Bike ID 27C), where it connects
to ARTIC, and then crosses back into the City of Orange.
The Class I side path on Fairmont Boulevard between La Palma Avenue and the Yorba Linda city limit (Bike
ID 17) serves as a Class I connection to the OC Loop, a 66-mile continuous facility for bicycles and
pedestrians that will link important existing regional facilities throughout the west and north portion of
Orange County. The Anaheim Coves Trail (Bike ID 1) was completed in 2011 as part of a 14 acre nature
park on the west side of the Santa Ana River between Lincoln Avenue and Ball Road. Portions of the
Carbon Creek Bike Path exist in the vicinity of Schweitzer Park (Bike ID 164) and Dad Miller Golf Course
(Bike ID 5) in west Anaheim, as well as on the SoCal Edison ROW west of Magnolia Street (Bike ID 22). The
Walnut Canyon Reservoir (Bike ID 176) is surrounded by a Class I bike path that serves as a recreational
facility in the Anaheim Hills.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 41
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Class II Bike Lanes: There are 43.80 miles of existing Class II bike lanes in the City along segments of major
and primary arterials such as Anaheim Boulevard (Bike IDs 34 and 36), Ball Road (Bike ID 42A and 42C),
Brookhurst Street (Bike ID 48), Euclid Street (Bike ID 65), Imperial Highway (Bike ID 76), Orangethorpe
Avenue (Bike ID 155), Santa Ana Canyon Road (Bike ID 121). 27.54 of these miles were implemented since
2004 as part of planned road widening and maintenance projects, which are detailed in Appendix B. Class
II bike lanes may also be implemented as buffered bike lanes with a painted separation between vehicle
and bicycle traffic, as right-of-way allows, as was done on Santa Ana Canyon Road between Festival Drive
and Eucalyptus Drive (Bike ID 121A).
Santa Ana Canyon Road Buffered Bike Lane (Bike ID 121A)
Class III Bike Routes: There are two Class III bike routes in the City, which are located on Dutch and Park
Vista Avenues from Rio Vista Street to Frontera Street (Bike ID 146) and a segment of Ball Road (Bike ID
42B). Bike ID 146 connects the Class II bike lanes on Rio Vista Street and Frontera Street, and serves Rio
Vista Park and Elementary School, and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Bike ID 42B is a Class III
route that connects Class II Bike Lanes on Ball Road at either end. This route is proposed to be upgraded to
a Class II bike lane to close this gap on Ball Road.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 42
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
3.4 Bicycle Parking and End-of-Trip Facilities
Secure bicycle parking is a key factor in encouraging bicycle use for both long and short trips. Various
forms of bicycle parking serve different users and types of trips. Bicycle parking is commonly located in
visible and convenient areas at key destinations such as schools, commercial centers, parks, libraries,
shopping centers, government buildings, office parks, tourist destinations, and multi-family housing.
Bicycle racks best serve destinations where users are expected to park for less than two hours, such as
at retail centers and activity centers like parks, libraries, and other civic locations. Bike racks are typically
installed in highly visible areas where users can use their own lock to secure the frame of the bicycle at
two points to the rack. The City standard is a loop rack, however, bicycle racks can artistically reflect a
design element of its location, such as the dog-shaped rack installation at the Olive Hills Dog Park.
Standard Bicycle Racks at the Festival
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 43
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Artistic Bicycle Racks at Olive Hills Dog Park
Bicycle lockers serve users who are expected to park at a destination for more than two hours, such as
transit centers, office parks and other employment centers, schools, and multi-family housing. Lockers
should provide secure and weather protected storage for bicycles and their accessories. Bicycle lockers
are provided at the Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station, ARTIC, Anaheim City Hall, and Angel Stadium of
Anaheim. Many employees prefer to park their bicycles inside the building, such as in their office or a
nearby storage room, if space is available. Similarly, residents of multi-family housing may prefer to park
in their units or garage/storage space.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 44
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Bicycle Lockers at ARTIC
The City does not have a complete inventory of bicycle parking currently in the City. However, bicycle
parking is a mitigation measure for new development projects in the Platinum Triangle and The Anaheim
Resort, and is required for new non-residential developments and schools subject to the Green Building
Standards Code (CALGreen Code). On December 12, 2016, the Planning Commission recommended City
Council approval of a comprehensive municipal code amendment for vehicle parking, which also
addresses the provision of bicycle parking, especially for projects that cannot provide the required
vehicle parking on-site. The code amendment includes an incentive program that allows developers to
provide bicycle parking and other amenities in lieu of a vehicle parking space(s). The parking code
amendment is anticipated to be considered by the City Council in March, 2017.
In addition to secure bicycle parking, amenities at a bicycle rider’s destination, such as shower and
locker facilities, contribute to the viability of bicycling as a commute option for local employees. There
are locker facilities at ARTIC and Anaheim City Hall West Tower that are available for use by City of
Anaheim employees. Several large employers in the City also provide shower and locker facilities for use
by their employees who bicycle to work. Employees desiring to bicycle to work should check with their
employer for facilities that may be available to them.
Figure 10 - Probable and Proposed Bicycle Parking and End-Of-Trip Facilities, shows the destinations
most likely to provide bicycle parking, as well as proposed projects in the City that would be required to
install bicycle parking as a required by the City.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 45
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 46
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Figure 10 – Probable and Proposed Bicycle Parking and End-Of-Trip Facilities
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 47
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 48
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
3.5 Multi-Modal Connections
Improving the bicycle-transit link to provide the “first mile/last mile” connection is an important part of
making bicycling a part of daily life in Anaheim. Linking bicycles with mass transit (bus and commuter
rail) overcomes such barriers as lengthy trips, personal security concerns, and riding at night, in poor
weather, or up hills. Park-and-ride locations provide for intermodal travel by bicyclists to carpools and
vanpools. Bicycle parking facilities at these locations facilitate links to ride-sharing activities.
Additionally, by bicycling to transit instead of driving, communities benefit from reduced air pollution,
greenhouse gases, demand for park-and-ride land, energy consumption, vehicle miles traveled, and
traffic congestion. The inter-modal network for bicycles is shown in Figure 11 – Multi-Modal
Connections.
Metrolink Bicycle Car at Anaheim Canyon Station
The Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station is located near the intersection of Tustin Avenue and La Palma
Avenue, just north of the SR-91. The Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station serves commuter destinations
in the Anaheim Canyon, which is an area of concentrated employment in the City. Bicycles are allowed
on all Metrolink trains, on a space available basis, for up to three bicycles per car. Special bike cars are
available on select trains, and have space to accommodate up to 18 bicycles on the lower level.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 49
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
The ARTIC is located on Katella Avenue in the Platinum Triangle, and is near popular destinations such as
Angel Stadium of Anaheim, Honda Center, the Disneyland Resort, and the Santa Ana River Trail. ARTIC is
served by the SR-57 freeway, Amtrak, Metrolink, OCTA buses, Anaheim Resort Transit, Greyhound and
other private bus operators, taxis, and short and long term parking for transit users. ARTIC has bicycle
lockers and racks on-site to serve bicycle commuters connecting to the various modes serving ARTIC.
Recreational riders have direct access to the Santa Ana River Trail. For example, organized groups of
cyclists take rides to distant destinations, such as San Diego, and return to ARTIC on the Amtrak while
their bicycles are driven back in a cargo truck.
Multi-Modal Connections at ARTIC
OCTA operates bus service in Anaheim and throughout Orange County with connections to neighboring
counties. All buses are equipped with bicycle racks that can accommodate up to two bicycles on the
front of the bus. Additional information about how to extend a bicycle trip by bus is available at
www.octa.net.
A High Quality Transit Corridor (HQTC) is an existing corridor with fixed bus service at intervals of 15
minutes or less during peak commute hours. The current HQTCs in Anaheim are on Beach Boulevard,
Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim Boulevard, State College Boulevard, and La Palma Avenue between the
west city limits and Tustin Avenue. Typically, HQTCs serve areas with high pedestrian and bicycle
demand. The Beach Boulevard, Harbor Boulevard, and State College Boulevard corridors also carry high
volumes of vehicle traffic. For longer distance riders, parallel routes on slower streets are an alternative,
however they are not feasible for short distance trips or to serve origins and destinations on the
corridor. Therefore, HQTC transit service should be promoted as a link between bicycle facilities that
connect to HQTC streets.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 50
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Figure 11 – Multi-Modal Connections
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 51
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 52
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
3.6 Education, Awareness and Enforcement Programs
Bicycle education and awareness programs in the City include employer-based programs through the
Anaheim Transportation Network, as well as those implemented by Anaheim Police and Anaheim Fire &
Rescue through schools and various community events. Enforcement of bicycle related vehicle codes is
provided by the Anaheim Police Department.
Employer Based Programs: Large employers (over 250 employees) in the City of Anaheim are subject to
6
the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Chapter 14.60 of the City of Anaheim Municipal Code,
7
as well as the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Rule 2202 On-Road Motor
Vehicle Mitigation Options. Employers subject to these regulations have a menu of options to reduce
mobile source emissions generated from employee commutes, designed to comply with federal and
state Clean Air Act requirements, Health & Safety Code Section 40458, and Section 182(d)(1)(B) of the
federal Clean Air Act. As of April, 2016, there are 28 large employers in the City subject to Rule 2202 and
the TDM Ordinance, and nine of them participate in the Employee Commute Reduction Program (ECRP).
8
The Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN) was created in 1995 as a local non-profit Transportation
Management Association. ATN offers rideshare services to all employers and employees in Anaheim,
including those subject to Rule 2202 and the TDM Ordinance. Employers in the City pay an annual fee to
participate in ATN, which includes access to professional staff to help write and implement annual
rideshare plans. About half of participating employers fully embrace bicycling and incorporate it into
their programs, which include the annual Bike Week in May with community events featuring music,
snacks, prizes, and raffles. ATN partners with the Orange County Bicycle Coalition to provide educational
sessions to employers. ATN occasionally has resources to provide safety items to employees it serves,
such as helmets and lights, or security items such as locks. Many employees prefer to keep their bicycles
in their offices if space is available.
6
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/anaheim/title18zoning?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:an
aheim_ca$anc=
7 http://www.aqmd.gov/home/programs/business/business-detail?title=rule-2202-on-road-motor-vehicle-mitigation-options
8 http://rideart.org/rideshare/
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 53
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Anaheim Fire & Rescue: The Anaheim Fire & Rescue Department’s “Wear Your Helmet Like A Pro”
9
program is part of their mission to "ensure the safety and welfare of the public we serve”. Similar to
wearing a seat belt when driving in an automobile, wearing a helmet when riding a bicycle, scooter or
skateboard is critical for one’s safety and to help prevent a traumatic brain injury in the event of a
collision. The program focuses on helmet safety education for children ages five to 14, working closely
with the seven school districts and non-profit organizations serving Anaheim. As of June 2016, the
agency has provided approximately 4,500 safety helmets to Anaheim youth. Helmets are also available
at each of the City’s 11 fire stations.
Anaheim Fire and Rescue – Wear Your Helmet Like A Pro Poster
9 http://www.anaheim.net/1924/Wear-Your-Helmet-Like-A-Pro
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 54
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Anaheim Police Department: The Anaheim Police Department Traffic Bureau - Traffic Safety Program
conducts an educational program in partnership with the City’s Community Services and Public Works
Divisions, and in cooperation with seven school districts and a non-profit partner Coast to Coast. The
goal of the Traffic Safety Program is to reduce serious injury and fatal traffic collisions through traffic
safety and awareness. The program emphasizes bicycle, pedestrian, and automobile safety to help
members of the community of all ages to safely navigate throughout the City. The educational program
is presented in five basic traffic safety modules with age appropriate curriculum for the following
th
audiences: Kindergarten-6 Grade, Junior High School, High School, Adults and Seniors, and Homeless
Outreach. The Traffic Safety Program is often presented at schools, neighborhood or community events,
Coffee with a Cop, and PTA meetings. The Traffic Safety Program was launched in January, 2015 and has
been presented at 76 locations and reached 28,745 students and 1,853 adults in its first two years. The
program is partially funded through a grant from the Office of Traffic Safety.
Anaheim Police Department – Traffic Safety Program
In August, 2016, the Anaheim Police Department launched a voluntary bicycle registration program as
part of National Night Out. The goal of the program is to help the citizens of Anaheim record their
bicycle information so that it is easily available in the event of a bicycle theft and a police report is
generated. There is no cost to the bicycle owner to register their bicycle, which can be done at any local
police station. Since its inception, 32 bicycles have been voluntarily registered in the City. Table 2 below
presents a summary of bicycle thefts reported since 2013.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 55
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Table 2 – Reported Bicycle Thefts in Anaheim
Year Number of Thefts Reported
2013 438
2014 339
2015 456
2016 387
In 2016, the City Council approved the State of California - Office of Traffic Safety S.T.E.P. Grant that
includes $86,260 to purchase bicycle helmets. The Anaheim Police Department has partnered with the
Anaheim Fire Department’s Wear a Helmet Like a Pro campaign, described above, to also distribute
helmets at traffic safety presentations.
In addition to providing educational and safety resources to Anaheim residents, the Anaheim Police
Department enforces the California Vehicle Code, including violations involving bicyclists. Common
bicycle related violations and their corresponding fines and violations issued in the City are included in
Table 3 below.
Table 3 – Bicycle Related Vehicle Code Sections
Vehicle Code Section Description Fine
21208(a) Riding outside of a bicycle lane $197
21650.1 Bicycle riding the wrong way $197
21760(b)Passing a bicycle less than 3 feet $238
away
21200.5 Riding a bicycle under the influence $690
of alcohol or drugs
21201(d)Safety equipment while riding in $197
the dark
21212(a) Helmets required for persons $197
under 18 years of age
The Anaheim Police Department and the Anaheim Fire & Rescue respond to collisions involving
bicyclists. The Anaheim Police Department has reported the following data for collisions and citations
issued, as shown in Table 4.
Table 4 – Collisions and Citations Issued in Anaheim
Year # of Collisions with Bicyclists # Citations Issued
2013 224 85
2014 220 180
2015 181 150
2016 168 123
The City has experienced a trend of a reduced number of collisions involving bicyclists annually in the
last four years reported. Citations more than doubled from 2013-2014, indicating an increased level of
enforcement of bicycle violations. Additionally, both collisions and citations decreased when Traffic
Safety Program was introduced in 2015.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 56
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Safe Routes to Schools: The Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program is a national and international
movement to engage community members to improve the walkability and bike-ability to and from
schools for children. SRTS involves parents, teachers, students, local agencies, public health agencies,
law enforcement, engineering professionals, and the public to reach a comprehensive and integrated
solution for improved street safety.
Prior to 2013, State and Federal funding grants were available to implement infrastructure projects to
improve routes to schools. After the passage of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
(MAP-21) in 2012, SRTS projects were eligible for grant applications through various sources at the
Federal level, and through the Active Transportation Program (ATP) at the State level. A list of projects
implemented in the City of Anaheim through these programs is provided in Section 6.3 (Past
Expenditures on the Bikeway Network).
Community engagement for programs like the SRTS Program has also been conducted in Anaheim. In
2015, the Orange County Health Care Agency SRTS Program worked with students at Anaheim High
School and Benjamin Franklin Elementary School to conduct walkability audits and collect data on the
accessibility and safety of routes to school. As part of the program, the students reviewed their findings
to identity areas that could be improved and suggested potential solutions. The students also organized
an interactive presentation with the City, giving the students an opportunity to engage directly with
representatives from the City’s Public Works Department and Code Enforcement staff and the
respective School Boards, to understand the opportunities and constraints for making changes. As a
result of this effort, changes were implemented to improve the safety of routes to school as follows:
Anaheim High School – Student surveys and the Walkability Audit conducted in April 2015
identified a number of observations including the condition of sidewalks, speed of traffic and
that it was not always easy to cross streets on the route to school. Students advocated for a
crosswalk and stop sign installation at North Citron Street and West Cypress Street to slow
traffic and improve safety. The City subsequently conducted a traffic study and installed a
crosswalk and stop sign at that intersection.
Benjamin Franklin Elementary School – Student surveys and the Walkability Audit conducted in
November 2015 identified a number of observations including the condition of sidewalks, areas
where it was not easy to cross streets and speed of traffic on the route to school. The City
subsequently prepared a signage and striping plan and implemented improvements to slow
traffic around the school.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 57
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Changes made surrounding Anaheim High School – Safe Routes to School Anaheim High Report.
In addition, in 2016, the Alliance for a Healthy Orange County (AHOC) launched an Active Transportation
Leadership Program that was funded through grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
and the California Endowment. The purpose of this program was to engage students at Anaheim High
School on a better understanding of the local, regional, and statewide active transportation policies. A
series of workshops were held to educate how students could get involved in their community from the
Active Transportation standpoint.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 58
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
3.7 Constraints and Opportunities
There are several factors that present both constraints and opportunities that influence the
implementation of bicycle facilities in the City, including topography, freeways, the Santa Ana River Trail,
condition of the circulation network, funding availability, and competition between street uses
(vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and parking).
Topography: The City’s topography presents both constraints and opportunities for bicyclists. The
majority of the City west of the Santa Ana River, and east of the SR-57 freeway and north of Santa Ana
Canyon Road, is relatively flat, which is ideal for cyclists of all levels. In the Anaheim Hills area south of
Santa Ana Canyon Road and east of the SR-55 freeway, the topography is hilly, which can be a hindrance
to commuting and recreational cyclists, but a welcomed challenge for enthusiasts.
Freeways: Anaheim is intersected by several freeways. The limited crossing points and increased traffic
at freeway interchanges serve as major constraints. I-5 and SR-57 have several crossings without
interchanges that are opportunities to cross the freeways, such as at Santa Ana Street, Broadway,
Crescent Avenue, and La Palma Avenue on the I-5, and Cerritos Avenue, Wagner Avenue, South Street,
and La Palma Avenue on the SR-57. To the west of the SR-55, there are limited areas to cross the SR-91
freeway without also traversing an interchange on a major arterial. Four opportunities have been
identified in coordination with the City of Fullerton, two of which traverse interchanges: Brookhurst
Street, Lemon Street, Acacia Avenue, and Sunkist Street. To the east of the SR-55, bikeways not only
need to cross the SR-91, but also the Santa Ana River. There are several proposed projects that will help
to serve this north/south connection, such as the options to connect the Anaheim Canyon Metrolink
Station with the Santa Ana River Trail (Bike IDs 20, 31, and /or 75), and proposed crossings at Tustin
Avenue (Bike IDs 12 and 133A), the Santa Ana River west of Imperial Highway (Bike ID 29), Peralta
Canyon Park (Bike ID 178), and at Fairmont Boulevard (Bike ID 15).
Santa Ana River Trail: The Santa Ana River Trail is a regional asset for recreational and commuter
bicyclists in the City, as one can ride the trail from the mountains to the ocean. The trail also directly
connects to the ARTIC, which provides intermodal connections to destinations in Anaheim, across the
state of California, and beyond. While the trail along the river is an opportunity, accessing the river trail
from adjacent neighborhoods and crossing the river are both constraints. There are several proposed
projects that will address this issue, such as proposed crossings at Tustin Avenue (Bike IDs 133 and 12),
west of Imperial Highway (Bike ID 29), and at Fairmont Boulevard (Bike ID 15). There are also several
jurisdictions that must coordinate on projects along the Santa Ana River Trail, such as the cities of Yorba
Linda and Orange, the Orange County Flood Control District, Orange County Water District, and the
County of Orange. The proposed connection to Anaheim Canyon Metrolink station across the SR-91/SR-55
and Santa Ana River that will serve different types of users (i.e. recreational, commuter to the train,
commuter on the bike system) is very complex and costly. The City is pursuing grant funding to implement
the most feasible of the options in this area (Bike IDs 20, 31, and /or 75).
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 59
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Grid Street System in the West/Central Areas: The existing grid system prevalent in central and west
Anaheim present opportunities to expand the current bikeway system. Some areas of the city have
several bikeway facilities and others have very few. Generally, older sections of the city have less
bikeway infrastructure than newer areas. One reason for the lack of facilities in older areas of the city is
the narrow curb-to-curb street widths that would require re-engineering to include bike lanes or to
provide adequate room for bicycles in a wide curb lane. There are several existing bikeways where a
travel lane was removed to provide bicycle facilities on low volume streets, such as on Gilbert Street
(Bike ID 72). The Plan does not recommend the removal of travel lanes, but individual corridors can be
evaluated for specific scenarios on a case-by-case basis as discussed below in the Vehicle Travel Lanes
section. Many streets in these areas have on-street parking, which can be an obstacle to the
implementation of bikeways, as discussed in the Vehicle Parking section below. The proposed on-street
bikeway network is constrained to the General Plan build-out of the City’s circulation network.
State College Boulevard: Between La Palma Avenue to the north and Ball Road to the south, the grid
street system shifts directions at State College Boulevard between the original Anaheim Colony area and
the neighborhoods to the east. Therefore, east/west streets are staggered as they cross State College
Boulevard, making direct connections on these streets difficult. Proposed east/west connections across
State College Boulevard exist at Sycamore Street (Bike IDs 170 and 30), South Street (Bike IDs 160 and
126) and Vermont Avenue (Bike ID 134) and Wagner Avenue (Bike ID 136) via a Class I connection
through Boysen Park (Bike ID 4). Segments on Broadway Avenue (Bike ID 47) and Santa Ana Street (Bike
ID 159) both end at State College Boulevard because direct east/west connections would require the use
of privately owned property. State College Boulevard itself is a heavily utilizednorth/south vehicle route
as an alternative to the SR-57 during heavy congestion. As a High Quality Transit Corridor, extended
north/south trips could be encouraged to use transit or use lower volume parallel routes like Sunkist
Street (Bike IDs 128 and 130) or East Street (Bike ID 64).
Funding Availability: Limited financial resources to implement the proposed bikeway network is a
universal challenge. By adopting the Plan, the City will be eligible to compete for various regional, state,
and federal grant funds with which to implement proposed bikeways. While the Plan identifies a priority
ranking for the proposed projects, they may be implemented in any order as the parameters for certain
grants are usually specific and only apply to a handful of projects. Additionally, while the priority ranking
combines several segments into a corridor, any segment within that corridor can be implemented
independently of the others. Funding for an entire corridor doesn’t need to be secured in order to
implement any part of the corridor.
Street Improvement Projects and Roadway Maintenance: By identifying the proposed bikeway
network, especially Class II bike lanes, the City can more readily coordinate the implementation or
improvement of bike lanes in conjunction with routine street and/or underground utility maintenance.
Improvement of bike lanes includes widening of bike lanes and/or buffered bike lanes. Many of the
bikeways that have been implemented in the City since 2004 were done as part of pavement projects,
which result in a relatively low implementation cost. Additionally, some bikeways may be implemented
or improved as part of private development projects that may require improvements to adjacent
streets.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 60
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Vehicle Travel Lanes: The Plan does not propose to remove any vehicle travel lanes in favor of bicycle
10
lanes. However, lane reconfiguration, also referred to as a “road diet” may be an option in specific
locations in which the street is carrying less volume than for which it was designed. Examples of
successful implementation of a “road diet” in the City are on Broadway from East Street to State College
Boulevard (Bike ID 47) and on Miller Street between La Palma Avenue and Orangethorpe Avenue (Bike
ID 95). Any project for which a vehicle lane would be removed will be subject to further feasibility
studies, traffic impact analysis, public outreach, and environmental review, and are not included in the
scope of the Plan. Such a study was done for the road diet that was implemented on Miller Street (Bike
ID 95), as discussed on page 27.
The width of the median and/or vehicle travel lanes could also be reduced in order to allow for bike
lanes within existing right of way. Lane narrowing utilizes roadway space that exceeds minimum
standards to provide the needed space for bike lanes. Many roadways have existing travel lanes that are
wider than those prescribed in City standards. For most streets, City standards allow for the use of 11
foot lanes. Industry standards allow for the use of 10 foot lanes as needed. Special consideration should
be given to the amount of heavy vehicle traffic and horizontal curvature before 10 foot wide travel lanes
are installed to create space for bike lanes. Center turn lanes can also be narrowed in some situations to
free up pavement space for bike lanes.
Vehicle Parking: There are several areas in the City that have limited on-street parking capacity in
relation to surrounding land uses. There are many residential permit parking areas in the City. The
removal of on-street parking in favor of bicycle lanes could negatively impact permit parking
neighborhoods immediately adjacent to proposed bike lanes. This was a factor in the prioritization
process, with segments that required the removal of on-street parking scoring lower than those that do
not. Any bikeways that would require the removal of on-street parking would require further outreach
to the surrounding community.
When developments are not able to accommodate their code required vehicle parking on-site, they may
request a variance from the Planning Commission. On December 12, 2016, the Planning Commission
recommended City Council approval of a comprehensive municipal code amendment for vehicle
parking, which also addresses the provision of bicycle parking, especially for projects that cannot
provide the required vehicle parking on-site. The code amendment includes an incentive program that
allows developers to provide bicycle parking and other amenities in lieu of a vehicle parking space(s).
The parking code amendment is anticipated to be considered by the City Council in March, 2017.
10 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/info_guide/rdig.pdf
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 61
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Areas for Future Study: The scope of the Plan is limited to updating the existing condition and proposing
bikeways that do not require the removal of vehicle travel lanes. Staff has identified areas for future
study that focus on specific geographic areas or types of bikeways facilities that may have additional
impacts to the Planned Roadway Network in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. These areas
for future study include The Anaheim Resort and Platinum Triangle, road diets, Class III Bicycle
Boulevards, Class IV Cycle Tracks, off-road/unpaved riding and hiking trails, and a comprehensive Active
Transportation Plan that includes pedestrian facilities. Additionally, the General Plan Amendment to
reflect the Plan will require amendments to the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan, Platinum Triangle
Specific Plan, and Anaheim Resort Specific Plan in order to bring them into consistency with the General
Plan, including the development of street typical cross-sections, as required by State law. These
amendments will follow the adoption of the Plan.
Most areas of the city could benefit from an increase in bikeway mileage, and there are numerous gaps
in the existing system. Although there are significant amounts of bicycle facilities in Anaheim, more is
needed in underserved areas and where there are obvious gaps in the network. Recommendations in
this Plan address bicycle facility gap issues.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 62
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
3.8 Coordination with Other Plans and Programs
The Plan was prepared in coordination with several other local and regional bikeways planning efforts.
The project team researched other planning documents to determine what bikeways have been planned
that will link to Anaheim. Where overlapping plans exist, the most recent documents were used where
there were inconsistencies in planned facilities. The Plan was developed in coordination with the
following plans and programs:
2004 Bicycle Master Plan
The Plan supersedes the 2004 Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan. Amendments to the Anaheim General Plan
Circulation, Economic Development, Community Design, and Green Elements will be reviewed for
approval by City Council concurrent with is review of the Plan, as described in detail in Appendix B.
Green Element
The Plan incorporates Goals and Policies of the Green Element of the City’s General Plan to protect and
enhance natural and recreational resources. For example, the Plan proposes connections to enhance
access to the Santa Ana River Trail as called for in the Green Element. It also utilizes other rights-of-way
to create new trails. The Green Element strives to reduce commute trips in single-occupant vehicles.
Implementation of the Plan will provide options for more people to commute by bicycle. It will also
enhance recreational opportunities will more attractive options for bicycling as well as expand access to
parks. Lastly, the Plan will increase the number of trails and access to existing trails. The Plan also
proposes General Plan Amendments that reinforce the integration of bicycle facilities into development
in the City.
2009 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan
11
is a compilation of bikeway projects planned
The 2009 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan (CBSP)
by Orange County Cities and the County of Orange. OCTA plans to update the CBSP beginning in early
2017. Assuming the Plan is adopted by the City Council before OCTA completes the update to the CBSP,
bikeways identified in the Plan will be incorporated into the OCTA updated CBSP for Anaheim.
Neighboring Local Jurisdictions
Neighboring Local Jurisdictions were researched regarding the status of their bike master plans and
routes on connecting streets. In the event a City does not have a specific Bicycle Master Plan, its General
Plan Circulation Element will reflect its bikeway network. A city without a Bicycle Master Plan may use
the OCTA CBSP to apply for funding for bicycle facilities. Table 5 - Bikeway Connections with Neighboring
Jurisdictions summarizes bikeway connections between Anaheim and surrounding jurisdictions.
Buena Park – The City of Buena Park does not have a Bicycle Master Plan. Segments connecting
12
to Anaheim were identified as part of the Fourth District Bikeways Strategy, such as the
extension of the Class 1 bike path on the SoCal Edison ROW (Bike ID 23), and connections across
Buena Park between Cypress and Anaheim on Orange Avenue (Bike ID 107), Ball Road (Bike ID
41), and the Carbon Creek Channel (Bike ID 6).
11 http://www.octa.net/pdf/bikeways09.pdf
12 http://octa.net/pdf/4thDistrictBikewaysReport.pdf
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 63
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Cypress – The City of Cypress does not have a Bicycle Master Plan. A Class II bike lane (Bike ID
53) exists on Cerritos Avenue, where the boundary of Anaheim and Cypress is in the center of
the street. However, the City of Anaheim maintains both sides of the street. The bike lane
continues west into Cypress past the City limit, which is maintained by Cypress.
Fullerton – The City of Fullerton completed its Bicycle Master Plan in 2011, which was adopted
as part of its General Plan update. Connections are made on Brookhurst Street (Bike ID 49),
Lemon Street (Bike ID 38), Acacia Avenue (Bike ID 33), and Orangethorpe Avenue (Bike IDs 26
and 108). These segments are bicycle connections that are also identified in the Fourth District
Bikeways Strategy.
Garden Grove – The City of Garden Grove released their Active Streets Master Plan in June 2016.
The cities of Anaheim and Garden Grove have a reciprocal agreement for Anaheim to maintain
the bikeway on both sides of Chapman Avenue (Bike ID 56). Connections exist on Ninth Street
(Bike ID 98), Brookhurst Street (Bike ID 48), Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street (Bike ID 37), and
Euclid Street (Bike ID 66). A segment of Orangewood Avenue is within Garden Grove and
connects to Bike ID 111B in the west and Bike ID 112 to the east.
Orange – The City of Orange most recently updated their Bicycle Master Plan in 2001. There are
several existing and proposed bikeway connections with Anaheim, including all crossings of the
Santa Ana River: East-West SoCal Edison right-of-way/Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way (Bike
ID 14B); Ball Road (Bike ID 44); Lincoln Avenue (Bike ID 91); Glassell Street (Bike ID 73); and the
Metrolink Side Trail (Bike ID 20). Street connections include Tustin Avenue (Bike ID 132),
Orangewood Avenue (Bike ID 114); Lewis Street (Bike ID 88), Santa Ana Canyon Road (Bike ID
121A), Serrano Avenue (Bike ID 123), and Imperial Highway/Cannon Street (Bike ID 76).
Placentia – The City of Placentia does not have a Bicycle Master Plan, but does have a bikeways
path map. The City is in the process of updating their General Plan, which will address the
bikeways network. Connections are made on Lakeview Avenue (Bike ID 85), Orangethorpe
Avenue (Bike IDs 108, 110, and 155), Blue Gum Street (Bike ID 45), Tustin Avenue (Bike ID 133),
Van Buren Street (Bike ID 162), and Richfield Road (Bike ID 116). Several of these segments are
shared jurisdiction where the cities coordinate on street maintenance.
Stanton – The City of Stanton does not have a Bicycle Master Plan. Anaheim coordinated with
Stanton to complete the Anaheim portion of the SoCal Edison ROW (Bike ID 22). Existing and
proposed Class II bike lanes connections to Stanton include: Cerritos Avenue (Bike ID 54);
Magnolia Street (Bike ID 93); Dale Street (Bike ID 62); Western Avenue (Bike ID 163); and Knott
Avenue (Bike ID 79). Anaheim will also coordinate with Stanton on the implementation of the
proposed Class I bike path on the Union Pacific Railroad ROW (Bike ID 32).
Yorba Linda – The City of Yorba Linda does not have a Bicycle Master Plan, but does have a
bikeways map. Connections are made on Lakeview Avenue (Bike ID 85), Orangethorpe Avenue
(Bike ID 109), Kellogg Drive (Bike ID 78), Fairmont Boulevard (Bike ID 17), Gypsum Canyon Road
(Bike ID 75), and the Santa Ana River Trail (Bike ID 28).
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 64
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
County of Orange – The County of Orange uses the Major Riding and Hiking Trails and Off-Road
Paved Bikeways to guide the development of trails and bikeways in the County. The County
maintains the Santa Ana River Trail, of which over 10 miles are located in Anaheim. Anaheim
regularly coordinates with the County in relation to the Santa Ana Regional Bike Trail, including
13
and
the proposed project to improve the trail through Yorba Linda to the Riverside County Line
with proposed projects connecting to the Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station and Anaheim
Coves. The City also coordinates with the County regarding bicycle facilities in the
unincorporated areas in West Anaheim, such as the recently constructed Class II bikeway on
Gilbert Street from the south city limits to Ball Road (Bike ID 72), and sections of the Class II
bikeways on Ball Road (Bike ID 42), and Brookhurst Street (Bike ID 48C).
Orange County Water District – Anaheim regularly coordinates with the Orange County Water
District regarding bikeways that affect their jurisdiction along the Santa Ana River Trail.
Anaheim Coves and North Extension – In an effort to expand the City of Anaheim’s natural,
transportation and recreational resources for the community, the City has been working to
enter into a partnership with three public agencies that own the land north of Lincoln Avenue
for the purpose of extending Anaheim Coves. This project was identified as a key opportunity in
the Anaheim Outdoors Connectivity Plan. The project scope of work includes developing 14
acres of native landscape and constructing a 0.9 miles of a Class I, 10-foot-wide paved bicycle
trail by using a porous asphalt paving, constructing a sub-base aggregate and concrete curb at
porous asphalt; two-way striping; installing a bike rack; distance markers; benches; trash
receptacles; recycle containers; pet waste dispensers; appropriate safety signage; two-cable
guardrail at Carbon Canyon Channel; and a drinking fountain at Frontera Street. The project will
span from Lincoln Avenue to Frontera Street along the west side of the Santa Ana River. Based
on the sense of shared support for the project by the parties, the City has received authorization
from the Orange County Water District (OCWD), Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD)
and Southern California Edison (SCE) to move forward with design and compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council approved the Anaheim Coves North
Extension project at its meeting on February 7, 2017.
Orange County Flood Control District – The City’s General Plan, Bicycle Master Plan and Anaheim
Outdoors Connectivity Plan identify the potential use of Orange County Flood Control District
(OCFCD) maintenance roads by bicyclists and pedestrians. The multi-use of these maintenance
roads has been identified in an effort to expand the City of Anaheim’s transportation and
recreational resources. The City of Anaheim and OCFCD plan to enter into an operation and
maintenance agreement that identifies existing OCFCD maintenance roads that could be
converted into future bikeways and trails and identifies the City’s role in improving and
maintaining these facilities. The improvements needed to expand the bike and pedestrian
network include bridges, gates, fences, and the resurfacing of the existing OCFCD maintenance
roads. In some cases, the improvements are as simple as adding signage and striping, and
opening the gates for public use. Many of these segments represent important links between
neighborhoods, schools, parks, and libraries.
13 http://ocplanning.net/planning/projects/santa_ana_river_parkway_extension_project
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 65
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
OCTA Bikeways Strategies
14
OCTA Bikeways Strategies were commissioned by the Orange County Council of Governments and
OCTA to expand upon the 2009 CBSP. The Bikeways Strategies were organized by County supervisorial
districts, and areas of Anaheim are located in or adjacent to Districts 3 and 4. The OC Foothills Bikeways
Strategy was most recently completed in 2016, and the Plan reflects coordination between the agencies
involved in the development of each strategy.
Orange County Loop
15
OC Loop is a vision for 66 miles of seamless connections and an opportunity for people to bike, walk,
and connect to some of California’s most scenic beaches and inland reaches. About 70% of the OC Loop
is existing, and the County of Orange prepared a gap feasibility study to better position cities to pursue
grant funding to implement the missing OC Loop segments. Segment H of the OC Loop is located within
the City of Anaheim and would connect between the Santa Ana River and Fairlynn Boulevard and the El
Cajon Trail in Yorba Linda.
OCTA Outlook 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan
The OCTA Outlook 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan16 includes the multi-modal projects and
programs that are the basis for the Southern California Association of Governments’ Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP). The LRTP provides a visionary blueprint for transportation improvements for
Orange County and input into the development of the RTP. The general goals of the LRTP are to assess
the performance of the transportation system over a 20+ year horizon, and to identify the projects that
best address the needs of the system based on expected population, housing and employment growth,
while taking forecast financial assumptions into account at the same time. The LRTP will provide both a
financially constrained plan, which takes into account funding limitations, and an unconstrained plan,
which contains a vast array of potential improvements should additional funding sources become
available. The focus of the LRTP, which looks out to the year 2035, will be on sustainability, specifically
addressing the reduction of greenhouse gases from cars and trucks. Sustainability is related to the
quality of life in a community -- whether the economic, social and environmental systems that make up
the community are providing a healthy, productive, meaningful life for all community residents.
2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2016-2040 Regional Transportation
17
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) has the goal of maintaining regional mobility, while
committing to reducing emissions from transportation sources to comply with California Senate Bill (SB)
375 and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards from the U.S. Clean Air Act. SB 375 calls for regional
plans to meet reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The Active Transportation portion of the RTP/SCS
represents how the region plans to use active transportation to help meet its transportation challenges
over the next 25 years, including longer-trip strategies for commuters and active recreation, integrating
active transportation with transit, short-trip strategies for utilitarian trips (shopping, school, local retail),
14 http://octa.net/Bike/Bikeways-Planning/
15 http://octa.net/Bike/The-OC-Loop/
16 http://www.octa.net/Projects-and-Programs/Plans-and-Studies/Long-Range-Transportation-Plan/
17 http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/default.aspx
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 66
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
and safety/encouragement. The bike strategies and facilities in the RTP/SCS are derived in part from the
plans that OCTA and local cities submitted.
State Implementation Plan
The SCAQMD prepares the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to comply with the California Clean Air Act
and SB 375. The California Clean Air Act establishes requirements for local/regional air districts to meet
state mandates. This filters through the California Air Resources Board (CARB). CARB is responsible for
compiling district plans to comply with the Federal Clean Air Act. SCAQMD coordinates efforts with
SCAG to comply with transportation requirements through the RTP/SCS. The SCAQMD also coordinates
compliance with Rule 2202, which was discussed in section 3.6 above.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 67
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 68
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Table 5 – Bikeway Connections with Neighboring Jurisdictions
Neighboring Bikeway
Bike ID Street/Path Name Existing Proposed
Jurisdiction Class
6 Carbon Creek Channel I X
107 Orange Avenue II X
North-South SoCal Edison
Buena Park
23 Right-of-Way w/o Magnolia I X
Street
41 Ball Road II X
Buena Park
53 Cerritos Avenue II X
and Cypress
49 Brookhurst Road II X
38 Lemon Street II X
Fullerton
33 Acacia Avenue II X
26 and 108 Orangethorpe Avenue II X
111 and 112 Orangewood Avenue II X X
98 Ninth Street II X
48 Brookhurst Street II X
Garden Grove
Anaheim Boulevard/
37 II X
Haster Street
56 Chapman Avenue II X
66 Euclid Street II X
123 Serrano Avenue II X
20 Metrolink Side Trail I X
76 Imperial Highway II X
121A Santa Ana Canyon Road II X
132 Tustin Avenue II X
73 Glassell Street II X
91 Lincoln Avenue II X
Orange
44 Ball Road II X
East-West Edison right-of-
way/ Union Pacific Railroad
14B I X
right-of-way north of Katella
Avenue
114 Orangewood Avenue II X
88 Lewis Street II X
108 and 110 Orangethorpe Avenue II X
155 Orangethorpe Avenue II X
85 Lakeview Avenue II X
162 Van Buren Street III X
Placentia
133 Tustin Avenue II X
82 Kraemer Boulevard II X
45 Blue Gum Street II X
116 Richfield Road II X
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 69
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Neighboring Bikeway
Bike ID Street/Path Name Existing Proposed
Jurisdiction Class
54 Cerritos Avenue II X
Union Pacific Railroad north
32 I X
of Katella and east of Euclid
93 Magnolia Street II X
Stanton North-South SoCal Edison
22 I X
ROW west of Magnolia Street
62 Dale Street II X
163 Western Avenue II X
79 Knott Avenue II X
85 Lakeview Avenue II X
78 Kellogg Drive II X
109 Orangethorpe Avenue II X
Yorba Linda
17 Fairmont Boulevard II X
28 Santa Ana River Trail I X
75 Gypsum Canyon Road II X
27 Santa Ana River Trail I X
72 Gilbert Street II X
42A Ball Road II X
County of Orange 42B Ball Road III X
42C Ball Road II X
42DBall Road II X
48C Brookhurst Street II X
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 70
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
4. Needs Analysis
4.1 Population and Employment Profile
According to the United States Census Bureau’s 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) five-year
18,
estimates Anaheim’s population was approximately 342,973, with a projected population of 380,000 by
2035. Residential growth will occur primarily in the Platinum Triangle and through infill development
throughout the mostly built-out city. Major employment centers in the City include The Anaheim Resort
and the Anaheim Canyon. More than 58% of the City’s residents are ages 15-54, and are of prime bicycling
age for work commute trips.
4.2 Types of Bicyclists
The Plan seeks to address the needs of all current and potential bicyclists and seeks to understand the
needs and preferences of all types of bicyclists, which may vary among skill levels and trip types. In
addition, the propensity to bicycle varies from person to person, providing insight into potential
19
increases in bicycling rates. Research shows that there are four types of bicyclists, as shown in Figure
12 – Four Types of Bicyclists:
Figure 12 – Four Types of Bicyclists
18 http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF
19 http://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/264746
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 71
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Strong and Fearless bicyclists will ride almost anywhere, any time. High traffic volumes and speeds, and
lack of bikeway designation do not deter these riders. They are estimated to be less than one percent of
the population.
Enthused and Confident bicyclists will ride on most roadways where traffic volumes and speeds are not
high. These riders, estimated at 5 to 7 percent of the population, are confident in positioning themselves
to share the roadway with motorists.
Interested but Concerned bicyclists will ride if bicycle paths or lanes are provided on low traffic and low
speed streets. They are typically not confident cycling alongside motorists. These riders are estimated to
comprise 60% of the population, and the primary target group that is likely to bicycle more if
encouraged to do so.
“No Way No How” people do not consider cycling part of their transportation or recreation options, and
comprise about one-third of the population.
The needs of bicyclists also vary among trip purposes. For example, people who bicycle for performance-
recreational purposes may prefer long and straight roadways without traffic signals, while bicyclists who
ride with children to school may prefer direct roadways with lower vehicular volumes and speeds. This
Plan considers these differences and develops a bikeway network to serve all user types, including:
Commuters - Adults who regularly bicycle between home and work
Enthusiasts - Skilled adults who ride for exercise and recreation
Casual/Family/Elderly Riders - Adults who use bicycles for running errands, recreation, tourism,
exercise, or as a family activity
Children - Children who bicycle to school and for fun
An effective bikeway network accommodates bicyclists of all abilities. Casual bicyclists generally prefer
roadways with low traffic volumes and low speeds. They also prefer paths that are physically separated
from roadways. Because experienced bicyclists typically ride to destinations or to achieve a goal, they
generally choose the most direct route, which may include arterial roadways with or without bike lanes.
Bicyclists of all abilities and purposes ride every day in Anaheim. Parents bicycle with their children to
school, people bicycle to work, community members bicycle to transit stations, and recreational
bicyclists ride through the City on extended bicycle trips.
Recent technology, such as electric bicycles, has encouraged less confident bicycle riders to enjoy the
benefits of cycling. At times, this has also allowed bicyclists to utilize facilities such as on-street bike
lanes that they may not normally feel able to ride in safely and comfortably.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 72
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
4.3 Cyclist Comfort Level
In 2012, the Mineta Transportation Institute developed measures of low-stress connectivity to evaluate
20
and guide bicycle network planning. Criteria include factors such as number of vehicle travel lanes and
vehicle speed. Road segments can be classified into four Levels of Traffic Stress (LTS): LTS 1 is generally
suitable for children; LTS 2 represents the comfort level for the “Interested but Concerned” rider type;
LTS 3 can be tolerated by the “Enthused and Confident” rider type that prefers to still have dedicated
space on the road for cyclists; and LTS 4 can only be tolerated by the “Strong and Fearless” rider type.
Table 6 – Level of Traffic Stress in Mixed Traffic below shows a generalized summary of methods to
determine LTS levels on arterial streets.
Table 6 – Level of Traffic Stress in Mixed Traffic
Class I Bike Paths and Class IV Cycle Tracks have the lowest level of traffic stress between intersections,
and are generally categorized as LTS 1. Class II Bike Lanes and Class III Bike Routes can exhibit the full
range of traffic stress. Where they have ample width and are positioned on a road whose traffic is slow
and simple (a single lane per direction), they can offer cyclists a low-stress riding environment. However,
bike lanes can also present a higher stress environment when positioned on roads with heavy traffic or
next to parking lanes.
20 http://transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/1005-low-stress-bicycling-network-connectivity.pdf
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 73
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
4.4 Public Outreach
The City solicited input from the public over the course of the planning process, which began with the
City’s Anaheim Outdoors Connectivity Plan that was adopted in 2014. Outreach efforts included:
1.Presentations at regularly scheduled Neighborhood Council District meetings, where details of the Plan
were discussed and the public was invited to participate. The planning process was introduced at the
Neighborhood Council meetings in January 2014, and followed with more detailed presentations in
August 2014. Staff returned to the Neighborhood Councils in January 2016 to present the Plan
recommendations at that point in the planning process. Staff returned to the Neighborhood Councils
in July 2016, to announce that the Draft Plan was available for public comment from August 1, 2016 to
August 31, 2016. Additional meetings were held with the Neighborhood Districts in February, 2017.
2.An online survey was completed by 201 respondents in Fall 2014. Findings are detailed in Appendix
D - Anaheim Outdoors Bicycle Master Plan Update Survey Results and are summarized as follows:
Over 70% of respondents see bicyclists on Anaheim streets once or more per day
If safe bicycle routes were in close proximity, respondents would bicycle to complete the
following trip types:
90% for exercise/health
o
61% for shopping/errands
o
54% for work commutes
o
23% to get to transit
o
Over 83% of respondents answered that there are too few bicycle routes in Anaheim, and
over 76% shared that this prevents them from bicycling more often
To be influenced to bicycle more often, respondents prioritized the following:
More buffered bike lanes (74%)
o
More paved off-street (Class I) paths (67%)
o
More traditional on-street bike lanes (Class II with 6-inch stripe) (59%)
o
More bicycle boulevards (shared roadways designed to slow vehicle traffic and give
o
equal priority to bicyclists) (59%)
3.A Bicycle Master Plan Open House was held Saturday, October 18, 2014, at the Muzeo, to solicit
public input on their preferences among the proposed new bicycle lanes and trails. The public
preferences are summarized as follows:
Lemon Street bicycle boulevard from Ball Road to La Palma Park
Broadway buffered bike lanes from Dale Street to Olive Street
Orange Avenue buffered bike lanes from Carbon Creek Channel to Magnolia Avenue
Ball Road bicycle path from Lemon Street to Walnut Street
Carbon Creek Channel bicycle path from Beach Boulevard through Dad Miller Golf Course
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 74
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
4.A fact sheet on the Plan, including the web link to the Plan on the City’s website, was distributed in
August 2016 to raise awareness of the Plan and solicit public input during the public review period
from August 1 to August 31, 2016. It was available at the four Neighborhood Council Meetings in
July 2016, National Night Out on August 2, 2016, at educational programs held by the Traffic Safety
Program, at all City facilities and events, and at various back-to-school open houses in local school
districts in the month of August 2016. The fact sheet was also emailed to various distribution lists,
including OCTA’s. The fact sheet is included as Appendix E – Bike Anaheim Ride With Us Fact Sheet.
5.A workshop was held at the Planning Commission meeting on August 8, 2016, which included the
opportunity for public comment.
6.The Plan was adopted through a series of Planning Commission and City Council hearings in Spring,
2017.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 75
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 76
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
5. Bikeway Network Recommendations
5.1 Proposed Bikeways
A comprehensive bikeway network improves bicyclists’ level of safety, convenience, and access to key
destinations. Planning a bikeway network enables the City to prioritize and seek funding to construct
bicycle facilities where they will provide the greatest benefit to bicyclists and the community-at-large.
The proposed bikeway network, when completed, will include 180.17 miles of bicycle facilities to
increase connectivity within Anaheim and to surrounding communities. The proposed bikeway network
has been developed to create a safe and logical network. It is important to note that bicyclists are legally
entitled to ride on all city streets, regardless of whether the streets are a part of the designated bikeway
network.
The scope of the Plan is limited to proposing bikeways that do not require the removal of vehicle travel
lanes. Staff has identified areas for future study that focus on specific geographic areas or types of
bikeways facilities that may have additional impacts to the Planned Roadway Network in the Circulation
Element of the General Plan. These areas for future study include The Anaheim Resort and Platinum
Triangle, road diets, Class III Bicycle Boulevards, Class IV Cycle Tracks, off-road/unpaved riding and hiking
trails, and pedestrian facilities.
Table 7 – Proposed Bikeways details all of the proposed bikeways in the Anaheim bikeway network,
which are also shown in Figure 13 – Proposed Bikeway Network (West) and Figure 14 – Proposed
Bikeway Network (East).
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 77
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 78
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Table 7 – Proposed Bikeways
Class I Bike Path Proposed
Bike Centerline
Street/Path From To
ID Miles
Anaheim Coves Trail North
2 Lincoln Avenue Frontera Street 0.94
Extension
Basin Trail south of La Palma
3 Richfield Road Lakeview Avenue 0.46
Avenue
4 Boysen Park Path Vermont Avenue Wagner Avenue 0.25
6 Carbon Creek Channel Buena Park City Limit Beach Boulevard 1.30
7 Carbon Creek Channel Magnolia Avenue Gilbert Street 0.57
8 Carbon Creek Channel Brookhurst Street La Palma Avenue 1.89
165 Carbon Creek Channel Schweitzer Park Lincoln Avenue 0.73
Carbon Creek Diversion
9 Kraemer Boulevard Orangethorpe Avenue 1.35
Channel
10 Crescent Avenue Bike Bridge Muller Street Chippewa Avenue 0.18
11 Deer Canyon Park Fairmont Boulevard Serrano Avenue 1.62
East Tustin Flood Control Anaheim Canyon
12 Santa Ana River Trail 0.79
Path Metrolink
East-West Edison right-of-UPRR West of Ninth
13 Walnut Street 0.41
way north of Katella Avenue Street
East-West Edison right-of-
way/Union Pacific Railroad
14A Harbor Boulevard Douglass Road 2.31
right-of-way north of Katella
Avenue
East-West Edison right-of-
way/Union Pacific Railroad
14B Douglass Road Orange City Limit 0.32
right-of-way north of Katella
Avenue
Santa Ana Canyon
15 Fairmont Boulevard La Palma Avenue 0.54
Road
16 Fairmont Boulevard Santa Ana River Trail La Palma Avenue 0.09
Santa Ana River Trail
179 Imperial La Palma Connector Connector w/o Imperial Highway 0.45
Imperial Highway
18Imperial Park PathNohl Ranch RoadSanta Ana Canyon Road0.75
19 La Palma Avenue Blue Gum Street east of Brasher Street 4.23
20 Metrolink Side Trail Orange/Olive Road Tustin Avenue 0.98
21 Nohl Ranch Open Space Trail Avd Margarita Anaheim Hills Road 1.27
North-South Edison right-of-
23 Broadway La Palma Avenue 1.26
way west of Magnolia Street
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 79
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Bike Centerline
Street/Path From To
ID Miles
North-South Union Pacific E-W Southern California
24 Railroad- Olive Street Vermont Avenue Edison right-of-way 1.18
Continuation south of Cerritos Avenue
109 Orangethorpe Avenue Lakeview Avenue Imperial Highway 1.66
Peralta Canyon Park
178 Pinney Drive Santa Ana River Trail 0.25
Overcrossing
Santa Ana River Trail
29 Connector west of Imperial Santa Ana River Trail La Palma Avenue 0.28
Highway
Sycamore Connector west of
30 Sycamore Street La Palma Avenue 0.13
State College Boulevard
Tustin Avenue-Metrolink
31 Orange Sub Tustin Avenue 0.28
Connection Alt 1
0.17
Tustin Avenue-Metrolink
175 Orange Sub Santa Ana River Trail (Alt. to 31 –
Connection Alt 2
Not Counted)
Union Pacific Railroad north
32Stanton City LimitsBroadway3.42
of Katella and east of Euclid
Total 30.05
Class II Bike Lane Proposed
Bike Centerline
Street/Path From To
ID Miles
33 Acacia Street La Palma Avenue Fullerton City Limits .61
35 Anaheim Boulevard Ball Road Sycamore Street 1.56
Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Garden Grove City
37 Cerritos Avenue 1.25
Street Limits
Anaheim Boulevard/Lemon Fullerton City Limits north
38 La Palma Avenue 1.10
Street of Freedom Lane
Buena Park City
41 Ball Road Knott Avenue 0.38
Limits
42D Ball Road Western AvenueGaymont Street 0.69
43A Ball Road Brookhurst Street Walnut Street 1.75
43B Ball Road Walnut Street West Place 0.25
44 Ball Road Lemon Street Orange City Limits 2.31
45 Blue Gum Street La Palma Avenue Placentia City Limits 0.64
Southern California Edison
46A Broadway Dale Street 0.23
Trail
Southern California
46B Broadway Gilbert Street 0.75
Edison Trail
46C Broadway Gilbert Street East Street 3.85
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 80
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Bike Centerline
Street/Path From To
ID Miles
49 Brookhurst Street Crescent Avenue Fullerton City Limits 1.00
Camino Grande/Stagecoach
50 Nohl Ranch Road Nohl Ranch Road 1.53
Road
51Canyon Creek RoadSunset Ridge RoadSerrano Avenue0.56
West City Limits
54 Cerritos Avenue Walnut Street 2.51
(east of Magnolia)
55 Cerritos AvenueAnaheim Boulevard Douglass Road 1.65
Carbon Creek
58 Crescent Avenue Brookhurst Street 0.22
Channel
62 Dale Street Stanton City Limits Buena Park City Limits 1.64
63 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 0.41
Orangewood
171 Dupont Drive (W) Dupont Drive (E) 2.22
Avenue
64 East Street Ball Road La Palma Avenue 2.09
Orangewood
66 Euclid Street Ball Road 1.52
Avenue
67 Fairmont Boulevard Canyon Rim Road Santa Ana Canyon Road 1.07
68 Frontera Street La Palma Avenue Rio Vista Street 0.20
Crescent Pinney Drive/Royal Oak
70 Gerda Drive 0.39
Elementary SchoolRoad
71 Gilbert Street Broadway Carbon Creek Trail 0.58
74 Grove Street La Palma Avenue Miraloma Avenue 0.67
Santa Ana Canyon
75 Gypsum Canyon Road Yorba Linda City Limit 0.16
Road
77 Kellogg Drive La Palma Avenue Orangethorpe Avenue 0.38
79 Knott Avenue Stanton City Limits Orange Avenue 0.93
82 Kraemer Boulevard Frontera Street Orangethorpe Avenue 1.37
Buena Park City
81 La Palma Avenue Acacia Street 4.63
Limits
State College
167 La Palma Avenue Blue Gum Street 1.18
Boulevard
Santa Ana Canyon
83 Lakeview Avenue Riverdale Avenue 0.25
Road
85A Lakeview Avenue La Palma Avenue Orangethorpe Avenue 0.50
Orangethorpe
85B Lakeview Avenue Yorba Linda City Limit 0.26
Avenue
87A Lewis Street Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 0.50
87B Lewis Street Cerritos Avenue Ball Road 0.52
88 Lewis Street Orange City Limits Orangewood Avenue 0.25
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 81
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Bike Centerline
Street/Path From To
ID Miles
Southern California Edison
89A Lincoln Avenue Knott Avenue 1.74
Trail
Southern California
89B Lincoln Avenue Euclid Street 2.26
Edison Trail
90 Lincoln Avenue Manchester Avenue Wilshire Avenue 0.16
93 Magnolia Avenue Stanton City Limits La Palma Avenue 2.49
94 Manchester Avenue Santa Ana StreetLincoln Avenue 0.44
96 Miraloma Avenue Sunkist Street La Loma Circle 1.31
99 Ninth Street Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 0.50
100 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills Road Serrano Avenue 1.56
101 North Street West Street Harbor Boulevard 0.45
103 North Street Anaheim Boulevard Olive Street 0.22
105 Oak Canyon Drive Weir Canyon Road Running Springs Drive 0.21
Buena Park City
107A Orange Avenue Carbon Creek Trail 0.97
Limits
Carbon Creek
107B Orange Avenue Magnolia Avenue 1.41
Channel
26 Orangethorpe Avenue Lemon Street Raymond Avenue 0.75
State College
108 Orangethorpe Avenue Placentia Avenue 0.36
Boulevard
110 Orangethorpe Avenue Kraemer Boulevard Miller Street 0.63
112 Orangewood AvenueWest Street Harbor Boulevard 0.51
Mountain View
114 Orangewood Avenue Dupont Drive (W) 1.03
Avenue
Santa Ana Canyon
115 Pinney Drive Gerda Drive 0.06
Road
Basin Trail south of
116 Richfield Road Placentia City Limits 0.22
La Palma Avenue
118 Rio Vista Street Dutch Avenue Frontera Street 0.40
123 Serrano Avenue Orange City Limits Nohl Ranch Road 0.10
125Serrano AvenueCanyon Rim RoadWeir Canyon Road1.45
State College
126 South Street Peregrine Street 0.50
Boulevard
130 Sunkist Street South Street Miraloma Avenue 1.01
131 Sunset Ridge Road Canyon Creek Road Serrano Avenue 0.91
172 Towne Centre Place Dupont Drive (E) Rampart Street 0.23
Santa Ana River
133A Tustin Avenue Miraloma Avenue 1.18
Trail
134 Vermont Avenue Citron Street Boysen Park Trail 1.65
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 82
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Bike Centerline
Street/Path From To
ID Miles
State College
136 Wagner Avenue Sunkist Street 0.50
Boulevard
138A Walnut Street Katella Avenue Ball Road 1.02
138BWalnut StreetBall RoadSanta Ana Street0.65
140 West Street Santa Ana StreetNorth Street 0.94
141 Western Avenue Orange Avenue Buena Park City Limits 0.76
Total 71.13
Class III Bike Routes Proposed
Bike Centerline
Street/Path From To
ID Miles
57 Citron Street Vermont Avenue Santa Ana Street 0.57
145
Crone Avenue UPRR Trail Walnut Street 1.00
A
145
Crone Avenue Nutwood Street UPRR Trail 0.25
B
147 Gilbert Street La Palma Avenue Crescent Avenue 0.49
148 Gilbert Street Broadway Ball Road 0.76
149 Katella Avenue Douglass Road Santa Ana River Trail 0.13
86 Lemon Street Sycamore Street La Palma Avenue 0.56
150 Lemon Street Ball Road Sycamore Street 1.53
151 North Street Loara Street West Street 0.42
152 Nutwood Street Orange Avenue Crone Street 0.23
106 Olive Street Vermont Avenue Santa Ana Street 0.57
153 Olive Street Santa Ana Street La Palma Avenue 1.09
154 Orange Avenue Magnolia Avenue Euclid Street 1.98
Romneya Drive/Carl Karcher
158 Euclid Street Anaheim Boulevard 1.26
Way
122 Santa Ana Street Walnut Street East Street 1.63
159 Santa Ana Street East Street State College Boulevard 0.72
160 South Street Indiana Street State College Boulevard 1.97
161 South Street Rio Vista Street Anaheim Coves Trail 0.28
170 Sycamore StreetWest Street Sycamore Connector 2.22
162 Van Buren Street La Palma Avenue Placentia City Limit north 0.42
of Miraloma Avenue
135 Vine Street Santa Ana Street Broadway 0.15
173 West Street North Street La Palma Avenue 0.42
143 Westmont Drive Loara Street West Street 0.48
Total 19.13
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 83
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 84
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Figure 13 – Proposed Bikeway Network (West)
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 85
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 86
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Figure 14 – Proposed Bikeway Network (East)
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 87
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 88
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
5.2 Proposed Parking and End-of-Trip Facilities
The City will continue to promote the integration of bicycle parking and end-of-trip facilities into future
development of commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational, and multi-family residential
developments in the City. The proposed amendments to the General Plan, detailed in Appendix B, will
help to implement more bicycle parking. The proposed parking code amendment, as discussed in
Section 3.7 above, will address bicycle parking in the City’s municipal code.
5.3 Proposed Multi-Modal Connections
Convenient connections for bicyclists to continue their trips on public transit include three key elements:
bicycle access to transit stops; bicycle parking facilities at multi-modal centers; and accommodation for
bicycles on trains and buses. The bikeway network connects to existing transit stops and provides bicycle
parking at multi-modal centers such as the Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station and the ARTIC. Multi-
modal connections were scoring criteria in the priority ranking for the proposed segments of the Plan.
5.4 Proposed Education, Awareness, and Enforcement Programs
The City recognizes that in addition to providing safe and inviting bikeways facilities, ongoing education,
awareness, and enforcement are critical components of the safety of riders on the City’s bikeway
network. In addition to maintaining existing programs with the Anaheim Police Department and
Anaheim Fire & Rescue as funding is available, the City will pursue grant funding for additional resources
for the Traffic Safety Program and bicycle helmet distribution. Additional opportunities include the
creation and distribution of a bicycle user map, pursuing a Safe Routes to Schools program, and
coordinating with ATN and employers in the City to increase the number of bicycle commuters.
5.5 Bicycle Signal Detection
In-pavement loop detectors are used at signalized intersections to trigger a traffic light when a roadway
user approaches the intersection. California law (AB 1581) requires that all new traffic actuated traffic
signals respond to the presence of bicycles and motorcyclists. The City of Anaheim currently complies
with State guidelines for traffic signal timing and detection. This is accomplished through traffic signal
retiming, signal upgrades, and rehabilitation projects. The City is committed to continue to seek funding
to ensure bicycle loop detectors are installed at all signalized intersections, particularly during roadway
construction. While bicycle detector loops facilitate faster and more convenient bicycle trips, if they
aren’t calibrated properly, or stop functioning, they can frustrate cyclists waiting for signals to change,
unaware that the loop is not working. The City is responsible for ensuring that all bicycle loops are
operable.
5.6 Implementation Toolbox
Appendix G – Implementation Toolbox, is a menu of design standards from the current versions of the
Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) and the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(CA MUTCD). Additionally, the toolbox includes a selection of non-standard treatments, for reference,
from nationally recognized publications by the National Association of City Transportation Officials
(NACTO), which have not been adopted into the CA MUTCD or the HDM. These standards and best
practices have been implemented by public agencies and municipalities nationwide. This menu of
options is intended to assist the City in the selection and design of bicycle facilities, to ensure that the
appropriate bicycle facility is placed. The wide range of tools could address issues on specific types of
facilities, including Class I Bike Paths, and would be implemented on a case-by-case basis.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 89
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
6. Implementation and Funding
6.1 Project Prioritization
The proposed bikeway network was prioritized based on key indicators of demand, utility, connectivity,
and readiness. Based on the ranking analysis, three tiers of ranked projects have been identified, as
shown in Table 8 – Priority Ranking of the Proposed Network – Tier 1, Table 9 – Priority Ranking of the
Proposed Network – Tier 2, Table 10 – Priority Ranking of the Proposed Network – Tier 3, and Figure 15 -
Bikeway Network Priority Ranking (West) and Figure 16 - Bikeway Network Priority Ranking (East). The
complete scoring analysis is provided in Appendix F - Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores.
For purposes of prioritization, individual segments were combined into corridors, shown in Bold, to
better capture the intent of closing gaps in the existing network. Individual segments are also scored,
and shown in italics.
Demand Criteria focus on population and employment along each segment. The probability of bicycle
commuting trips is higher in corridors that have higher population and/or employment densities.
Bikeways connecting to employers with more than 250 employees have a higher demand due to
Transportation Demand Management programs implemented by these employers. Medium to high
density residential areas typically have lower automobile demand and higher bicycle and transit
ridership.
Utility Criteria focus on the completeness of the bikeway network. New bikeways that connect to
existing facilities tend to attract more ridership as they serve to extend existing facilities and provide
more opportunities to areas serviced by existing bikeways. Several bikeways, both existing and
proposed, have been identified as Regional Bikeways through a collaborative process with OCTA and the
cities within each County Supervisorial District. These intercity bikeways are intended to serve as the
backbone of the County’s bikeway network. Facilities that connect to the regional bikeway system are
anticipated to benefit from these connections once the regional network is substantially completed.
Inter-city connectivity outside of these regional corridors was also considered to account for bicyclists
from other cities that may consider using their bikeways due to a connection into Anaheim.
Connectivity Criteria focus on multimodal flexibility and special generators that lie outside typical
commuter bicycling patterns. Connectivity to Metrolink, Amtrak, and high quality transit corridors were
ranked highly, as bicycles can be used to provide the last mile connection between transit and
employment or population centers. High Quality Transit Corridors are those bus routes with a service
frequency of 15 minutes or less during peak hours. Connections to elementary, middle, and high
schools received additional points, as well as connections to parks, community centers, and libraries.
Readiness Criteria focus on agency coordination and physical barriers to implementation. Bicycle
projects may become more complex as more affected agencies are involved with the process. Right of
way acquisition is costly relative to the cost to construct bicycle facilities, and can serve as a significant
setback to the implementation of bikeways. Removal of on-street parking to provide bicycle facilities
may have unintended consequences to degrade the quality of life in the surrounding residential
neighborhoods that may be already impacted by spillover parking concerns.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 90
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Table 8 – Priority Ranking of the Proposed Network – Tier 1
Tier 1 Priority Ranking
Rank Bike IDs Street/Path From To Score
6
164
165 Buena Park City
1 Carbon Creek Channel La Palma Avenue 87
7 Limits
5
8
107 Buena Park City
2 Orange Avenue Euclid Street 87
154 Limits
122 State College
3 Santa Ana Street Walnut Street 87
159 Boulevard
37
36
Haster Street/ Anaheim Garden Grove Fullerton City
4 35 86
Boulevard/ Lemon Street City Limits Limits
34
38
81
Buena Park City
5 166 La Palma Avenue West Blue Gum Street 84
Limits
167
68
6 Frontera Street La Palma Avenue Glassell Street 82
69
32 Stanton City
7 UPRR/Edison w/o Walnut Broadway 81
13 Limits
41
Buena Park City
8 42D Ball Road West Place 79
Limits
43
48 Fullerton City
9 Brookhurst Street Katella Avenue 79
49 Limits
128
130
10 Sunkist/ Miraloma Cerritos Avenue Van Buren Street 79
96
97
134
4
11 Vermont/Wagner Citron Street Rio Vista Street 79
136
137
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 91
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Rank Bike IDs Street/Path From To Score
58
59
10
60 Carbon Creek
12 Crescent Avenue/ North Street Olive Street 77
151 Channel
101
102
103
46State College
13 Broadway Dale Street 75
47 Boulevard
160
126 Anaheim Coves
14 South Street Indiana Street 75
127 Trail
161
123
Orange City Weir Canyon
15 124 Serrano Avenue 74
Limits Road
125
132 Orange City Placentia City
16 Tustin Avenue 74
133A Limits Limits
143
17 170 Sycamore Street/Westmont Drive Loara Street Van Buren Street 73
30
18 89A & B Lincoln Avenue Knott Avenue Euclid Street 72
19 109 Orangethorpe Avenue Lakeview Avenue Imperial Hwy 72
88
Santa Ana Yorba Linda City
20 84 Lakeview Avenue 72
Canyon Road Limits
85
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 92
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Table 9 – Priority Ranking of the Proposed Network – Tier 2
Tier 2 Priority Ranking
RankBike IDs Street/Path From To Score
64
21 East/Lewis Katella Avenue La Palma Avenue 69
87
94
90
22 Manchester/Loara Santa Ana Street North Street 69
144
92
153
Edison Trail s/o
23 106 Olive Street La Palma Avenue 69
Cerritos
24
55
Anaheim Santa Ana River
24 63 Cerritos/ Douglass/ Katella 68
Boulevard Trail
149
147
71
25 Gilbert Street South City Limits La Palma Avenue 68
148
72
22 Stanton City
26 N-S Edison ROW w/o Magnolia La Palma Avenue 67
23 Limits
Orange City
27 44 Ball Road Lemon Street 66
Limits
West City Limits
28 54 Cerritos Avenue Walnut Street 65
(e/o Magnolia)
40 Anaheim Shores/ Anaheim
29 La Palma Avenue 65
158Romneya/Karcher Boulevard
111
112
113
30 Orangewood Avenue Euclid Street Rampart Street 65
114
171
172
140
31 West Street Santa Ana Street La Palma Avenue 65
173
32 26 Orangethorpe Avenue Lemon Street Raymond Avenue 64
66 Orangewood
33 Euclid Street Lincoln Avenue 64
65 Avenue
86
34 Lemon Street Ball Road La Palma Avenue 64
15
35 93 Magnolia Avenue Stanton City Limits La Palma Avenue 63
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 93
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
RankBike IDs Street/Path From To Score
152
36 145A Crone Avenue/ Nutwood Street Orange Avenue Walnut Street 63
145B
82 Orangethorpe
37 Kraemer/ Glassell Orange City Limits 63
73 Avenue
Fullerton City
38 33 Acacia Street La Palma Avenue 62
Limits
39 138Walnut Street Katella AvenueSanta Ana Street 62
Placentia City
40 162 Van Buren Street La Palma Avenue 60
Limits
31
41 12 Tustin Metrolink Paths Orange City Limits Tustin Avenue 60
20
Buena Park City
42 62 Dale Street Stanton City Limits 59
Limits
67
15
Yorba Linda City
43 Fairmont Boulevard Canyon Rim Road 58
16 Limits
17
104Running Springs
44 Oak Canyon Drive Serrano Avenue 57
105Drive
4557Citron StreetVermont AvenueSanta Ana Street56
19
Santa Ana River
46 29 La Palma Avenue East Blue Gum Street 56
Trail
179
21
47 Nohl Ranch Pelanconi Park Serrano Avenue 56
100
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 94
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Table 10 – Priority Ranking of the Proposed Network – Tier 3
Tier 3 Priority Ranking
RankBike IDs Street/Path From To Score
76 Santa Ana
48 Imperial Hwy Orange City Limits 52
18 Canyon Road
Placentia City
49 45 Blue Gum Street La Palma Avenue 51
Limits
1
50 Anaheim Coves Trail Ball Road Frontera Street 49
2
77 Yorba Linda City
51 Kellogg Drive La Palma Avenue 49
78 Limits
117
52 Rio Vista Street Wagner Street Frontera Street 48
118
163 Stanton City Buena Park City
53 Western Avenue 48
141 Limits Limits
Kraemer Orangethorpe
54 9 Carbon Creek Diversion Channel 47
Boulevard Avenue
120
Crescent
115
55 Royal Oak/ Pinney/ Gerda Nohl Ranch Road Elementary 46
178
School
70
51
56 Canyon Creek/Sunset Ridge Serrano Avenue Serrano Avenue 45
131
State College
57 108 Orangethorpe Avenue Placentia Avenue 44
Boulevard
98 Garden Grove
58 Ninth Street Cerritos Avenue 44
99 City Limits
East-West Edison ROW/Union
Orange City
59 13 Pacific Railroad ROW north of Harbor Boulevard 43
Limits
Katella Avenue
Miraloma
60 74 Grove Street La Palma Avenue 43
Avenue
79 Stanton City
61 Knott Avenue Lincoln Avenue 41
80 Limits
Fairmont
62 11 Deer Canyon Park Serrano Avenue 40
Boulevard
Kraemer
63 110 Orangethorpe Avenue Jefferson Street 34
Boulevard
64 135 Vine Street Santa Ana Street Broadway 34
Basin Trail s/o La Placentia City
65 116 Richfield Road 33
Palma Avenue Limits
66 3 Basin Trail s/o La Palma Avenue Richfield Road Lakeview Avenue 27
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 95
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
RankBike IDs Street/Path From To Score
Santa Ana Canyon Yorba Linda City
67 75 Gypsum Canyon Road 26
Road Limits
68 50 Camino Grande/Stagecoach Road Nohl Ranch Road Nohl Ranch Road 24
Orangewood
69 88 Lewis Street Orange City Limits 22
Avenue
Proposed projects may be implemented out of scoring order as opportunities arise, which may include
grant availability, new development projects, capital improvement projects, or roadway repaving. The
City Public Works Department and Community Services Department (for Class I Bike Paths) will regularly
review the project list and rankings to evaluate current priorities, needs, and opportunities for
implementing the bikeway network in a logical and efficient manner. Due to the unpredictability of
funding sources, economic conditions, and community support, some projects, especially those that
require right-of-way purchase or coordination with multiple jurisdictions, may take longer to be
developed. Additionally, while the priority ranking combines several segments into a corridor, any
segment within that corridor can be implemented independently of the others. Funding for an entire
corridor doesn’t need to be secured in order to implement any part of the corridor.
As projects are implemented, lower ranked projects will move up the list. The project list and individual
projects outlined in the Plan are flexible concepts that serve as a guideline. The ranked project list, and
perhaps the overall system and segments themselves, may change over time as a result of changing
bicycling patterns, land use patterns, implementation constraints and opportunities and coordination
with the implementation of other transportation system facilities.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 96
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Figure 15 – Bikeway Network Priority Ranking (West)
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 97
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 98
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Figure 16 – Bikeway Network Priority Ranking (East)
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 99
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 100
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
6.2 Bicycle Ridership Estimates and Forecasts
Current bicycling level and forecasted future bicycle ridership and vehicle trip reduction in Anaheim
were estimated using US Census data, along with adjustments for likely Census underestimations.
Census data captures only work commute trips and does not include bicycle trips for other purposes,
such as school, shopping, or other errands. Of the work commute trips reported, Census data only
captures the mode of travel for the longest portion of the trip, and excludes bicycle trips as part of a
multi-modal trip.
The Plan supplements US Census data with other methodologies for estimating bicycle trips of students
and transit riders, which are described in Table 11 - Bikeway Network Ridership and VMT Reduction
Estimates. The Plan estimates that the actual current number of daily bicycle commuters in Anaheim is
closer to 6,593 riders, making 13,186 daily trips and saving an estimated 9,097 vehicle trips per
weekday. This estimate does not include recreation or utilitarian bicycle trips.
Additional assumptions according to industry standards were used to estimate future ridership and VMT
reductions from the build out of the bikeways network. The 2002 National Cooperative Highway
Research Program (NCHRP) report, Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities (NCHRP
21
Report 552) presents methodologies and tools to estimate potential value and benefits of bicycle
facilities. Bicycle ridership estimates were developed using a cost, demand, and benefit analysis and
22
estimation toolderived from and consistent with NCHRP Report 552.People within one mile of a
bikeway are more likely to ride a bicycle, with the likelihood of bicycling increasing within one-half mile
and one-quarter-mile of bikeways. Estimated ridership for a new facility is derived based on existing and
induced demand from the quarter-mile, half-mile and one mile buffers around a facility. To be
conservative, the existing population density was used rather than the forecast build out density, and
the future forecasts were normalized based on the US Census based existing ridership estimation.
As shown in Table 11 - Bikeway Network Ridership and VMT Reduction Estimates, completion of the
proposed Anaheim Bikeway Network could increase the total number of bicycle trips from the current
estimate of 13,186 to 41,444, with annual VMT reduction increase from 9,975,331 to 31,350,424.
21 http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_552.pdf
22 http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/bikecost/
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 101
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Table 11 – Bikeway Network Ridership and VMT Reduction Estimates
Current Statistics
Anaheim Methodology Notes
and Estimates
Estimated Ridership of the Existing Bikeway Network
Population 342,973 2014 ACS
Number of
155,031 2014 ACS
Employed Persons
Bicycle-to-Work
0.7% 2014 ACS
Mode Share
Number of Bicycle
1,085 Employed Persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode share
Commuters
Work-at-Home
3.2% 2014 ACS
Mode Share
Estimated Work-at-
Assumes 50% of population working at home makes at least one
Home Bicycle 2,480
bicycle trip per day
Commuters
Existing Transit-to-
4.4% 2014 ACS
Work Mode Share
Estimated Transit-Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share. Assumes 25%
1,705
Bicycle Commuters of transit riders access transit by bicycle.
School Children
66,114 2014 ACS
Grades K-12
Estimated School
Children Bicycling 2.0% National Safe Routes to School Surveys (2003)
Mode Share
Estimated School
1,322 School children multiplied by school children bike mode share
Bicycle Commuters
Adjusted Current
Estimated Total
Total of bike-to-work, work at home, transit, and school
6,593
Number of Daily commuters. Does not include recreation or utilitarian
Bicycle Commuters
Adjusted Current
Estimated Total 13,188 Total bicycle commuters x 2 (for round trips)
Daily Bicycle Trips
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 102
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Current Statistics
Anaheim Methodology Notes
and Estimates
Estimated VMT Reductions of Current Bicycle Network
Assumes 73% of bicycle trips replace vehicle trips for adults and
53% for school children. Based on survey results from 10 California
Reduced Vehicle
9,097 cities conducted by Alta between 1990 and 1999, L.A. Countywide
Trips per Weekday
Policy Document survey (1995), and National Bicycling & Walking
Study, FHWA, 1995.
Reduced Vehicle Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips multiplied by 261
2,374,410
Trips per Year (weekdays in a year)
Reduced Vehicle Assumes average round trip travel length of 7 miles for adults and
38,220
Miles per Weekday 1 mile for school children.
Reduced Vehicle Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles multiplied by 261
9,975,331
Miles per Year (weekdays in a year)
Projected Ridership and VMT Reductions at Build Out of Bicycle Network
Future Estimated
NCHRP 552 Methodology using the analysis tool at
Total Daily Bicycle 41,444
http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/bikecost
Trips
Assumes same ratio of vehicle trip replacement from existing
Reduced Vehicle
28,591 conditions, assumes same percentage of school trips from existing
Trips per Weekday
conditions
Reduced Vehicle Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips multiplied by 261
7,462,284
Trips per Year (weekdays in a year)
Assumes average round trip travel length of 7 miles for adults and
Reduced Vehicle
120,117 1 mile for school children, using same school children percentage
Miles per Weekday
of total trips estimated for existing conditions.
Reduced Vehicle Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles multiplied by 261
31,350,424
Miles per Year (weekdays in a year)
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 103
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 104
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
6.3 Past Expenditures on the Bikeway Network
Since 2004, Anaheim has implemented approximately 32 miles of new bikeways. Table 12 – Bikeway
Network Expenditures Since 2004, summarizes these estimated costs.
Table 12 – Bikeway Network Expenditures Since 2004
Class Centerline Miles Cost Per Mile Total Estimated Cost
Class I Bike Path
1.63 $306,748 $500,000
(Anaheim Coves)
Class I Bike Path (SoCal
Edison ROW w/o 1.33 $338,345 $450,000
Magnolia)
Class I Bike Path 0.83 $1,957,040 $1,624,343
Class II Bike Lane 27.54$133,170 $3,667,501
Class III Bike Route 0.59 $25,070 $14,791
Total $6,256,635
Two notable recent projects are 3.79 miles of new Class I bike paths, including the Anaheim Coves
Trail, which is 1.6 miles long and cost $550,000, and the SoCal Edison Bike Path between Broadway
and Stanton City Limits, which is 1.3 miles long and cost $450,000.
The remaining Class I bike paths are estimated to have cost a combined total of $1,624,343. The
27.54 miles of Class II bike lanes 0.59 miles of Class III bike routes have been added as part of road
widening or street pavement rehabilitation projects. Since these were part of larger projects, the
portion of the overall cost attributed to the bikeway is difficult to isolate, therefore the costs were
estimated using national bikeways cost estimates developed for the Federal Highway
23
Administration.
23 www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/downloads/Countermeasure%20Costs_Report_Nov2013.pdf
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 105
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Anaheim has implemented several projects designed to improve pedestrian and biking
routes to schools and throughout the community. Prior to 2013, State and Federal funding grants were
available for SRTS infrastructure improvements. Below is a list of projects in Anaheim funded through
the SRTS Federal Grant or the SR2S State Grant Programs.
Table 13 – Safe Routes to Schools Grant Awards
Year Benefitting
Project Award Amount Description
Awarded Schools
Installation of a new
Magnolia Avenue and
traffic signal at the
Winston Road Traffic Magnolia High,
2015 $368,100 intersection of Magnolia
Signal Installation Salk Elementary
Avenue and Winston
Project
Road
Sidewalk gap closure (410
Sunkist
La Palma Sidewalk feet) project on the south
$450,000 Elementary,
Improvement Project 2013 side of La Palma Avenue
Sycamore Junior
between Sunkist Street
High
and SR-57 freeway.
Lincoln Avenue and To signalize the Centralia
Westchester Drive intersection and include Elementary,
2013 $331,200
Traffic Signal System pedestrian countdown Danbrook
Improvement signals. Elementary
To build a bicycle trail
Dale Junior High,
Bike Trail Along along Edison Right-of-Way
2012 $448,560 Maxwell
Edison Right-Of-Way between Broadway and
Elementary
Lola Avenue
To build 1,350 feet of
sidewalk on the north side
of Ball Road between
Dale Jr High
Magnolia Avenue and 160
Sidewalk Gap Closure School,
2011 $426,600 feet west of Sherrill
on Ball Road Magnolia High
Street. Bike lanes will also
School
be installed on Ball Road
between Magnolia
Avenue and Dale Avenue
To build 300 feet of Sycamore Junior
Sidewalk Gap Closure sidewalk on the south High,
2011 $530,000
on La Palma Avenue side of La Palma Avenue Thomas Edison
west of East Street Elementary
st
After the passage of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 Century Act (MAP-21) in 2012, SRTS
projects were integrated into the State’s Active Transportation Program (ATP). Federal and State
funded SRTS infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects are now funded through this program. The
four projects awarded to the City of Anaheim in the first ATP Cycle in 2014 are currently in design or
under construction. The project awarded to Anaheim in 2015 will commence design in mid-2017.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 106
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Table 14 – Active Transportation Program Awards
Year Award Benefitting
Project Description
Awarded Amount Schools
Mann Elementary,
West Street and Multiple sidewalk gap closures Price Elementary,
Citron Street Sidewalk 2015 $2,056,000 on West Street, Citron Street, Westmont
Gap Closure and Sycamore Street Elementary,
Anaheim High
Sidewalk gap closure project
Jefferson
South Street Sidewalk on the south side of South
2014 $796,000 Elementary,
Gap Closure Street between the Metrolink
Olive Elementary
tracks and East Street
Danbrook
New pedestrian signal at an
Elementary,
Western Avenue existing midblock school
2014 $400,000 Orangeview Jr
Pedestrian Signal crosswalk on Western
High, Western
Avenue.
High
Full sidewalk gap closure
project on the south side of Palm Lane
Cerritos Avenue
2014 $1,209,000 Cerritos Avenue east of Euclid Elementary, Ball Jr
Sidewalk Gap Closure
Street. Partial gap closure on High, Loara High
the north side of the street.
To extend the Anaheim Coves
Anaheim Coves Trail
2014 $832,000 trail northerly from Lincoln
Northern Extension
Avenue to Frontera Street
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 107
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 108
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
6.4 Proposed Bikeway Network Cost Estimates
Each proposed bikeway in the network will undergo more detailed cost analysis prior to proceeding
with the project. Costs can range widely as most Class II or III bike lanes may be implemented as
part of larger road rehabilitation projects, but complex projects, such as connections to the
Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station, can be extremely costly. The same FHA cost estimates are used
for the proposed Bikeway Network. The City will continue to seek grant funding in addition to
incorporating bikeways installation into larger projects. Table 13 – Proposed Bikeway Network
Estimated Cost summarizes cost estimates for the proposed bikeway network recommended in this
plan.
Table 15 – Proposed Bikeway Network Estimated Cost
Class Centerline Miles Cost Per Mile Total Estimated Cost
Class I Bike Path 30.05$1,957,040 $58,809,052
Class II Bike Lane 71.13$133,170 $9,472,382
Class III Bike Route 19.13$25,070 $479,589
Total $68,761,023
Draft April 17, 2017
Page | 109
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
6.5ImplementationandFundingOpportunities
TheCityof!ƓğŷĻźƒƭPlannedRoadwayNetworkisapproximately640centerlinemiles.The
DepartmentofPublicWorkscollectspavementconditioninformationsuchasdistress(cracking),rutting,
androughness.Pavementconditionisconsideredwithothervariablessuchastrafficvolume,typeof
road,maintenancehistory,coordinationwithothercapitalprojects,andallocatedfundinglevelsto
eetresurfacingprojects.TheTrafficandTransportationSectionworkscloselywiththe
prioritizestr
DesignSectionandOperationsDivisiontoreviewresurfacingeffortsandimplementsbicycle
improvementsinconjunctionwithresurfacing.Thisclosecoordinationhasresultedinthe
implementationofthemajorityofClassIIandClassIIIbikewayinstallationssince2004.
TheDepartmentofPublicWorksactivelyseekstoimplementbicyclefacilitieswithanystreet
improvementprojectthatinvolvesthewideningand/orupgradeofexistingarterialstreets.Eachyear,
AnaheimpursuesgrantopportunitiestobuildoutthearterialhighwaysintheCirculationElementofthe
GeneralPlan,consistentwiththeOCTAMasterPlanofArterialHighways.Inconjunctionwiththese
projects,implementationoforimprovementstoabicyclefacilityintheBicycleMasterPlanisincluded
theproject.TheadoptionofthePlanwillallowforasignificantincreaseinthenumberofarterial
streetsthatareeligibleforbikewayimprovements.Additionally,anydevelopmentofprivateproperty
immediatelyadjacenttoanystreetontheBicycleMasterPlanissubjecttodedicateandimprovethe
streettotheultimatewidth,includingbicyclelanes,consistentwiththeAnaheimMunicipalCode
sectionsonDedicationsandImprovements.
elocatedoutsideofthe/źƷǤƭPlannedRoadwayNetworkmayrequire
ClassIBikePathsthatar
additionalconsiderationpriortoimplementation.BikePathsoccurinavarietyofsettingsandare
generallycolocatedwiththefollowingtypesoffacilities:floodcontrolchannelmaintenanceroads
(CarbonCreekChannelBikeID164),abandonedrailroadrightofway(UnionPacificRailroadBikeID32),
beneathoverheadutilityeasementrightofway(EdisonEasementBikeID22),andwithinorbetween
parks(AnaheimCovesBikeID1).
ClassIBikePathsadjacenttoresidentialareasmaypresentuniquesituationsthatwillbeaddressedwith
thepropertyowner(s)andsurroundingcommunitythroughprojectplanning,implementation,and
maintenance.TheprocessforimplementingaClassIBikePaththatisoutsideofthe/źƷǤƭPlanned
RoadwayNetworkisoutlinedbelow:
1.IftheCitydoesnotownthepropertyonwhichtheClass1BikePathisplanned,Citystaffwill
approachthepropertyowner(e.g.,otherpublicagency,utilitycompany,railroadoperator,
privatepropertyowner)andrequesttoenterintoanonbindingletterofinterestforthe
proposedproject.Asapplicable,theletterwouldgenerallyidentify:thetypeofproposed
agreement,(i.e.lease,license,easement,jointuseagreement);itsterm;lawenforcement
jurisdiction;potentialpropertyacquisition;maintenanceresponsibilities;costsharing
agreement;contingencies,etc.
2.Citystaffwillcollaboratewiththesurroundingcommunity,throughacommunityadvisory
workinggroup,toidentifypotentialissuesandsolutionsrelatedtotheimplementationofthe
Class1BikePath.Outreachistypicallyinitiatedbymailinganoticetoalladdresseswithina
umof300feetoftheprojectsite.
minim
DraftApril17,2017
Page|110
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
3.Citystaffwillpursuefundingfortheproject,typicallybyapplyingforgrants.CityCouncil
approvalisrequiredforacceptanceofagrantinaccordancewithCityCharterSection518,1211;
andCityCouncilPolicy4and4.1.
4.Citystaffwillanalyzepotentialenvironmentalimpactsoftheproposedprojectpursuanttothe
CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA).CEQAoutlinesapublicreviewprocessandrequires
thattheCity,asleadagency,toadoptorcertifytheenvironmentaldocument(s)requiredby
Statelawpriortoconstructionofaproposedproject.Inaddition,compliancewiththeNational
EnvironmentalProtectionAct(NEPA)wouldberequiredforprojectsthatreceivefederal
funding.
5.Citystaffandadesignconsultant(asapplicable),inclosecoordinationwiththecommunity
advisoryworkinggroup,wouldfinalizetheprojectdesign,includingfeaturesofthebuilt
environmentsuchasaccesscontrol,fencing,lighting,amenities,parking,etc.CityCouncil
approvalisrequiredfordesignconsultantcontractsinaccordancewithCityCharterSection518,
1211;andCityCouncilPolicy4and4.1.
6.TheCitywillenterintoformalagreementswiththepropertyowner(s)asdescribedintheletter
ofinterestthatinitiatedtheproposedproject.Theseagreement(s)wouldidentifythedesignof
theproject,aswellasmaintenanceandenforcementresponsibilities.Theagreement(s)would
requireCityCouncilapproval,aswellasapprovaland/orpermitsfromthegoverningbodyofthe
propertyowner(s),iftheyarepublicagenciesinaccordancewithCityCharterSection518,1211.
7.Onceallagreements/permitsareinplace,proceedwiththeawardoftheconstructioncontract
inaccordancewithAdministrativeRegulation105(CouncilAgendaItems)andAdministrative
Regulation110(AdministrationofContractsforCityImprovements,PublicWorkConstruction
Projects).
Potentialfundingsourcesforprojects,programs,andplanscanbefoundatthefederal,state,regional,
andlocallevels,includingnontraditionalfundingsources.Moreexpensiveprojectsmaytakelongerto
implement.Mostfundingsourcesarehighlycompetitive,withmanypotentialprojectscompetingfora
relativelysmallamountofmoney.Therefore,itisimpossibletodetermineexactlywhichprojectswillbe
fundedbywhichfundingsources.Additionally,programsandopportunitieswillbeimplementedand/or
changeovertime.Anaheimactivelypursuesopportunitiestoimplementandprojectsasfundingis
available.Projectsmaybeimplementedoutofpriorityorderasgrantstypicallyarespecificinthetype
ofprojectsthatareeligible.Additionally,streetimprovementprojectsandpavementmaintenance
projectswillnotfollowthebicycleprojectprioritylist;Anaheimwilltakeadvantageoftheseprojects
andprogramsastheyoccur.
Table16Α RecentlyFundedBikewaysProject,isanexampleofaprojectthatwasfundedbya
combinationofgrantfunding,developmentfees,andothernongrantsourcesforitsdesignand
implementation.
Table 16 – Recently Funded Bikeways Project
ProjectYearAwardedAwardAmountDescription
NohlRanch2016(Funds$650,000from10footwideClassIbikewayandpedestriantrail
MultiUseAvailableFYBicycleCorridorrangingfrom310feetwideincompliancewith
Trail(BikeID17/18)ImprovementCaltransstandards.
21)Program(BCIP)
DraftApril17,2017
Page|111
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Appendices
Draft February 16, 2017
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
Draft February 16, 2017
www.anaheim.net/bike
Bicycle Master Plan
Appendix A
Bicycle Transportation Account
Compliance Checklist
Draft February 16, 2017
www.anaheim.net/bike
Appendix A
Bicycle Transportation Account Compliance Checklist
BTA 891.2 Plan ElementLocation
a) The estimated number of existing bicycle commuters in Page 101
the plan area and the estimated increase in the
number of bicycle commuters resulting from
implementation of the plan.
b) A map and description of existing andproposed land Maps - Pages 15, 17 (Existing Land
use and settlement patterns which shall include, but Use)
not be limited to, locations of residential Pages 19, 31 (Proposed Land Use)
neighborhoods, schools, shopping centers, public
buildings, and major employment centers. Description – Pages 11 to 13
c) A map and description of existing and proposed Maps - Pages 31, 33, 37, 39, 85,87
bikeways. Description – Pages 23 to 42 &
Pages 77 to 83
d) A map and description of existing and proposed end-of-Map -Page 47
trip bicycle parking facilities. These shall include, but
not be limited to, parking at schools, shopping centers, Description – Pages 43, 44, 45, 89
public buildings, and major employment centers.
e) A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle Map – Page 47 & 51
transport and parking facilities for connections with
and use of other transportation modes. These shall Description – Pages 49, 50
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.
f) A map and description of existing and proposed Map -Page 47
facilities for changing and storing clothes and
equipment. These shall include, but not be limited to, Description – Pages 43, 44, 45, 89
locker, restroom, and shower facilities near bicycle
parking facilities.
g) A description of bicycle safety and education programs Page 53 to 58, 89
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 Vehicle Code pertaining to bicycle
operation, and the resulting effect on accidents
involving bicyclists.
h) A description of the extent of citizen and community Pages 74 & 75
involvement in development of the plan, including, but
not limited to, letters of support.
i) A description of how the bicycle transportation plan Pages 63 to 67
has been coordinated and is consistent with other local
or regional transportation, air quality, or energy
conservation plans, including, but not limited to,
programs that provide incentives for bicycle
commuting.
j) A description of the projects proposed in the plan and a Pages 77 to 99
listing of their priorities for implementation.
k) A description of past expenditures for bicycle facilities Pages 105 to 110
and future financial needs for projects that improve
safety and convenience for bicycle commuters in the
plan area.
Bicycle Master Plan
Appendix B
General Plan Amendments
Draft February 16, 2017
www.anaheim.net/bike
Appendix B
General Plan Amendments
General Plan Amendment No. 2017-00513 includes the following:
Existing Bikeways Not in 2004 General Plan – Addition To GP
Class I Bike Path
Centerline
Bike ID Street/Path FromTo
Miles
176 Walnut Canyon Reservoir Canyon RimCanyon Rim 1.74
Total1.74
Existing Bikeways Built Since 2004 – Addition to GP
Class I Bike Path
Bike ID Street/Path FromTo Centerline Miles
Lincoln
1Anaheim Coves Trail Ball Road 1.63
Avenue
La Palma Yorba Linda
17 Fairmont Boulevard 0.14
Avenue City Limits
North-South SoCal Edison Right
Stanton City
22** of Way west of Magnolia Broadway 1.33
Limits
Avenue
Yorba Linda Yorba Linda
28 Santa Ana River Trail 0.42
Boulevard City Limits
Beach Schweitzer
164* Carbon Creek Channel 0.27
Boulevard Park
Total3.79
*Identified as proposed in 2004 and has been implemented
**Identified as proposed in 2004 and has been partially implemented
Page 1 of 22
Appendix B
General Plan Amendments
Existing Bikeways Built Since 2004 – Addition to GP
Class II Bike Lane
Sycamore La Palma
34Anaheim Boulevard 0.53
Street Avenue
Cerritos
36Anaheim Boulevard Ball Road 0.53
Avenue
Anaheim Shores / Romneya La Palma
40Euclid Street 0.71
Drive Avenue
Knott
42A** Ball Road Western Ave 0.5
Avenue
Gaymont Brookhurst
42C** Ball Road 0.5
Street Street
State College
47** Broadway East Street 0.76
Boulevard
Lincoln Crescent
48B** Brookhurst Street 0.50
Avenue Avenue
Katella
48C** Brookhurst Street Ball Road 1.01
Avenue
Nohl Ranch Fairmont
52A* Canyon Rim Road 1.17
Road Boulevard
Fairmont Serrano
52BCanyon Rim Road0.97
Boulevard Avenue
Harbor Garden Grove
56Chapman Avenue 0.25
Boulevard City Limits
Brookhurst
59* Crescent Avenue Muller Street 0.51
Street
Chippewa
60* Crescent Avenue Loara Street 0.58
Avenue
Rio Vista Glassell
69**Frontera Street1.01
Street Street
Page 2 of 22
Appendix B
General Plan Amendments
Bike ID Street/PathFromTo Centerline Miles
South City
72Gilbert StreetBall Road 1.01
Limits
Orange City Frontera
73* Glassell Street0.16
Limits Street
Orange Lincoln
80**Knott Avenue0.51
Avenue Avenue
84**Lakeview Avenue La Palma Riverdale 0.48
Rio Vista Orange City
91* Lincoln Avenue 0.49
Street Limits
Wilshire
92Loara Street North Street 0.38
Street
La Palma Orangethorpe
95* Miller Street 1.00
Avenue Avenue
La Loma Van Buren
97**Miraloma Avenue 1.91
Circle Street
Orangewood Katella
98B** Ninth Street 0.50
Avenue Avenue
Harbor Anaheim
102 North Street 0.34
Boulevard Boulevard
111A* Orangewood Avenue Euclid StreetNinth Street 0.50
East City Limit
111B Orangewood AvenueNinth Streeteast of 0.22
Janette Lane
Wagner
117** Rio Vista Street Dutch Avenue1.11
Street
Nohl Ranch Santa Ana
120* Royal Oak Road 0.47
Road Canyon Road
Weir Canyon Gypsum
121B Santa Ana Canyon Road1.98
Road Canyon Road
Nohl Ranch Canyon Rim
124** Serrano Avenue 1.43
Road Road
Page 3 of 22
Appendix B
General Plan Amendments
Bike ID Street/Path FromTo Centerline Miles
Sunkist Rio Vista
127** South Street0.51
Street Street
Wagner
128B** Sunkist Street South Street0.50
Avenue
Orange City Santa Ana
132 Tustin Avenue 0.39
Limits River Trail
Miraloma Placentia City
133B* Tustin Avenue 0.38
Avenue Limits
Sunkist Rio Vista
137** Wagner Avenue 0.51
Street Street
Lincoln
144* Wilshire Avenue Loara Street 0.47
Avenue
Stanton City Orange
163** Western Avenue 0.76
Limits Avenue
Acacia State College
166** La Palma Avenue 0.50
Street Boulevard
Total26.04
*Identified as proposed in 2004 and has been implemented
**Identified as proposed in 2004 and has been partially implemented
Page 4 of 22
Appendix B
General Plan Amendments
Existing Bikeways Built Since 2004 – Addition to GP
Class III Bike Routes
Centerline
Bike ID Street/Path From To
Miles
Western Gaymont
42BBall Road0.69
Avenue Street
Rio Vista Frontera
146 Dutch Avenue/Park Vista Avenue 0.59
Street Street
Total1.28
Total Bikeways Built Since 2004 32.85
Page 5 of 22
Appendix B
General Plan Amendments
Proposed Projects Not Identified in the 2004 Bicycle Master Plan
Class I Bike Paths
Centerline
Bike ID Street/PathFromTo
Miles
Anaheim Coves Trail North Lincoln Frontera
20.94
Extension Avenue Street
Magnolia Gilbert
7Carbon Creek Channel0.57
Avenue Street
Brookhurst La Palma
8Carbon Creek Channel1.89
StreetAvenue
East-West Edison right-of-
Douglass Orange City
14B way/Union Pacific Railroad right-0.32
RoadLimit
of-way north of Katella Avenue
Santa Ana La Palma
15 Fairmont Boulevard 0.54
Canyon Road Avenue
Avd Anaheim
21 Nohl Ranch Open Space Trail 1.27
Margarita Hills Road
Tustin Avenue-Metrolink Tustin
31 Orange Sub 0.28
Connection Alt 1 Avenue
0.17
Tustin Avenue-Metrolink Santa Ana (Alternative
175 Orange Sub
Connection Alt 2 River Trail - Not
Counted)
Peralta Canyon Park Santa Ana
178 PinneyDrive 0.25
Overcrossing River Trail
Santa Ana
River Trail
Imperial
179 Imperial La Palma ConnectorConnector 0.45
Highway
w/o Imperial
Highway
Total 6.51
Page 6 of 22
Appendix B
General Plan Amendments
Proposed Projects Not Identified in the 2004 Bicycle Master Plan
Class II Bike Lanes
Centerline
Bike ID Street/Path From To
Miles
Raymond
26Orangethorpe AvenueLemon Street0.75
Avenue
La Palma Fullerton City
33 Acacia Street 0.61
Avenue Limits
Sycamore
35 Anaheim Boulevard Ball Road 1.56
Street
Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Garden Grove Cerritos
37 1.25
Street City Limits Avenue
Fullerton City
Anaheim Boulevard/Lemon La Palma Limits north
38 1.10
Street Avenue of Freedom
Lane
Western Gaymont
42D Ball Road 0.69
Avenue Street
43B Ball Road Walnut Street West Pl 0.25
Orange City
44 Ball Road Lemon Street 2.31
Limits
46A Broadway Dale Street SCE Trail 0.23
46CBroadway Gilbert Street East Street 3.85
West City
Walnut
54 Cerritos Avenue Limits (east of2.51
Street
Magnolia)
Stanton City Buena Park
62 Dale Street1.64
Limits City Limits
Orangewood
66 Euclid Street Ball Road 1.52
Avenue
Page 7 of 22
Appendix B
General Plan Amendments
Centerline
Bike ID Street/Path From To
Miles
Cerritos
87B Lewis Street Ball Road 0.52
Avenue
Orange City Orangewood
88 Lewis Street 0.25
Limits Avenue
SoCal Edison
89B Lincoln Avenue Euclid Street 2.26
Trail
Stanton City La Palma
93 Magnolia Avenue 2.49
Limits Avenue
Harbor
101 North Street West Street 0.45
Boulevard
Anaheim
103 North Street Olive Street 0.22
Boulevard
Carbon Creek Magnolia
107BOrange Avenue 1.41
Channel Avenue
Harbor
112 Orangewood Aveenue West Street 0.51
Boulevard
Basin Trail
Placentia
116 Richfield Road south of La 0.22
City Limits
Palma Avenue
State College Sunkist
126 South Street 0.50
Boulevard Street
Santa Ana Miraloma
133A Tustin Avenue1.18
River Trail Avenue
Katella
138A Walnut Street Ball Road 1.02
Avenue
Total 29.29
Page 8 of 22
Appendix B
General Plan Amendments
Proposed Projects Not Identified in the 2004 Bicycle Master Plan
Class III Bike Routes
Centerline
Bike ID Street/PathFrom To
Miles
Nutwood
145BCrone StreetUPRR0.25
Street
La Palma Crescent
147 Gilbert Street 0.49
Avenue Avenue
148 Gilbert Street Broadway Ball Road 0.76
Sycamore
150 Lemon Street Ball Road 1.53
Street
151 North Street Loara Street West Street 0.42
Orange
152 Nutwood Street Crone Street 0.23
Avenue
Santa Ana La Palma
153 Olive Street 1.09
Street Avenue
Magnolia
154 Orange Avenue Euclid Street 1.98
Avenue
Romneya Drive/Carl Karcher Anaheim
158 Euclid Street 1.26
WayBoulevard
State College
159 Santa Ana Street East Street 0.72
Boulevard
State College
160 South Street Indiana Street1.97
Boulevard
Rio Vista Anaheim
161 South Street 0.28
Street Coves Trail
Total 10.98
Page 9 of 22
Appendix B
General Plan Amendments
Change in Bikeways Classification
Class II Bike Lane Reclassified to Class I Bike Path
Centerline
Bike ID Street/Path From To
Miles
Blue Gum e/o Brasher
19La Palma Avenue 4.23
Street Street
Lakeview Imperial
109 Orangethorpe Avenue1.66
Avenue Highway
Total 5.89
Page 10 of 22
Appendix B
General Plan Amendments
Change in Bikeways Classification
Class II Bike Lane Reclassified to Class III Bike Route
Centerline
Bike ID Street/Path From To
Miles
Vermont Santa Ana
57Citron Street 0.57
Avenue Street
Sycamore La Palma
86Lemon Street 0.56
StreetAvenue
Vermont Santa Ana
106 Olive Street 0.57
AvenueStreet
122 Santa Ana Street Walnut Street East Street 1.63
Santa Ana
135 Vine Street Broadway 0.15
Street
143 Westmont DriveLoara Street West Street0.48
Walnut
145A Crone Avenue UPRR Trail1.00
Street
Sycamore
170 Sycamore Street West Street 2.22
Connector
La Palma
173 West Street North Street 0.42
Avenue
Total 7.60
Page 11 of 22
Appendix B
General Plan Amendments
Change in Bikeways Classification
Class III Bike Route Changed to Class II Bike Lane
Jefferson
155 Orangethorpe Avenue Miller Street 0.87
Street
State College Placentia
108Orangethorpe Avenue0.36
BoulevardAvenue
Santa Ana
115 Pinney Drive Gerda Drive 0.06
Canyon Road
Total1.29
Deletion from the General Plan
Centerline
Bike IDStreet/PathFrom To
Miles
Weir Canyon Gypsum
N/A Mountain Park Drive N/A
RoadCanyon Road
Mountain
N/A Weir Canyon Road Blue Sky Road N/A
Park Drive
Mountain Santa Ana
N/A Gypsum Canyon RoadN/A
Park Drive Canyon Road
Running East end of
N/A Oak Canyon Drive N/A
Springs Road Street
Fairmont Old Bridge
N/A Old Bridge Path N/A
Boulevard Road
Orangewood/Santa Ana River Santa Ana
N/A I-5 N/A
Link River
Page 12 of 22
Appendix B
General Plan Amendments
Figures: Replace Figure C-5, Page C-33 of the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan, Figure G-
1, Page G-5 of the Green Element of the Anaheim General Plan to reflect the changes referenced in the
tables above.
Text: Amendments to the Anaheim General Plan are shown in strikeout for removal and bold for
additions.
Circulation Element
GOAL 2.2: Provide a safe circulation system.
Policies:
1)Promote the principle that streets have multiple uses and users, and protect the safety of all
users.
2)Discourage high speed, through traffic on local streets with appropriate traffic calming
measures (e.g., traffic enforcement, bulb-outs, lane striping, chokers, etc).
3)Design access onto major arterial streets in an orderly and controlled manner.
4)Promote common driveways and reduce curb cuts along arterial highways to minimize
impacts to traffic flows.
5)Minimize disruptions to traffic and pedestrian/bicycle flow.
6)Implement street design features on arterial highways such as the use of medians, bus
turnouts, consolidated driveways and on-street parking prohibitions to minimize mid-block
traffic congestion.
7)Implement street design features that discourage through traffic intrusion on residential
streets.
8)Support freeway improvements that remove through traffic from local and arterial streets.
9)Provide bus turnouts along heavily traveled arterials to minimize traffic conflicts.
10)Provide adequate sight distances for safe vehicular movement on roadways, at intersections
and at driveways.
11)Implement arterial grade separations at railroad crossings.
GOAL 3.1: Provide a well-maintained street system.
Policies:
1)Maintain the street network in optimal functioning condition.
2)Maintain and rehabilitate all components of the circulation system, including roadways,
sidewalks, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities, Intelligent Transportation systems and
traffic signals.
3)Prioritize maintenance and reconstruction projects.
4)Coordinate maintenance or enhancement of transportation facilities with related
infrastructure improvements.
Page 13 of 22
Appendix B
General Plan Amendments
5)Implement bicycle routes, priority signaling and bicycle amenities whenever roadways are
improved.
6)Give additional maintenance priority to streets with bike lanes or bike routes.
GOAL 7.1: Protect and encourage bicycle travel.
Policies:
1)Provide safe, direct, and continuous bicycle routes for commuter and recreational cyclists.
2)Incorporate bicycle planning into the traditional transportation and roadway maintenance
planning processes.
3)Support and implement bicycle routes that minimize cyclist/motorist conflicts.
4)Support roadway design policies that promote attractive circulation corridors and safe and
pleasant traveling experiences for bicyclists.
5)Support OCTA’s program to provide bike racks on transit buses.
6)Implement a bikeway system with linkages to routes in neighboring jurisdictions and
regional bicycle routes.
7)Maximize the use of easements and public rights-of-way along flood channels, utility
corridors, rail lines and streets for bicycle and pedestrian paths.
8)Connect Downtown with The Platinum Triangle using the Olive Street railroad right-of-way
for pedestrian, bicycle, and/or transit users.as a “rails to trails” project.
9)Require that new streets or developments contain adequate right of way for bicycle lanes,
where appropriate.
10)Where space and appropriate roadway conditions currently exist, continue to install bike
routes with priority to segments serving US Census documented existing high bicycle
ridership areas.
11)Work with the Caltrans to provide appropriate accommodation for bicyclists and
pedestrians along Caltrans facilities, as well as applying for funding for state, local and
regional non-motorized modal projects.
Goal 12.1: Ensure adequate parking is made available to City residents, visitors, and businesses.
Policies:
1)Assess the adequacy of existing or proposed on- and off-street parking as needed, especially
in urban and commercial areas, to ensure that an adequate supply is provided.
2)Explore strategies for the management of parking supply, which can include parking fees,
metered on-street parking, and staggered work schedules.
3)Develop strategies for the control of parking demand such as improved transit service,
amenities for bicyclists, and rideshare vehicles.
Page 14 of 22
Appendix B
General Plan Amendments
4)Develop strategies for shared parking opportunities in mixed-use and multiple-use
development.
5)Encourage the use of well-designed, aesthetically-enhanced parking structures as an
alternative to large, expansive surface parking lots.
6)Encourage businesses to provide bicycle parking facilities such as bike racks and lockers to
promote bicycling.
Green Element
Goal 3.1: Actively plan for the use of utility easements as recreational trails and open space amenities.
Policy:
1)Coordinate with Southern California Edison to pursue the implementation of recreational
and open space amenities on utility easements.
Goal 9.1: Reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips
Policies:
1)Encourage alternative work schedules for public and private sector workers.
2)Encourage development of new commercial and industrial projects that provide on-site
amenities that help to lesson vehicle trips such as on-site day care facilities, cafeterias,
automated teller machines and bicycle storage facilities.
3)Encourage use of vanpools and carpools by providing priority parking through the project
design process.
4)Encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel by improving the City’s trail and bikeway master
plan and by providing convenient links between the trail system and desired destinations.
5)Encourage the development of commercial, office and residential uses in appropriate
mixed-use and multiple use settings.
Goal 10.1: Improve the efficiency and ridership of public transit within the City.
Policies:
1)Continue to expand the convenience and quality of local transit service.
2)Provide convenient connections and shuttle services from commuter rail stations to
employment centers and entertainment venues.
3)Work with public transit providers to ensure that transit stops are safe, comfortable and
convenient.
4)Continue multi-faceted efforts to inform the public about transit opportunities, scheduling
and benefits.
5)Provide convenient first/last mile bicycle and pedestrian connections to transit stops.
Goal 11.1: Encourage land planning and urban design that support alternatives to the private
automobile such as mixed-use, provision of pedestrian and bicycle amenities, and transit-oriented
development.
Page 15 of 22
Appendix B
General Plan Amendments
Policies:
1)Encourage commercial growth and the development of commercial centers in accordance
with the Land Use Element.
2)Encourage mixed-use development in accordance with the Land Use Element.
3)Encourage retail commercial uses in or near residential areas and employment centers to
lessen vehicle trips.
4)Encourage higher densities and mixed-use development in the vicinity of major rail and
transit stops.
5)Encourage a diverse mix of retail uses within commercial centers to encourage one-stop
shopping.
6)Locate new public facilities with access to mass transit service and other alternative
transportation services, including rail, bus, bicycles and pedestrian use.
7)Provide everyday opportunities to connect with nature through the promotion of trails,
bicycle routes, and habitat friendly landscaping.
Community Design Element
GOAL 3.1: Single-family neighborhoods are attractive, safe and comfortable.
Policies:
1)Continue to maintain and improve the visual image and quality of life of single-family
neighborhoods.
2)Strengthen the important elements of residential streets that unify and enhance the
character of the neighborhood, including parkways, mature street trees, compatible
setbacks, and a unified range of architectural detailing.
3)Require new and infill development to be of compatible scale, materials, and massing as
existing development.
4)Improve the pedestrian and social atmosphere of the street by orienting new homes
towards the street with attractive front porches, highly visible street facades, and
compatible setbacks.
5)Enhance and encourage neighborhood or street identity with theme landscaping or trees,
entry statements, and enhanced school or community facility identification.
6)Maintain, improve and/or develop parkways with canopy street trees, providing shade,
beauty and a unifying identity to residential streets.
7)Encourage well-designed, front yards to provide an effective visual transition from the street
to the homes.
8)Where feasible, encourage the actual or visual narrowing of streets through measures such
as widened parkways, canopy trees, and sidewalk bulbs at the intersections.
Page 16 of 22
Appendix B
General Plan Amendments
9)Site garages back from the street and minimize street frontage devoted to driveways and
vehicular access.
10)If desired by the community, provide continuous sidewalks and links to nearby community
facilities, retail centers and transit stops for safety and convenience.
11)Encourage a variety of architectural styles, massing, floor plans, facade treatment and
elevations to create visual interest.
12)Reduce the impact of monotonous walls, located at the periphery of residential
neighborhoods along arterial corridors, through landscaping, varied surface treatment, and
use of vertical and/or horizontal design elements.
13)Provide safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access from single family neighborhoods
to nearby commercial centers, schools, and transit stops.
GOAL 4.1: Multiple-family housing is attractively designed and scaled to complement the neighborhood
and provides visual interest through varied architectural detailing.
Policies:
1)Reduce the visual impact of large-scale, multiple-family buildings by requiring articulated
entry features, such as attractive porches, and detailed facade treatments, which create
visual interest and give each unit more personalized design.
2)Discourage visually monotonous, multiple-family residences by incorporating different
architectural styles, a variety of rooflines, wall articulation, balconies, window treatments,
and varied colors and building materials on all elevations.
3)Require appropriate setbacks and height limits to provide privacy where multiple-family
housing is developed adjacent to single-family housing.
4)Reduce the visual impact of parking areas by utilizing interior courtyard garages, parking
structures, subterranean lots, or tuck-under, alley-loaded designs.
5)Require minimum lot size criteria in the Zoning Code to encourage professional, responsible,
on-site property management.
6)Provide usable common open space amenities. Common open space should be centrally
located and contain amenities such as seating, shade and play equipment. Private open
space may include courtyards, balconies, patios, terraces and enclosed play areas.
7)Where a multiple-story apartment building abuts single-story development, provide for a
gradual transition in height by reducing the height of the building adjacent to the smaller
scale use.
8)Provide safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access from multiple-family
development to nearby commercial centers, schools, and transit stops.
9)Where possible, underground or screen utilities and utility equipment or locate and size
them to be as inconspicuous as possible.
Page 17 of 22
Appendix B
General Plan Amendments
10)Encourage multi-family housing developers to comply with Residential Voluntary Measure
A4.106.9.2 of the California Green Building Standards Code that outlines the provision of
long-term bicycle parking for multi-family buildings.
GOAL 8.1: Anaheim’s mixed-use areas are attractively designed, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly, easily
accessible, and contain a proper blend of commercial retail, office and residential uses.
Policies:
1)Encourage design flexibility in mixed-use development by allowing both a vertical and/or
horizontal mix of uses.
2)In vertical mixed-use, site retail or office uses on the ground floor, with residential and/or
office uses above.
3)Encourage architecture that divides individual buildings into a base, middle and top (i.e.,
second story and higher density residential uses could incorporate different window
treatment, architectural detailing, colors, balconies, and bays). For two-story buildings,
ground floor retail uses should be distinguished from second story facades, with both
containing rich surface articulation. Rooflines should have a finished look with cornices,
parapets or other finishing details.
4)Locate commercial/retail uses near the sidewalk to provide high visibility from the street.
5)Design development with the pedestrian in mind by including wide sidewalks, canopy street
trees, sitting areas and clearly defined pedestrian routes.
6)With large-scale mixed-use development, orient the tallest portions of the buildings towards
the center of the site and ensure that the height of the buildings at the periphery are
compatible with adjacent development.
7)Minimize the visual impact of surface parking by providing either parking structures, rear- or
side-street parking with effective landscape buffering.
8)Segregate residential parking from commercial and office parking.
9)Locate mixed-use development in areas of high visibility and accessibility, and along streets
that balance vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
10)Strategically locate potentially disruptive retail uses such as nightclubs or bars to avoid
future conflicts with adjacent residential uses.
11)Provide each residential use with its own private space (such as balconies, patios or
terraces) and larger communal spaces such as lobbies, central gardens or courtyards.
12)Where possible, underground or screen utilities and utility equipment or locate and size
them to be as inconspicuous as possible.
13)Provide appropriate bicycle parking facilities to serve diverse users of mixed-use
developments. Bicycle parking should be highly visible and/or near the entrance of the
building.
Page 18 of 22
Appendix B
General Plan Amendments
GOAL 13.1: Anaheim has a vibrant, distinctive, bicycle and pedestrian-friendly Downtown that respects
its historic context and provides civic, shopping, employment, and entertainment opportunities for
residents and visitors.
Policies:
1)Use the Anaheim Colony Vision, Principles and Design Guidelines to ensure that new
development reflects the diverse architectural heritage, and that the detailing and scale of
the area is maintained and/or enhanced.
2)Incorporate historic themes and community symbols into the design of the Downtown area
to distinguish it as Anaheim’s historic/civic core.
3)Provide generous bicycle and pedestrian amenities such as bicycle lanes, sharrows or signs
to encourage vehicles to share the road with bicyclists, bike racks and lockers, wide
sidewalks, ground-level retail uses, parkways, vintage streetlights, sitting areas, and street
furniture as key features of Downtown Anaheim.
4)Establish a strong sense of architectural identity and visual continuity through similarities in
scale, height, massing, facade organization, signage, material use, colors and roof shapes.
5)Encourage architectural detailing, which includes richly articulated surfaces and varied
facade treatment, rather than plain or blank walls.
6)Locate commercial buildings close to the public right-of-way to better define the urban
space and create pedestrian interest. Consistent street frontages of buildings are
encouraged, but can be relieved with occasional courtyards, patios and setbacks.
7)Develop a sign program for important streets that complements the architecture of
individual buildings and also provides a unifying element along the streetscape.
8)Encourage the following types of signs: indirectly lit signs, raised letter signs, wall signs,
awnings, and double-faced, projecting signs along pedestrian streets.
9)Discourage the use of the following types of signs: internally illuminated, plastic, flashing
signs, billboards, generic trademark signs, and any sign temporarily affixed to ground-floor
windows. Roof signs are generally discouraged, although exceptions can be made for
historically appropriate designs through established zoning provisions.
10)Where feasible, incorporate either angled or parallel parking on local commercial streets in
the Downtown area to provide convenient access to retail uses.
11)Minimize the visual impact of surface parking lots by locating them behind buildings, away
from the street, if possible, or through perimeter and interior landscaping and small-scale
fencing.
12)Encourage use of parking structures in lieu of surface parking lots. When provided along a
pedestrian-oriented street, the structure should be designed to provide ground-level retail
and/or office space. On streets where cars must occupy the ground level, a landscaped
setback should be used to minimize and soften the visual impact of the structure.
13)Design public plazas and spaces that are both comfortable and convenient. They should be
well-defined by surrounding buildings, located near the street for visual contact and
Page 19 of 22
Appendix B
General Plan Amendments
convenience, contain abundant seating opportunities, and incorporate amenities such as
distinctive focal points, public art, ample shade, and eating and entertainment possibilities.
14)Mark the transition from residential areas of the Colony to the Downtown core with special
edge treatment, gateway monumentation and distinctive signage.
Economic Development Element
GOAL 6.4: Promote the revitalization of Downtown Anaheim as a pedestrian-oriented and bicycle-
friendly civic town center, enhanced with diverse retail, residential and cultural opportunities.
Policies:
1)Promote the Anaheim Colony Historic District as a destination for local residents and
regional visitors thereby creating a stimulus for economic revitalization.
2)Encourage quality design through implementation of the Anaheim Colony Vision, Principles,
and Design Guidelines.
3)Encourage mixed-use development incorporating ground-floor retail and high quality
architecture that is consistent with the historic nature of the area.
4)Encourage well-designed, convenient parking structures, distinctive street furniture, and
ample bicycle and pedestrian amenities as stimuli to Downtown shopping and commercial
activity.
Page 20 of 22
Appendix B
General Plan Amendments
General Plan Amendments (West)
Page 21 of 22
Appendix B
General Plan Amendments
General Plan Amendments (East)
Page 22 of 22
Bicycle Master Plan
Appendix C
Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeway
Network
Draft February 16, 2017
www.anaheim.net/bike
Appendix C
Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeways Network
Existing Bikeways
Class I Bike Path Existing
Bike Centerline
Street/PathFrom To
IDMiles
Lincoln
1Anaheim Coves Trail Ball Road 1.63
Avenue
Crescent
5Carbon Creek Channel Gilbert Street0.45
Avenue
Schweitzer
164 Carbon Creek Channel Beach Boulevard 0.27
Park
Yorba Linda
17 Fairmont Boulevard La Palma Avenue 0.14
City Limits
North-South SoCal Edison
22 right-of-way west of Stanton City Limits Broadway 1.33
Magnolia Street
Yorba Linda
27ASanta Ana River Trail Orange City Limit5.72
Boulevard
Yorba Linda
28 Santa Ana River Trail Yorba Linda Boulevard 0.42
City Limits
Orange City
27C Santa Ana River Trail West Orange City Limit0.43
Limit
Santa Ana River Trail
Yorba Linda
177 Santa Ana River Trail South Connector at Imperial 2.65
City Limits
Highway
Canyon Rim
176 Walnut Canyon Reservoir Canyon Rim Road1.74
Road
Total 14.78
Class II Bike Lane Existing
Bike Centerline
Street/Path FromTo
ID Miles
Sycamore
34 Anaheim Boulevard La Palma Avenue0.53
Street
Cerritos
36 Anaheim Boulevard Ball Road 0.53
Avenue
Nohl Ranch Santa Ana Canyon
39 Anaheim Hills Road 0.67
RoadRoad
Anaheim Shores / Romneya La Palma
40 Euclid Street 0.71
Drive Avenue
42ABall Road Knott Avenue Western Ave 0.5
42C Ball Road Gaymont Brookhurst 1.79
Appendix C
Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeways Network
Bike Centerline
Street/Path From To
ID Miles
State College
47 Broadway East Street 0.76
Boulevard
48ABrookhurst Street Lincoln Avenue Ball Road 1.02
48BBrookhurst Street Lincoln Avenue Crescent Avenue 0.50
48CBrookhurst Street Ball RoadKatella Avenue1.01
52ACanyon Rim Road Nohl Ranch Road Fairmont Boulevard 1.17
52BCanyon Rim Road Fairmont Boulevard Serrano Avenue0.97
Cerritos Avenue (West Buena Park City
53 Stanton City Limits 0.32
of Knott Avenue)Limits
Garden Grove City
56 Chapman AvenueHarbor Boulevard 0.25
Limits
59 Crescent Avenue Brookhurst Street Muller Street 0.51
60 Crescent Avenue Chippewa Avenue Loara Street0.58
65 Euclid Street Ball RoadLincoln Avenue 1.01
69 Frontera Street Rio Vista Street Glassell Street 1.01
72 Gilbert Street South City LimitsBall Road 1.01
73 Glassell Street Orange City Limits Frontera Street 0.16
76 Imperial Highway Orange City Limits Nohl Ranch Road0.67
Orangethorpe
78 Kellogg DriveYorba Linda City Limit0.67
Avenue
80 Knott Avenue Orange Avenue Lincoln Avenue 0.51
84ALakeview Avenue La Palma Avenue Santa Ana River Trail 0.33
Santa Ana River
84BLakeview AvenueRiverdale Avenue 0.15
Trail
91 Lincoln Avenue Rio Vista Street Orange City Limits 0.49
92 Loara Street Wilshire StreetNorth Street 0.38
95 Miller StreetLa Palma Avenue Orangethorpe Avenue1.00
97 Miraloma AvenueLa Loma CircleVan Buren Street 1.91
Garden Grove City
98ANinth Street Orangewood Avenue 0.12
Limits
Orangewood
98BNinth Street Katella Avenue0.50
Avenue
102 North Street Harbor Boulevard Anaheim Boulevard0.34
104 Oak Canyon Drive Serrano Avenue Weir Canyon Road 0.53
111A Orangewood Avenue Euclid Street Ninth Street 0.50
East City Limit east of
111B Orangewood Avenue Ninth Street0.22
Janette Lane
Mountain View
113 Orangewood Avenue Harbor Boulevard 0.66
Avenue
Appendix C
Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeways Network
117 Rio Vista Street Wagner Street Dutch Avenue 1.11
119 Riverdale Avenue Orange City Limits Lakeview Avenue1.26
Santa Ana Canyon
120 Royal Oak Road Nohl Ranch Road 0.47
Road
121A Santa AnaCanyon Road Orange City Limits Weir Canyon Road 5.98
121B Santa Ana Canyon Road Weir Canyon Road Gypsum Canyon Road 1.98
124 Serrano AvenueNohl Ranch Road Canyon Rim Road 1.43
127 South Street Peregrine Street Rio Vista Street 0.51
128A Sunkist Street Cerritos Avenue Wagner Avenue1.03
128B Sunkist Street Wagner Avenue South Street0.50
132 Tustin Avenue Orange City Limits Santa Ana River Trail 0.39
133B Tustin Avenue Miraloma Avenue Placentia City Limit 0.38
137 Wagner Avenue Sunkist Street Rio Vista Street 0.51
Santa Ana Canyon
139 Weir Canyon Road Blue Sky Road1.67
Road
144 Wilshire Avenue Loara Street Lincoln Avenue 0.47
155 Orangethorpe Avenue Miller Street Jefferson Street 0.87
163 Western Avenue Stanton City Limits Orange Avenue 0.76
State College
166 La Palma Avenue Acacia Street 0.5
Boulevard
Total 43.8
Class III Bike Route Existing
Bike Centerline
Street/Path From To
ID Miles
42B Ball Road WesternGaymont 0.69
Frontera
146 Dutch Avenue/Park Vista Avenue Rio Vista Street0.59
Street
Total1.28
Appendix C
Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeways Network
Proposed Bikeways
Class I Bike Path Proposed
Bike Centerline
Street/Path FromTo
ID Miles
Anaheim Coves Trail
2Lincoln Avenue Frontera Street 0.94
North Extension
Basin Trail south of La
3Richfield Road Lakeview Avenue0.46
Palma Avenue
4 Boysen Park Path Vermont AvenueWagner Avenue 0.25
Buena Park City
6Carbon Creek Channel Beach Boulevard 1.30
Limit
7 Carbon Creek Channel Magnolia Avenue Gilbert Street 0.57
8 Carbon Creek Channel Brookhurst Street La Palma Avenue 1.89
165 Carbon Creek Channel Dale Street Lincoln Avenue0.73
Carbon Creek Diversion
9Kraemer Boulevard Orangethorpe Avenue 1.35
Channel
Crescent Avenue Bike
10 Muller Street Chippewa Avenue 0.18
Bridge
11 Deer Canyon ParkFairmont BoulevardSerrano Avenue 1.62
East Tustin Flood Control Santa Ana River Anaheim Canyon
12 0.79
Path Trail Metrolink
East-West Edison right-of-
UPRR West of
13 way north of Katella Walnut Street 0.41
Ninth Street
Avenue
East-West Edison right-of-
way/Union Pacific
14AHarbor Boulevard Douglass Road 2.31
Railroad right-of-way
north of Katella Avenue
East-West Edison right-of-
way/Union Pacific
14BDouglass Road Orange City Limit 0.32
Railroad right-of-way
north of Katella Avenue
Santa Ana Canyon
15 Fairmont Boulevard La Palma Avenue 0.54
Road
Santa Ana River
16 Fairmont Boulevard La Palma Avenue 0.09
Trail
Santa Ana River
Imperial La Palma Trail Connector
179 Imperial Highway 0.45
Connector w/o Imperial
Highway
Appendix C
Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeways Network
Bike Centerline
Street/PathFromTo
ID Miles
Santa Ana Canyon
18 Imperial Park PathNohl Ranch Road 0.75
Road
19 La Palma AvenueBlue Gum Streeteast of Brasher Street 4.23
20 Metrolink Side Trail Orange/Olive Road Tustin Avenue
0.98
Nohl Ranch Open Space
21 Avd Margarita Anaheim Hills Road
1.27
Trail
North-South Edison right-
23 of-way west of Magnolia Broadway La Palma Avenue
1.26
Street
E-W Southern
North-South Union Pacific
California Edison right-
24 Railroad-Olive Street Vermont Avenue
1.18
of-way south of
Continuation
Cerritos Avenue
109 Orangethorpe Avenue Lakeview Avenue Imperial Highway
1.66
Peralta Canyon Park
178 Pinney Drive Santa Ana River Trail
0.25
Overcrossing
Santa Ana River Trail
Santa Ana River
29 Connector west of La Palma Avenue
0.28
Trail
Imperial Highway
Sycamore Connector west
30 of State College Sycamore Street La Palma Avenue
0.13
Boulevard
Tustin Avenue-Metrolink
31 Orange Sub Tustin Avenue
0.28
Connection Alt 1
0.17
Tustin Avenue-Metrolink
175 Orange Sub Santa Ana River Trail
(Alt. to 31 –
Connection Alt 2
Not Counted)
Union Pacific Railroad
32 north of Katella and east Stanton City Limits Broadway
3.42
of Euclid
Total 30.05
Class II Bike Lane Proposed
Bike Centerline
Street/PathFromTo
IDMiles
33 Acacia StreetLa Palma Avenue Fullerton City Limits .61
35 Anaheim Boulevard Ball Road Sycamore Street 1.56
Anaheim Garden Grove City
37Cerritos Avenue 1.25
Boulevard/Haster Street Limits
Appendix C
Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeways Network
Bike Centerline
Street/PathFromTo
IDMiles
Fullerton City Limits
Anaheim
38La Palma Avenue north of Freedom 1.10
Boulevard/Lemon Street
Lane
Buena Park City
41Ball Road Knott Avenue0.38
Limits
42D Ball Road Western Avenue Gaymont Street 0.69
43A Ball Road Brookhurst Street Walnut Street1.75
43B Ball Road Walnut StreetWest Place 0.25
44 Ball Road Lemon Street Orange City Limits 2.31
45 Blue Gum Street La Palma Avenue Placentia City Limits0.64
Southern California
46A BroadwayDale Street 0.23
Edison Trail
Southern California
46B BroadwayGilbert Street0.75
Edison Trail
46C BroadwayGilbert StreetEast Street 3.85
49 Brookhurst Street Crescent Avenue Fullerton City Limits 1.00
Camino
50Grande/Stagecoach Nohl Ranch Road Nohl Ranch Road 1.53
Road
51 Canyon Creek Road Sunset Ridge Road Serrano Avenue 0.56
West City Limits
54Cerritos AvenueWalnut Street2.51
(east of Magnolia)
55 Cerritos Avenue Anaheim Boulevard Douglass Road 1.65
Carbon Creek
58Crescent AvenueBrookhurst Street 0.22
Channel
62 Dale Street Stanton City Limits Buena Park City Limits1.64
63 Douglass RoadKatella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 0.41
Orangewood
171 Dupont Drive (W) Dupont Drive (E)0.23
Avenue
64 East Street Ball Road La Palma Avenue 2.09
Orangewood
66Euclid Street Ball Road 1.52
Avenue
Santa Ana Canyon
67Fairmont Boulevard Canyon Rim Road 1.07
Road
68 FronteraStreet La Palma Avenue Rio Vista Street 0.20
Crescent Pinney Drive/Royal
70Gerda Drive0.39
Elementary School Oak Road
71 Gilbert Street Broadway Carbon Creek Trail0.58
74 Grove Street La Palma Avenue Miraloma Avenue 0.67
Appendix C
Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeways Network
Centerline
Bike ID Street/Path From To
Miles
Gypsum Canyon
75Santa Ana Canyon Road Yorba Linda City Limit 0.16
Road
77 Kellogg Drive La Palma Avenue Orangethorpe Avenue0.38
79 Knott Avenue Stanton City LimitsOrange Avenue0.93
Kraemer
82Frontera Street Orangethorpe Avenue 1.37
Boulevard
81 La Palma Avenue Buena Park City Limits Acacia Street 4.63
167 La Palma Avenue State College BoulevardBlue Gum Street 1.18
83 Lakeview Avenue Santa Ana Canyon Road Riverdale Avenue 0.25
85A Lakeview Avenue La Palma Avenue Orangethorpe Avenue0.50
85B Lakeview Avenue Orangethorpe AvenueYorba Linda City Limit0.26
87A Lewis StreetKatella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 0.50
87B Lewis Street Cerritos Avenue Ball Road 0.52
88 Lewis Street Orange City Limits Orangewood Avenue 0.25
Southern California
89A Lincoln AvenueKnott Avenue 1.74
Edison Trail
Southern California Edison
89BLincoln AvenueEuclid Street 2.26
Trail
90 Lincoln AvenueManchester Avenue Wilshire Avenue 0.16
93 Magnolia Avenue Stanton City LimitsLa Palma Avenue 2.49
Manchester
94Santa Ana StreetLincoln Avenue 0.44
Avenue
96 Miraloma Avenue Sunkist Street La Loma Circle 1.31
99 Ninth StreetKatella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 0.50
100 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills Road Serrano Avenue1.56
101 North StreetWest Street Harbor Boulevard 0.45
103 North StreetAnaheim BoulevardOlive Street 0.22
105 Oak Canyon Drive Weir Canyon Road Running Springs Drive 0.21
107A Orange Avenue Buena Park City Limits Carbon Creek Trail 0.97
107B Orange Avenue Carbon Creek Channel Magnolia Avenue 1.41
Orangethorpe
26Lemon Street Raymond Avenue 0.75
Avenue
Orangethorpe
108 State College BoulevardPlacentia Avenue 0.36
Avenue
Orangethorpe
110 Kraemer Boulevard Miller Street0.63
Avenue
Orangewood
112 West Street Harbor Boulevard 0.51
Avenue
Orangewood
114 Mountain View Avenue Dupont Drive (W) 1.03
Avenue
Appendix C
Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeways Network
Centerline
Bike ID Street/Path From To
Miles
115 Pinney DriveSanta Ana Canyon Road Gerda Drive0.06
Basin Trail south of La
116 Richfield Road Placentia City Limits 0.22
Palma Avenue
118 Rio Vista Street Dutch AvenueFrontera Street 0.40
123 Serrano Avenue Orange City Limits Nohl Ranch Road 0.10
125 Serrano Avenue Canyon Rim Road Weir Canyon Road 1.45
126 South Street State College BoulevardPeregrine Street 0.50
130 Sunkist StreetSouth Street Miraloma Avenue 1.01
131 Sunset Ridge Road Canyon Creek Road Serrano Avenue0.91
Towne Centre
172 Dupont Drive (E) Rampart Street 0.23
Place
133A Tustin AvenueSanta Ana River Trail Miraloma Avenue 1.18
134 Vermont AvenueCitron Street Boysen Park Trail 1.65
136 Wagner Avenue State College BoulevardSunkist Street 0.50
138A Walnut StreetKatella Avenue Ball Road 1.02
138B Walnut StreetBall Road Santa Ana Street0.65
140 West Street Santa Ana StreetNorth Street 0.94
141 Western Avenue Orange AvenueBuena Park City Limits 0.76
Total 71.13
Class III Bike Routes Proposed
Bike Centerline
Street/PathFrom To
ID Miles
57Citron Street Vermont AvenueSanta Ana Street 0.57
145A Crone AvenueUPRR Trail Walnut Street 1.00
145B Crone AvenueNutwood Street UPRR Trail 0.25
147Gilbert Street La Palma Avenue Crescent Avenue 0.49
148Gilbert Street Broadway Ball Road0.76
Santa Ana River
149 Katella Avenue Douglass Road 0.13
Trail
86Lemon Street Sycamore Street La Palma Avenue 0.56
150Lemon Street Ball RoadSycamore Street 1.53
151North Street Loara Street West Street 0.42
152Nutwood Street Orange Avenue Crone Street 0.23
106Olive StreetVermont AvenueSanta Ana Street 0.57
153Olive StreetSanta Ana Street La Palma Avenue 1.09
154Orange AvenueMagnolia Avenue Euclid Street 1.98
Appendix C
Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeways Network
Bike Centerline
Street/PathFrom To
ID Miles
Anaheim
158 Romneya Drive/Carl Karcher WayEuclid Street 1.26
Boulevard
122Santa Ana StreetWalnut Street East Street 1.63
State College
159 Santa Ana Street East Street 0.72
Boulevard
State College
160 South Street Indiana Street 1.97
Boulevard
Anaheim Coves
161 South Street Rio Vista Street 0.28
Trail
Sycamore
170 Sycamore Street West Street 2.22
Connector
162 Van Buren Street La Palma AvenuePlacentia City 0.42
Limit north of
Miraloma Avenue
135Vine Street Santa Ana Street Broadway 0.15
173West Street North StreetLa Palma Avenue 0.42
143Westmont DriveLoara Street West Street 0.48
Total 19.13
Bicycle Master Plan
Appendix D
Anaheim Outdoors Bicycle Master Plan
Update Survey Results
Draft February 16, 2017
www.anaheim.net/bike
BICYCLE MASTER PLAN UPDATE
SURVEY RESULTS
Anaheim Outdoors’
commitment to engaging the
community to define the
vision elicited over 200 survey
responses, as summarized in
the following slides.
HOW OFTEN DO YOU
SEE OTHERS MAKING
TRIPS BY BICYCLE?
WHAT TYPES OF TRIPS
WOULD YOU USE A
BICYCLE FOR IF SAFE
BICYCLE LANES OR
TRAILS WERE IN
CLOSE PROXIMITY TO
YOUR RESIDENCE?
MY NEIGHBORHOOD’S
BICYCLE LANES AND
TRAILS ARE:
HOW OFTEN DO
YOU BICYCLE?
WHAT PREVENTS YOU
FROM BICYCLING MORE?
WOULD THE
FOLLOWING
IMPROVEMENTS
INFLUENCE YOU TO
BIKE MORE OFTEN?
Bicycle Master Plan
Appendix E
Bike Anaheim Ride With Us Fact Sheet
Draft February 16, 2017
www.anaheim.net/bike
With community input, the plan will guide building of
new bikeways in the next two decades.
bikeways with new routes that will connect
neighborhoods, employment centers and
transportation hubs.
Cycling lifts quality of life by lowering emissions,
reducing congestion and promoting health and fun!
Proposed Projects
Recent Projects
Get Involved
Aug. 1, 2016
Nohl Ranch Open Space Trail
Anaheim Coves Trail
Draft master plan available
Pelanconi Park to
Ball Road to
for review and comment at
Anaheim Hills Road
Lincoln Avenue
Anaheim.net/bike
Gilbert Street
Anaheim Canyon
Aug. 8, 2016
Anaheim south
Metrolink Station
Planning Commission
city limits to Ball
to Santa Ana
workshop, 5 p.m.
Road
River Trail
Anaheim City Hall
West Anaheim
Anaheim Coves
Aug. 31, 2016
Between Magnolia and Dale
Trail North
Last day for draft plan
avenues from Stanton city limits
Lincoln Avenue to
comments at
to Broadway Avenue
Frontera Street
bike@Anaheim.net
Anaheim Bikeways
64.5 miles of existing bikeways
119.6 miles of proposed bikeways
Regional bike path
Learn More
Explore the Map
Comments
Anaheim.net/bike
Anaheim.net/bikemap
bike@anaheim.net
Bicycle Master Plan
Appendix F
Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority
Ranking Scores
Draft February 16, 2017
www.anaheim.net/bike
Appendix F
Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores
For purposes of prioritization, individual segments were combined into corridors, shown in Bold, to better capture the intent of closing gaps in the existing network. Stand-alone segments
are shown in italics.
Category Demand Utility Connectivity Readiness
Weight 88 6 6 2 3 43 24 4
Total 32 28 20 20 100
Parks/ On
Existing Regional Existing
Bike Bikeway Employment Population Gap Inter-City Multimodal Library/ Agency Street
Street/Path From To or Bikeway Schools ROW Score
ID Class Centers Density Closure Connectivity Connectivity Rec Coordination Parking
Proposed Connection Impacts
Center Impact
Tier 1 Priority Ranking
Buena Park City La Palma
Carbon Creek Channel Class I Ex/Prop 2222 2 122 10 2 87
Limits Avenue
Buena Park City Beach
6Carbon Creek Channel Class I Proposed 22 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 0 2 84
Limits Boulevard
Schweitzer
164 Carbon Creek Channel Beach Boulevard Class I Existing 22 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 68
Park
Lincoln
165 Carbon Creek Channel Schweitzer Park Class I Proposed 02 2 1 0 0 2 2 1 0 2 58
Avenue
7Carbon Creek Channel Magnolia Avenue Gilbert StreetClass I Proposed01 0 1 0 0 21 11 2 39
Crescent
5Carbon Creek Channel Gilbert Street Class I Existing 01 1 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 2 46
Avenue
La Palma
8Carbon Creek Channel Brookhurst Street Class I Proposed 22 1 2 0 1 2 2 1 0 2 77
Avenue
Buena Park City
Orange Avenue Euclid Street Various Proposed 2222 2 122 11 1 87
Limits
Buena Park City Magnolia
107 Orange Avenue Class II Proposed 22 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 87
Limits Avenue
154 Orange Avenue Magnolia Avenue Euclid Street Class III Proposed 0 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 73
State College
Santa Ana Street Walnut Street Class III Proposed 2221 0 122 22 2 87
Boulevard
122 Santa Ana Street Walnut Street East Street Class III Proposed22 2 1 0 1 22 22 2 87
State College
159 Santa Ana Street East Street Class III Proposed 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 2 2 42
Boulevard
Haster Street/ Anaheim Garden Grove City Fullerton City
Class II Ex/Prop 2222 2 222 10 1 86
Boulevard/ Lemon Street Limits Limits
Garden Grove City Cerritos
37 Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street Class II Proposed 12 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 0 2 78
Limits Avenue
36 Anaheim Boulevard Cerritos Avenue Ball Road Class II Existing02 2 0 0 1 20 21 2 55
Sycamore
35 Anaheim Boulevard Ball Road Class II Proposed 22 2 1 0 1 0 2 2 1 1 71
Street
La Palma
34 Anaheim Boulevard Sycamore Street Class II Existing 02 2 1 0 2 0 2 2 2 1 62
Avenue
Fullerton City
Anaheim Boulevard/Lemon
38 La Palma Avenue Limits n/o Class II Proposed 21 2 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 59
Street
Freedom Ln
Appendix F
Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores
Category Demand Utility Connectivity Readiness
Weight 88 6 6 2 3 43 24 4
Total 32 28 20 20 100
Parks/ On
Existing Regional Existing
Bike Bikeway Employment Population Gap Inter-City Multimodal Library/ Agency Street
Street/Path From To or Bikeway Schools ROW Score
ID Class Centers Density Closure Connectivity Connectivity Rec Coordination Parking
Proposed Connection Impacts
Center Impact
Buena Park City Blue Gum
La Palma Avenue West Class II Ex/Prop 2222 2 222 00 1 84
Limits Street
Buena Park City
81 La Palma Avenue Acacia Street Class II Proposed 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 1 84
Limits
State College
166 La Palma Avenue Acacia Street Class II Existing 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 53
Boulevard
State College Blue Gum
167 La Palma Avenue Class II Proposed 21 2 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 65
BoulevardStreet
Glassell
Frontera Street La Palma Avenue Class II Ex/Prop 2222 0 111 21 2 82
Street
Rio Vista
68 Frontera Street La Palma Avenue Class II Proposed 22 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 2 63
Street
69 Frontera Street Rio Vista Street Glassell StreetClass II Existing22 2 2 0 0 11 10 1 69
UPRR/Edison w/o Walnut Stanton City Limits Broadway Class I Proposed 22 1 2 2 1 22 10 2 81
Union Pacific Railroad north of
32 Stanton City Limits Broadway Class I Proposed 0 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 0 0 2 63
Katella and east of Euclid
East-West Edison ROW north of UPRR West of Ninth
13 Walnut Street Class I Proposed 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 51
Katella Avenue Street
Buena Park City
Ball Road West Pl Class II Ex/Prop 1222 2 122 11 1 79
Limits
Buena Park City
41 Ball Road Knott Avenue Class II Proposed 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 1 47
Limits
42 Ball Road Knott Avenue Brookhurst St Class II Existing02 2 2 2 1 22 21 1 73
43 Ball Road Brookhurst StreetWest Pl Class II Proposed12 2 2 0 1 22 11 1 75
Fullerton City
Brookhurst Street Katella Avenue Class II Ex/Prop 1222 2 122 10 2 79
Limits
Crescent
48 Brookhurst Street Katella Avenue Class II Existing 12 2 2 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 80
Avenue
Fullerton City
49 Brookhurst Street Crescent Avenue Class II Proposed 12 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 0 2 79
Limits
Van Buren
Sunkist/ Miraloma Cerritos Avenue Class II Ex/Prop 2122 2 122 11 1 79
Street
128 Sunkist StreetCerritos Avenue South Street Class II Existing11 1 2 0 0 22 21 0 56
Miraloma
130 Sunkist Street South Street Class II Proposed 11 1 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 0 41
Avenue
96 Miraloma AvenueSunkist Street La Loma CirClass II Proposed11 2 1 0 1 11 11 2 58
Van Buren
97 Miraloma Avenue La Loma Cir Class II Existing 20 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 56
Street
Rio Vista
Vermont/Wagner Citron Street Various Ex/Prop 2212 0 122 21 1 79
Street
Appendix F
Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores
Category Demand Utility Connectivity Readiness
Weight 88 6 6 2 3 43 24 4
Total 32 28 20 20 100
Parks/ On
Existing Regional Existing
Bike Bikeway Employment Population Gap Inter-City Multimodal Library/ Agency Street
Street/Path From To or Bikeway Schools ROW Score
ID Class Centers Density Closure Connectivity Connectivity Rec Coordination Parking
Proposed Connection Impacts
Center Impact
Boysen Park
134 Vermont Avenue Citron Street Class II Proposed 22 1 0 0 1 2 2 2 1 0 63
Trail
Wagner
4Boysen Park Path Vermont Avenue Class I Proposed 01 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 2 38
Avenue
State College
136 Wagner Avenue Sunkist Street Class II Proposed 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 2 2 1 1 49
Boulevard
Rio Vista
137 Wagner Avenue Sunkist Street Class II Existing 01 0 2 0 0 2 2 1 1 2 48
Street
Carbon Creek
Crescent Avenue/ North Street Olive Street Various Ex/Prop 2212 0 122 11 1 77
Channel
Carbon Creek Brookhurst
58 Crescent Avenue Class II Proposed 01 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 47
ChannelStreet
59 Crescent Avenue Brookhurst StreetMuller Street Class II Existing12 1 1 0 0 10 21 1 52
Chippewa
10 Crescent Avenue Bike Bridge Muller Street Class I Proposed 12 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 50
Avenue
60 Crescent Avenue Chippewa AvenueLoara StreetClass II Existing22 0 1 0 0 20 22 1 62
151 North Streetreet Loara StreetWest Street Class III Proposed22 0 1 0 0 21 22 2 69
Harbor
101 North Street West Street Class II Proposed 01 0 2 0 1 1 1 2 2 1 46
Boulevard
Anaheim
102 North Street Harbor Boulevard Class II Existing 01 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 2 1 43
Boulevard
103 North Street Anaheim Boulevard Olive Street Class II Proposed01 1 2 0 0 00 22 1 42
State College
Broadway Dale Street Class II Ex/Prop 2212 1 122 11 0 75
Boulevard
46 Broadway Dale Street East Street Class II Proposed22 1 2 1 1 22 11 0 75
State College
47 Broadway East Street Class II Existing 01 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 1 0 33
Boulevard
Anaheim
South Street Indiana Street Various Ex/Prop 2211 1 122 21 1 75
Coves Trail
State College
160 South Street Indiana Street Class III Proposed 2 2 1 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 75
Boulevard
State College Peregrine
126 South Street Class II Proposed 01 0 1 0 1 2 2 2 0 0 35
BoulevardStreet
Rio Vista
127 South Street Peregrine Street Class II Existing 01 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 35
Street
Anaheim
161 South Street Rio Vista Street Class III Proposed 01 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 31
Coves Trail
Weir Canyon
Serrano Avenue Orange City Limits Class II Ex/Prop 1122 2 022 21 2 74
Road
Appendix F
Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores
Category Demand Utility Connectivity Readiness
Weight 88 6 6 2 3 43 24 4
Total 32 28 20 20 100
Parks/ On
Existing Regional Existing
Bike Bikeway Employment Population Gap Inter-City Multimodal Library/ Agency Street
Street/Path From To or Bikeway Schools ROW Score
ID Class Centers Density Closure Connectivity Connectivity Rec Coordination Parking
Proposed Connection Impacts
Center Impact
Nohl Ranch
123 Serrano Avenue Orange City Limits Class II Proposed 01 2 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 2 48
Road
Canyon Rim
124 Serrano Avenue Nohl Ranch Road Class II Existing 01 2 1 1 0 1 2 2 1 2 54
Road
Weir Canyon
125 Serrano Avenue Canyon Rim Road Class II Proposed 11 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 1 2 63
Road
Placentia City
Tustin Avenue Orange City Limits Class II Proposed 2222 2 200 00 2 74
Limits
Santa Ana
132 Tustin Avenue Orange City Limits Class II Existing 12 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 64
River Trail
Placentia City
133A Tustin Avenue Santa Ana River Trail Class II Proposed 21 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 66
Limits
Sycamore Street/Westmont Van Buren
Loara Street Various Proposed 2212 0 122 11 0 73
Drive Street
143 Westmont DriveLoara StreetWest Street Class III Proposed21 0 2 0 0 21 22 0 59
Sycamore
170 Sycamore Street West Street Class III Proposed 02 1 2 0 1 2 2 2 2 0 63
Connector
Sycamore Connector w/o State La Palma
30 Sycamore Street Class I Proposed 02 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 52
College BlAvenue
89 Lincoln Avenue Knott AvenueEuclid StreetClass II Proposed 22 1 2 2 1 21 00 1 72
Imperial
109 Orangethorpe Avenue Lakeview Avenue Class I Proposed 2211 2 010 22 2 72
Highway
Santa Ana Canyon Yorba Linda
Lakeview Avenue Class II Ex/Prop 2122 2 111 10 2 72
Road City Limits
Santa Ana Canyon
88 Lakeview Avenue Riverdale Ave Class II Proposed 2 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 65
Road
La Palma
84 Lakeview Avenue Riverdale Avenue Class II Existing 21 2 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 68
Avenue
Yorba Linda
85 Lakeview Avenue La Palma Avenue Class II Proposed 11 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 2 47
City Limits
Tier 2 Priority Ranking
La Palma
East/Lewis Katella Avenue Class II Proposed 2211 0 122 20 1 69
Avenue
La Palma
64 East Street Ball Road Class II Proposed 22 1 1 0 1 2 2 2 0 1 69
Avenue
87 Lewis Street Katella Avenue Ball Road Class II Proposed 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 39
Manchester/Loara Santa Ana Street North Street Class IIEx/Prop22 1 1 0 0 21 11 2 69
Lincoln
94 Manchester Avenue Santa Ana Street Class II Proposed 10 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 2 43
Avenue
Appendix F
Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores
Category Demand Utility Connectivity Readiness
Weight 88 6 6 2 3 43 24 4
Total 32 28 20 20 100
Parks/ On
Existing Regional Existing
Bike Bikeway Employment Population Gap Inter-City Multimodal Library/ Agency Street
Street/Path From To or Bikeway Schools ROW Score
ID Class Centers Density Closure Connectivity Connectivity Rec Coordination Parking
Proposed Connection Impacts
Center Impact
Wilshire
90 Lincoln Avenue Manchester Avenue Class II Proposed 01 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 28
Avenue
Lincoln
144 Wilshire Avenue Loara Street Class II Existing 21 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 46
Avenue
92 Loara Street Wilshire Street North Street Class II Existing 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 1 2 2 1 71
Edison Trail s/o La Palma
Olive Street Various Proposed 2210 0 122 11 2 69
CerritosAvenue
La Palma
153 Olive Street Santa Ana Street Class III Proposed 22 1 0 0 1 0 2 2 2 2 67
Avenue
Santa Ana
106 Olive Street Vermont Avenue Class III Proposed 22 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 2 61
Street
E-W SCE ROW
North-South Union Pacific
south of
24 Railroad- Olive Street Vermont Avenue Class I Proposed 22 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 2 59
Cerritos
Continuation
Avenue
Santa Ana
Cerritos/ Douglass/ Katella Anaheim Boulevard Various Proposed 2022 2 210 11 2 68
River Trail
Douglass
55 Cerritos Avenue Anaheim Boulevard Class II Proposed 20 2 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 61
Road
Cerritos
63 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Class II Proposed 20 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 2 51
Avenue
Santa Ana
149 Katella Avenue Douglass Road Class III Proposed 20 2 1 2 2 0 0 1 2 2 62
River Trail
La Palma
Gilbert Street South City Limits Various Ex/Prop 1212 0 121 21 1 68
Avenue
Crescent
147 Gilbert Street La Palma Avenue Class III Proposed 11 1 1 0 1 2 1 2 2 2 62
Avenue
Carbon Creek
71 Gilbert Street Broadway Class II Proposed 02 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 38
Trail
148 Gilbert Street Broadway Ball Road Class III Proposed02 1 2 0 0 20 22 2 62
72 Gilbert Street South City Limits Ball Road Class II Existing01 1 1 2 0 20 11 1 42
La Palma
N-S Edison ROW w/o Magnolia Stanton City Limits Class I Ex/Prop 0221 2 122 01 2 67
Avenue
North-South SoCal Edison ROW
22 Stanton City Limits Broadway Class I Existing 0 2 2 1 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 66
west of Magnolia Street
North-South SoCal Edison ROW La Palma
23 Broadway Class I Proposed 0 2 2 0 2 1 2 1 0 0 2 54
west of Magnolia Street Avenue
Orange City
44 Ball Road Lemon Street Class II Proposed 2212 2 101 10 1 66
Limits
Appendix F
Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores
Category Demand Utility Connectivity Readiness
Weight 88 6 6 2 3 43 24 4
Total 32 28 20 20 100
Parks/ On
Existing Regional Existing
Bike Bikeway Employment Population Gap Inter-City Multimodal Library/ Agency Street
Street/Path From To or Bikeway Schools ROW Score
ID Class Centers Density Closure Connectivity Connectivity Rec Coordination Parking
Proposed Connection Impacts
Center Impact
West City Limits (e/o
54 Cerritos Avenue Walnut Street Class II Proposed 1212 2 122 10 0 65
Magnolia)
Anaheim Shores/ Anaheim
La Palma Avenue Various Ex/Prop 1111 0 122 22 2 65
Romneya/KarcherBoulevard
40 Anaheim Shores / Romneya Drive La Palma Avenue Euclid Street Class II Existing11 2 0 0 1 21 22 1 58
Anaheim
158 Romneya Drive/Carl Karcher Way Euclid Street Class III Proposed 10 1 1 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 57
Boulevard
Rampart
Orangewood AvenueEuclid Street Class II Ex/Prop 2201 2 112 11 1 65
Street
ECL e/o
111 Orangewood Avenue Euclid Street Class II Existing 01 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 26
Janette Lane
Harbor
112 Orangewood Avenue West Street Class II Proposed 22 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 47
Boulevard
Mountain
113 Orangewood Avenue Harbor Boulevard Class II Existing 12 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 55
View Avenue
Mountain View Dupont Drive
114 Orangewood Avenue Class II Proposed 12 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 47
Avenue (W)
Dupont Drive
171 Dupont Drive (W) Orangewood Avenue Class II Proposed 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 24
(E)
Rampart
172 Towne Centre Pl Dupont Drive (E) Class II Proposed 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 22
Street
La Palma
West Street Santa Ana Street Various Proposed 2210 0 122 11 1 65
Avenue
140 West Street Santa Ana StreetNorth StreetClass II Proposed12 1 0 0 1 22 11 1 57
La Palma
173 West Street North Street Class III Proposed 22 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 62
Avenue
Raymond
26 Orangethorpe Avenue Lemon Street Class II Proposed 2120 2 200 12 2 64
Avenue
Lincoln
Euclid Street Orangewood Avenue Class II Ex/Prop 1112 2 222 10 1 64
Avenue
66 Euclid Street Orangewood Avenue Ball Road Class II Proposed01 1 2 2 2 22 10 1 56
Lincoln
65 Euclid Street Ball Road Class II Existing 11 1 0 0 1 2 2 2 0 1 47
Avenue
La Palma
Lemon Street Ball Road Class III Proposed 2110 0 212 12 2 64
Avenue
La Palma
86 Lemon Street Sycamore Street Class III Proposed 01 1 0 0 2 0 2 1 2 2 44
Avenue
Sycamore
15 Lemon Street Ball Road Class III Proposed 21 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 60
Street
Appendix F
Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores
Category Demand Utility Connectivity Readiness
Weight 88 6 6 2 3 43 24 4
Total 32 28 20 20 100
Parks/ On
Existing Regional Existing
Bike Bikeway Employment Population Gap Inter-City Multimodal Library/ Agency Street
Street/Path From To or Bikeway Schools ROW Score
ID Class Centers Density Closure Connectivity Connectivity Rec Coordination Parking
Proposed Connection Impacts
Center Impact
La Palma
93 Magnolia Avenue Stanton City Limits Class II Proposed 1211 2 122 10 1 63
Avenue
Crone Avenue/ Nutwood Street Orange Avenue Walnut Street Class IIIProposed 02 1 1 0 1 22 12 2 63
152 Nutwood Street Orange Avenue Crone Street Class III Proposed01 0 0 0 0 11 22 2 35
145ACrone Avenue UPRR Trail Walnut Street Class III Proposed01 1 0 0 0 10 12 2 36
145B Crone Avenue Nutwood Street UPRR Trail Class III Proposed02 1 1 0 1 22 12 2 63
Orangethorpe
Kraemer/ Glassell Orange City Limits Class II Ex/Prop 2122 2 100 00 2 63
Avenue
Orangethorpe
82 Kraemer Boulevard Frontera Street Class II Proposed 20 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 49
Avenue
Frontera
73 Glassell Street Orange City Limits Class II Existing 11 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 56
Street
Fullerton City
33 Acacia Street La Palma Avenue Class II Proposed 1221 2 121 10 0 62
Limits
Santa Ana
138 Walnut Street Katella Avenue Class II Proposed 2220 0 022 20 0 62
Street
Placentia City
162 Van Buren Street La Palma Avenue Class III Existing 2110 0 012 22 2 60
Limits
Tustin
Tustin Metrolink Paths Orange City Limits Class I Proposed 2121 2 200 00 2 60
Avenue
Tustin Avenue-Metrolink
31 Orange Sub Tustin Avenue Class I Proposed 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 28
Connection
Anaheim
12 East Tustin Flood Control Path Santa Ana River Trail Canyon Class I Proposed 20 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 36
Metrolink
20 Metrolink Side Trail Orange/Olive RoadTustin Avenue Class I Proposed11 2 1 2 2 00 00 2 52
Buena Park
62 Dale Street Stanton City Limits Class II Proposed 0212 2 021 11 1 59
City Limits
Yorba Linda
Fairmont Boulevard Canyon Rim Road Various Ex/Prop 0122 2 022 00 2 58
City Limits
Santa Ana
67 Fairmont Boulevard Canyon Rim Road Class II Proposed 01 2 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 2 52
Canyon Road
Santa Ana Canyon La Palma
15 Fairmont Boulevard Class I Proposed 01 2 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 50
Road Avenue
La Palma
16 Fairmont Boulevard Santa Ana River Trail Class I Proposed 01 2 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 53
Avenue
Yorba Linda
17 Fairmont Boulevard La Palma Avenue Class I Existing 01 2 0 2 0 1 1 1 2 2 49
City Limits
Running
Oak Canyon Drive Serrano Avenue Class II Ex/Prop 0112 0 021 22 2 57
Springs Drive
Appendix F
Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores
Category Demand Utility Connectivity Readiness
Weight 88 6 6 2 3 43 24 4
Total 32 28 20 20 100
Parks/ On
Existing Regional Existing
Bike Bikeway Employment Population Gap Inter-City Multimodal Library/ Agency Street
Street/Path From To or Bikeway Schools ROW Score
ID Class Centers Density Closure Connectivity Connectivity Rec Coordination Parking
Proposed Connection Impacts
Center Impact
Weir Canyon
104 Oak Canyon Drive Serrano Avenue Class II Existing 01 1 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 53
Road
Running
105 Oak Canyon Drive Weir Canyon Road Class II Proposed 01 0 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 47
Springs Drive
Santa Ana
57 Citron Street Vermont Avenue Class III Proposed 0210 0 022 22 2 56
Street
Santa Ana
La Palma Avenue East Blue Gum Street Class I Proposed 2012 0 220 00 2 56
River Trail
e/o Brasher
19 La Palma Avenue Blue Gum Street Class I Proposed 20 1 2 0 2 2 0 1 0 2 58
Street
Santa Ana River Trail Connector Santa Ana
29 La Palma Avenue Class I Proposed 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 32
w/o Imperial Highway River Trail
Santa Ana River Trail
Imperial
179 Imperial La Palma Connector Connector w/o Class I Proposed 2 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 44
Highway
Imperial Highway
Serrano
Nohl Ranch Avd Margarita Various Proposed 0112 1 022 11 2 56
Avenue
Anaheim Hills
21 Nohl Ranch Open Space Trail Pelanconi Park Class I Proposed 01 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 1 2 40
Road
Serrano
100 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills Road Class II Proposed 01 1 2 1 0 2 1 2 2 2 59
Avenue
Tier 3 Priority Ranking
Santa Ana
Imperial Highway Orange City Limits Various Ex/Prop 0102 2 022 11 2 52
Canyon Road
Nohl Ranch
76 Imperial Highway Orange City Limits Class II Existing 01 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 2 2 37
Road
Santa Ana
18 Imperial Park Path Nohl Ranch Road Class I Proposed 01 0 2 0 0 2 2 1 1 2 48
Canyon Road
Placentia City
45 Blue Gum Street La Palma Avenue Class II Proposed 2020 2 100 21 2 51
Limits
Frontera
Anaheim Coves Trail Ball Road Class I Ex/Prop 1112 1 001 10 2 49
Street
Lincoln
1Anaheim Coves Trail Ball Road Class I Existing 11 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 55
Avenue
Anaheim Coves Trail North Frontera
2Lincoln Avenue Class I Proposed 01 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 36
Extension Street
Yorba Linda
Kellogg Drive La Palma Avenue Various Ex/Prop 2100 2 110 11 2 49
City Limits
Orangethorpe
77 Kellogg DriveLa Palma Avenue Class II Proposed 20 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 33
Avenue
Appendix F
Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores
Category Demand Utility Connectivity Readiness
Weight 88 6 6 2 3 43 24 4
Total 32 28 20 20 100
Parks/ On
Existing Regional Existing
Bike Bikeway Employment Population Gap Inter-City Multimodal Library/ Agency Street
Street/Path From To or Bikeway Schools ROW Score
ID Class Centers Density Closure Connectivity Connectivity Rec Coordination Parking
Proposed Connection Impacts
Center Impact
Orangethorpe Yorba Linda
78 Kellogg DriveClass II Existing 11 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 2 38
Avenue City Limits
Frontera
Rio Vista Street Wagner Street Class II Ex/Prop 0112 0 012 21 1 48
Street
117 Rio Vista StreetWagner StreetDutch Avenue Class II Existing01 0 2 0 0 12 21 1 42
Frontera
118 Rio Vista Street Dutch Avenue Class II Proposed 01 1 2 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 45
Street
Buena Park
Western Avenue Stanton City Limits Class II Proposed 0211 2 022 10 0 48
City Limits
Orange
163 Western Avenue Stanton City Limits Class II Existing 01 1 1 2 0 2 1 1 1 0 41
Avenue
Buena Park
141 Western Avenue Orange Avenue Class II Proposed 02 1 1 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 45
City Limits
Orangethorpe
9Carbon Creek Diversion Channel Kraemer Boulevard Class I Proposed 2012 0 100 10 2 47
Avenue
Crescent
Royal Oak/ Pinney/ Gerda Nohl Ranch Road Elementary Various Ex/Prop 0111 0 022 21 1 46
School
Santa Ana
120 Royal Oak Road Nohl Ranch Road Class II Existing 01 0 1 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 44
Canyon Road
Santa Ana Canyon
115 Pinney Drive Gerda Drive Class II Proposed 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 2 1 2 41
Road
Santa Ana
178 Peralta Canyon Park Overcrossing Gerda Drive Class I Proposed 01 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 42
River Trail
Pinney
Crescent Elementary
70 Gerda Drive Drive/Royal Class II Proposed 01 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 1 35
School
Oak Rd
Serrano
Canyon Creek/Sunset Ridge Serrano Avenue Class II Proposed 1110 0 001 22 2 45
Avenue
Serrano
51 Canyon Creek Road Sunset Ridge Road Class II Proposed 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 39
Avenue
Serrano
131 Sunset Ridge Road Canyon Creek Road Class II Proposed 01 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 34
Avenue
State College Placentia
108 Orangethorpe Avenue Class II Proposed 1020 2 200 11 2 44
Boulevard Avenue
Garden Grove City Cerritos
Ninth Street Class II Ex/Prop 0201 2 012 21 0 44
Limits Avenue
Garden Grove City Katella
98 Ninth Street Class II Existing 01 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 27
Limits Avenue
Cerritos
99 Ninth Street Katella Avenue Class II Proposed 02 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 27
Avenue
Appendix F
Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores
Category Demand Utility Connectivity Readiness
Weight 88 6 6 2 3 43 24 4
Total 32 28 20 20 100
Parks/ On
Existing Regional Existing
Bike Bikeway Employment Population Gap Inter-City Multimodal Library/ Agency Street
Street/Path From To or Bikeway Schools ROW Score
ID Class Centers Density Closure Connectivity Connectivity Rec Coordination Parking
Proposed Connection Impacts
Center Impact
East-West Edison ROW/Union
Orange City
13 Pacific Railroad ROW north of Harbor Boulevard Class I Proposed 2011 2 100 00 2 43
Limits
Katella Avenue
Miraloma
74 Grove St La Palma Avenue Class II Proposed 2011 0 100 22 0 43
Avenue
Lincoln
Knott Avenue Stanton City Limits Class II Ex/Prop 0210 2 021 01 0 41
Avenue
Orange
79 Knott Avenue Stanton City Limits Class II Proposed 02 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 41
Avenue
Lincoln
80 Knott Avenue Orange Avenue Class II Existing 02 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 40
Avenue
Serrano
11 Deer Canyon Park Fairmont Boulevard Class I Proposed 0110 0 012 21 2 40
Avenue
Jefferson
110 Orangethorpe Avenue Kraemer Boulevard Class II Proposed 2101 0 000 00 1 34
Street
135 Vine StreetSanta Ana StreetBroadway Class IIIProposed 02 0 0 0 0 02 22 0 34
Basin Trail s/o La Placentia City
116 Richfield Road Class II Proposed 1000 2 100 12 2 33
Palma Avenue Limits
Lakeview
3Basin Trail s/o La Palma Avenue Richfield Road Class I Proposed 2000 0 001 00 2 27
Avenue
Santa Ana Canyon Yorba Linda
75 Gypsum Canyon Road Class II Proposed 0002 2 000 10 2 26
Road City Limits
Nohl Ranch
50 Camino Grande/Stagecoach Road Nohl Ranch Road Class II Proposed 0100 0 000 22 1 24
Road
Orangewood
88 Lewis Street Orange City Limits Class II Proposed 0100 2 000 11 1 22
Avenue
Appendix F
Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores
CriteriaRaw ScoreWeightTotal ScoreDescription
Demand
2816Connects to employer with >250 employees
Employment Centers188Connects to census block with employment density > 0.00014 emp/sf
080Connects to census block with employment density < 0.00014 emp/sf
2816Connects to census block with population density > 0.00053 pop/sf
Population Density188Connects to census block with population density < 0.00053 pop/sf
080Does not connect to any census block with residential properties
Utility
2612Bikeway is part of regional bikeway corridor
Regional Bikeway Connection166Bikeway connects to regional bikeway corridor
060Bikeway does not connect to regional bikeway corridor
2612Bikeway connects to two or more existing bikeways
Gap Closure166Bikeway connects to one existing bikeway
060Bikeway does not connect to any existing bikeway
224Provides direct connection to another city
Inter-City Connectivity122Bikeway is on a city limit but does not cross the city limit
020Bikeway does not connect to another city
Connectivity
236Bikeway connects to a Metrolinkstation or a Transit Priority Area (Intersection of two HQTC's)
Multimodal Connectivity133Bikeway connects with a High Quality Transit Corridor
030Bikeway does not connect with a High Quality Transit Corridor
248Bikeway connects to 2 or more Elementary, Middle, or High Schools
Schools144Bikeway connects to one Elementary, Middle, or High School
040Bikeway does not connect to any Elementary, Middle, or High Schools
236Bikeway connects to 2 or more libraries, parks, or community centers
Parks/ Library/ Rec Center133Bikeway connects to one library, park, or community center
030Bikeway does not connect to any libraries, parks, or community centers
Readiness
224Does not require coordination with any agencies for permit and/or approval
Agency Coordination122Requires coordination with one or two agencies for permit and/or approval
020Requires coordination with three or more agencies for permit and/or approval
248Improvements fit within existing street section
Existing ROW Impacts144Improvements can fit within the existing right of way, but requires modifications to medians or curbs
040Significant ROW and widening required to implement bikeway
248On-street parking unaffected
On Street Parking Impact144Minimal in-street parking affected, usually less than 30% of the corridor, and not adjacent to spillover parking impacted areas
040Significant on-street parking impacts-requires lane removal or parking removal over most of the bikeway
Bicycle Master Plan
Appendix G
Implementation Toolbox
Draft February 16, 2017
www.anaheim.net/bike
Appendix G
Implementation Toolbox
INTRODUCTION
The following guidelines are derived from and consistent with standards within the Caltrans Highway
12
Design Manual (HCM), the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and existing
3
City of Anaheim Engineering Standard Details. These guidelines are intended to reference the most
recent versions of each of these sources as they are updated over time. Updates to the toolbox will be
performed by the Public Works Department and approved by the City Engineer as design guidelines and
standards within the HDM and the California MUTCD change over time.
A toolbox of strategies for implementing bicycle facilities is provided to illustrate many of the ways that
individual bicycle facilities can be designed and implemented. This document is intended to assist the
City in the design and implementation of bikeways and facilities within the context of the neighborhood
it serves. Bikeways should not be implemented in a “one size fits all” approach. The implementation of
the Bicycle Master Plan through this toolbox will ensure that the bicycle network will complement the
neighborhoods they serve. The toolbox enables the City to work with the local neighborhoods and
districts to determine the most appropriate improvements.
BIKEWAYS CLASSIFICATIONS
Class I – Bike Paths
Class I bike paths allow for two-way, off-street bicycle use. Bike paths can be designed for exclusive
bicycle use, and can also be designed as shared-use paths that may be used by pedestrians and other
non-motorized users. These facilities should generally be designed as separated facilities away from
parallel streets. They are commonly planned along rights-of-way such as waterways, utility corridors,
flood control access roads, and railroads which provide the opportunity for long separated bikeways.
Bike paths can also include amenities such as lighting, signage, and fencing where appropriate. Bike
paths provide critical connections in the city where roadways are absent or are not conducive to bicycle
travel.
Class I Bike Paths adjacent to residential areas may present unique situations that will be addressed with
the property owner(s) and surrounding community through project planning, implementation, and
maintenance. Appropriate fencing, walls, gates and lighting related to park facilities may be installed
according to City of Anaheim Community Services Department Parks Construction Standards Manual.
Examples of standards include:
Fences and Gates
Omega fencing per Parks Construction Standards
Manual Section 3.14.1.
Lighting
Security/pathway lighting per Parks Construction
Standards Manual Section 5.4 in coordination with
Anaheim Public Utilities Department.
1
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/hdmtoc.htm
2
http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/camutcd/
3
http://www.anaheim.net/285/Standard-Plans-and-Details
Appendix G
Implementation Toolbox
Walls
The walls along the North/South Edison Right-of-
Way (Bike ID 22) provide an example of the edge
treatment adjacent to residential areas.
Bike paths should have a minimum of eight feet of pavement, with at least two feet of unpaved
shoulders on each side. Signs must have three feet of clearance from the bike path. Paved width of
twelve feet is preferred. For shared use paths, a separate path five feet in width should be provided
adjacent to the paved bike path, and striping and/or signage should be provided to separate pedestrian
from bicycle travel areas.
Appropriate design speed, sight distance, superelevation, and clearances shall be incorporated into the
design of any Class I bike path. Slopes greater than 4% require more detailed review. Grades should not
exceed 5%. Speed bumps shall not be used. Bike path design should take into account vertical
requirements, the impacts of maintenance of both the bike path and any utility corridors, and
emergency vehicles on shoulders.
Both American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and Caltrans
recommend against using most sidewalks for bike paths, due to conflicts with driveways and
intersections. Bike paths should only be considered adjacent to roadways that have high vehicle volume
and vehicle speed, and those streets should also have uses with potential bicycle demand on that street.
Where sidewalks are used as bike paths, they should be properly separated from the roadway, and
pedestrian and bicycle uses should be separated. These paths should have carefully designed
intersection and driveway crossings. Bike paths closer than five feet from the edge of the shoulder shall
include a physical barrier to prevent bicyclists from encroaching onto the roadway, and would be
considered Class IV Cycle Track facilities.
Crossings of roadways, other than at intersections, should be carefully engineered to accommodate a
safe and visible crossing for users. The design needs to consider the width of the roadway, whether it
has a median, the posted speed limit, and the roadway’s average daily and peak-hour traffic volumes.
All shared use paths should generally conform to the design recommendation by:
City of Anaheim Community Services Department Parks Construction Standards Manual
California MUTCD
Caltrans Highway Design Manual
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities
Facilities adjacent to rail corridors should also conform with the latest version of these documents:
“Rails-with-Trails”: Lessons Learned, FHWA, 2002
SCRRA Rail-with-Trail Design Guidelines
Appendix G
Implementation Toolbox
Class II – Bike Lanes
Bike lanes are defined by pavement striping
and signage used to allocate a portion of a
roadway for exclusive or preferential bicycle
travel. Bike lanes are typically on the right
side of the street, between the adjacent
travel lane and curb, on-street parking, or
edge of pavement. Consideration should be
given to proximity and type of on-street
parking, as well as prevailing speeds and
traffic volumes in the design of bike lanes.
Bike Lane with No On-Street Parking
These bike lanes are adjacent to the curb or edge of pavement. Bike lanes designate an exclusive space
for bicyclists through the use of pavement markings and signage. The bike lane is located adjacent to
motor vehicle travel lanes and is used in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic. Consideration
should be given to proximity and type of on-street parking, as well as prevailing speeds and traffic
volumes in the design of bike lanes.
Bike lanes shall be a minimum of five feet wide or three feet wide from the gutter pan if the gutter is
greater than two feet wide. A width of six feet is preferred. Bike lanes wider than six feet need extra
striping and signage to ensure that motorists do not use the bike lane as a vehicle lane or parking lane.
Wider bike lanes should be considered on streets with volumes greater than 45 mph, or on heavily
travelled bike routes to allow for bicycles to pass within the bike lane.
Bike Lane Next to On-Street Parallel Parking
Where on-street parking is permitted, the bike lane
should be placed between the parking area and the
travel lane and have a minimum width of five feet
adjacent to an eight foot parking lane. Parking “T”s
should be placed within the parking lane to ensure
that autos are parked as close to the curb as
possible. Alternatively, a four foot lane with a three
foot buffer area is recommended so that bicyclists
do not ride in the area where parked automobile
doors can open. The buffer area should be clearly
striped. For high turnaround or heavily utilized
parking areas, the bike lane should be six feet plus the door buffer.
Appendix G
Implementation Toolbox
Bike Lane and Diagonal Parking
In certain areas with high parking demand
such as urban commercial areas, diagonal
parking may be used to increase parking
supply. Conventional diagonal parking is not
compatible or recommended in conjunction
with high levels of bicycle traffic. Drivers
backing out of conventional diagonal parking
have poor visibility of approaching bicyclists.
Conventional diagonal parking should not be
permitted on any street identified with a
bike lane in the Bicycle Master Plan.
Buffered Bike Lane
Buffered bike lanes are conventional bike lanes paired with a designated buffer space, separating the
bike lane from the adjacent vehicle travel lane. Buffered bike lanes are designed to increase the space
between the bike lane and the travel lane. This treatment is appropriate for bike lanes on roadways with
high motor vehicle traffic volumes and speed, adjacent to parking lanes, or a high volume of truck or
oversized vehicle traffic. Where bicyclist volumes are high or where bicyclist speed differentials are
significant, the desired bicycle travel area width is seven feet. Buffers should be at least two feet wide.
If three feet or wider, mark with diagonal or chevron hatching. For clarity at driveways or minor street
crossings, consider a dotted line for the inside buffer boundary where cars are expected to cross.
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
Caltrans CA-MUTCD. 2014
NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012.
Caltrans. California HDM. 2012.
Caltrans. Main Street, California. 2013.
Appendix G
Implementation Toolbox
Class III – Bike Routes
Bike routes have been typically designated as
simple signed routes along street corridors,
usually local streets and collectors, and
sometimes along arterials to fill gaps between
bike lanes. With proper route signage, design,
and maintenance, bike routes can be effective in
guiding bicyclists along routes suited for
bicycling. Class III bike routes should be
designed in a manner that encourages bicycle
usage, convenience, and safety. There are a
variety of other improvements that can enhance the safety and
attraction of streets for bicyclists. Bike routes can become more
useful when coupled with such techniques as signage, wide curb
lanes, shared lane markings, and traffic calming measures.
Bike routes should not be placed on streets with a speed limit
greater than 35 miles per hour, or high hourly traffic volumes.
Placement of new bike routes on arterial streets should be
reviewed for compatibility with the street and the adjacent land
uses before placement to ensure that the bike route is compatible
with the neighborhood.
There are many features that can be implemented on bike routes,
depending on the intended use of the facility. Bike routes can be as
simple as signed shared routes, or could have multiple
enhancements to convert the street into a Bicycle Boulevard (also
called Neighborhood Greenway), or could have a range of
improvements somewhere between the two. This section will
review potential implementation tools from least impactful to most impactful.
Bike route with Wide Outside Lane
This type of facility is implemented on streets that are too narrow to
stripe a Class II bike lane. It is an existing implementation of bike
routes found in Anaheim. The wide outside lane provides adequate
on-street space for the vehicle and bicycle to share the lane without
requiring the vehicle to leave its lane to pass the bicyclist. This
should only be implemented for lane widths of 14 or 15 feet. This
type of facility should not be implemented on high volume or high
speed streets.
Appendix G
Implementation Toolbox
Shared Lane Marking (Sharrow)
Shared Lane Marking stencils (commonly called “Sharrows”) have been introduced for use in California
and may complement signage as an additional treatment for bike routes. The stencil serves a number of
purposes, such as reminding bicyclists to ride further from parked cars to avoid collisions with opening
car doors, raising motorists’ awareness of bicycles potentially in the travel lane, and showing bicyclists
the correct direction of travel.
The 11 foot minimum distance from curb shown in the CA MUTCD is based on a seven foot parking stall.
Shared lane markings adjacent to an eight foot parking stall may be installed at a minimum of 12feet
from centerline to curb. Placing the sharrow between vehicle tire tracks may also be considered as it will
increase the life of the markings and the long-term cost of maintenance to the treatment.
All new Class III bike routes should have sharrows in addition to bike route signage.
Additional Signage and Pavement Markings
Signage and pavement markings are cost-effective yet highly-visible treatments that can improve the
riding environment on a bike route. Signage can serve both wayfinding and safety purposes.
Wayfinding Signs are typically placed at key locations leading to and along the bike network, including
where multiple routes intersect and at key bicyclist “decision points.” Wayfinding signs displaying
destinations and distances can dispel common misperceptions about time and distance while increasing
user ease and accessibility to the bicycle network. Wayfinding signs also visually cue motorists that they
are driving along a bike route and should
correspondingly use caution. Note that
too many road signs tend to clutter the
right-of-way and become invisible to
regular users.
Warning Signs advising motorists to
“Share the Road”, informing motorists
that “Bicycles May Use Full Lane”, or
notifying motorists about the “Three
Foot Rule” for passing bicyclists may also
improve bicycling conditions on any
street, including a bike route. These
signs may be useful near major bicycle
trip generators such as schools, parks
and other activity centers. Warning signs
should also be placed on major streets
approaching any bikeway to alert
motorists of bicycle crossings. These
signs may be placed on all streets as deemed appropriate.
On-Street Parking Delineation with parking Ts on bike routes will clearly indicate where a vehicle should
be parked and can discourage motorists from parking their vehicles too far into the adjacent travel lane.
Parking Ts help bicyclists by maintaining a wide enough space to safely share a travel lane with moving
vehicles while minimizing the need to swerve farther into the travel lane to maneuver around parked
Appendix G
Implementation Toolbox
cars and opening doors. In addition to
benefiting bicyclists, delineated parking spaces
can also promote the efficient use of on-street
parking by maximizing the number of spaces in
areas where on-street parking is in high
demand.
Loop Detector Stencils may be used at
signalized intersections with in-pavement
detection. The CA MUTCD Bicycle Detector
Symbol may be used to indicate where
bicyclists should wait to activate a green light
Local Intersections – Curb Bulb-Outs and High-Visibility Crosswalks
Installation of curb bulb-outs and high-visibility crosswalks is
appropriate for bike routes near activity centers that may
generate large amounts of pedestrian activity such as schools
or commercial areas. The bulb-outs should only extend across
the parking lane and should not obstruct bicyclists’ path of
travel or the travel lane. This treatment may be combined with
a stop sign on the cross street if necessary. Bulb-outs also
provide a safety benefit for pedestrians as it reduces crossing
distance and increases the visibility of pedestrians waiting to
cross the street. This is a traffic calming device, and typically
requires neighborhood approval. It is a moderate cost
measure, and could potentially impact storm water runoff if not
designed correctly. Bulb-outs should not be installed at corners
where trucks or buses frequently make a right turn. Bulb-outs
can decrease on-street parking capacity, but they do
significantly increase the line of sight for vehicles at the
intersection by pushing parked vehicles away from the
intersection.
Bicycle Boulevard
Bicycle boulevards (also known as “Neighborhood Greenways”)
are low-volume, low-speed streets modified to enhance
bicyclist comfort by using treatments such as signage,
pavement markings, traffic calming and/or traffic reduction,
and intersection modifications. These treatments allow the
through movement of bicyclists while discouraging similar
through-trips by non-local motorized traffic.
cycle
boulevard.
an 85th percentile speed below 22 mph.
Appendix G
Implementation Toolbox
engineering judgment. Target motor vehicle volumes range from 1,000 to 3,000 vehicles per day.
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
Caltrans CA-MUTCD. 2014
Caltrans. California HDM. 2012.
NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012.
Ewing, Reid and Brown, Steven. (2009). U.S. Traffic Calming
Additional References and Guidelines
NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012.
Caltrans- Comprehensive Design Guidelines for Cycle Tracks- under development
Appendix G
Implementation Toolbox
GAP CLOSURES AND ROADWAY RETROFITS
Lane Narrowing
Lane narrowing utilizes roadway space that exceeds minimum standards to provide the needed space
for bike lanes. Many roadways have existing travel lanes that are wider than those prescribed in City
standards. For most streets, City standards allow for the use of 11 foot lanes. Industry standards allow
for the use of 10 foot lanes as needed. Special consideration should be given to the amount of heavy
vehicle traffic and horizontal curvature before 10 foot wide travel lanes are installed to create space for
bike lanes. Center turn lanes can also be narrowed in some situations to free up pavement space for
bike lanes.
Road Widening
If right-of-way is available, or a street is not widened to its ultimate width, road widening serves as an
opportunity to complete bikeway segments. Sometimes, this will also involve lane narrowing.
Lane Reconfiguration
The removal of a single travel lane, often referred to as a
“Road Diet”, will generally provide sufficient space for
bike lanes on both sides of a street. Streets with excess
vehicle capacity provide opportunities for bike lane
retrofit projects. Under these conditions, bike lanes
could take the place of one or more vehicle travel lanes.
Depending on a street’s existing configuration, traffic
operations, user needs, and safety concerns, various
lane reduction configurations exist. For instance, a four-
lane street (with a center line and two travel lanes in
each direction) could be modified to include one travel lane in each direction, a center turn lane, and
bike lanes. Prior to implementing this measure, a traffic analysis is needed for each project location to
identify overall transportation impacts including analysis of peak hour volumes. Studies from around the
country indicate that this type of lane removal may be used on streets with high-end traffic volumes
ranging from 22,000 – 30,000 ADT.
Appendix G
Implementation Toolbox
The removal of any travel lane will result in a reduction of available vehicle capacity. Any lane
reconfiguration will require its own analysis, and possibly an amendment to the Anaheim General Plan,
in order to ensure that the removal of the traffic lane will not significantly impact the surrounding
streets.
Parking Removal
Bicycle lanes could replace one or more on-street parking
lanes on streets where there is negligible demand for on-
street parking and/or the importance of bike lanes
outweighs parking needs. For instance, parking may be
needed on only one side of a street to accommodate
residences and/or businesses. Eliminating or reducing on-
street parking also improves sight distance for bicyclists in
bike lanes and for motorists on approaching side streets
and driveways. Prior to reallocating on-street parking for
bike lanes, a parking study should be performed to gauge
demand and concerns from local residents and businesses.
Connection Gap Closure – Wide Outside Lane & Signage
As an interim measure, for connection gaps with no on-
street parking and without adequate right of way for widening or lane width reductions to provide
continuous bike lanes, a wide outside lane may be used with the appropriate signage. If parking is
under-utilized, its removal should be considered to provide for dedicated bicycle facilities. The gap area
should have “Bike Route” signs and warning signs such as ‘Share the Road’. It should be reiterated that
this should only be considered as a temporary interim measure for short term bicycle network gap
closures until funding can be secured to provide continuous bike lanes.
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
AASHTO. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 2011.
Caltrans. California HDM. 2012.
Caltrans. Main Street, California. 2013.
FHWA. Evaluation of Lane Reduction “Road Diet” Measures on Crashes. 2010.
Appendix G
Implementation Toolbox
INTERSECTION TREATMENTS
Bike Lane at Right Turn Only Lane
The appropriate treatment at right-turn lanes is to place the bike
lane between the right-turn lane and the rightmost through lane.
The design (right) illustrates a bike lane pocket, with signage
indicating that motorists should yield to bicyclists through the
conflict area. Existing bike lane width for that street shall be used
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
Caltrans CA-MUTCD. 2014
NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012.
Caltrans. California HDM. 2012.
Caltrans. Complete Intersections. 2010.
FHWA. Interim Approval (IA-14). 2011.
Combined Bike Lane / Turn Lane
The combined bicycle/right turn lane places a standard width bike lane
on the left side of a dedicated right turn lane. A dotted line delineates
the space for bicyclists and motorists within the shared lane. This
treatment includes signage advising motorists and bicyclists of proper
positioning within the lane. This treatment is recommended at
intersections lacking sufficient space to accommodate both a standard
through bike lane and right turn lane.
For a shared turn-lane, the maximum width is 13 feet; narrower is
preferable. The bike lane pocket should have a minimum width of four
feet. A dotted four inch line and bike lane marking should be used to
clarify bicyclist positioning within the combined lane, without
excluding cars from the suggested bicycle area. A “Right Turn Only”
sign with an “Except Bicycles” plaque may be needed to make it legal
for through bicyclists to use a right turn lane.
Case studies cited by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center indicate that this treatment works
best on streets with lower posted speeds (30 MPH or less) and with lower traffic volumes (10,000 ADT
or less). Shared turn-lanes may not be appropriate for high-speed arterials or intersections with long
right turn lanes.
Additional References and Guidelines
NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012.
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012
Appendix G
Implementation Toolbox
BICYCLE DETECTION
Loop Detectors
Bicycle-activated loop detectors are installed within the roadway to
allow the presence of a bicycle to trigger a change in the traffic
signal. This allows the bicyclist to stay within the lane of travel
without having to maneuver to the side of the road to trigger a push
button. Loops that are sensitive enough to detect bicycles should be
supplemented with pavement markings to instruct bicyclists how to
trip them.
Video Detection Cameras
Video detection systems use digital image processing to detect a
change in the image at a location. These systems can be calibrated to
detect bicycles. Video camera system costs range from $20,000 to $25,000 per intersection.
Additional References and Guidelines
California MUTCD
Caltrans Highway Design Manual
Caltrans Standard Plans (1999) ES-5B
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities
Loop Detector Pavement Markings
Locate a Bicycle Detector Pavement Marking where a bicycle can be
detected in a shared travel lane by a loop detector or other detection
technology. Bicycle Detector Pavement Markings guide bicyclists to position
themselves at an intersection to trigger signal actuation. Efforts need to be
made to ensure that signal detection devices are capable of detecting a
bicycle. Detectors for traffic-actuated signals need to be located in the
bicyclist’s expected path, including left-turn lanes and shoulders. Marking
the road surface to indicate the optimum location for bicycle detection is
helpful to the bicyclist.
Bikeway Signage
Several regulatory, warning, and wayfinding sign types are available to implement and supplement
bicycle facilities. The following tables highlight signs currently available.
Appendix G
Implementation Toolbox
REGULATORY SIGNAGE (CA-MUTCD)
Facility CA MUTCD
Graphic
Description
Type CODE
STOP signs shall be installed on shared-use
Bike Path
paths at points where bicyclists are required to R1-1
Class I
stop.
YIELD signs shall be installed on shared-use
paths at points where bicyclists have an
adequate view of conflicting traffic as they Bike Path
R1-2
approach the sign, and where bicyclists are Class I
required to yield the right-of-way to that
conflicting traffic.
Where motor vehicles entering an exclusive
right-turn lane must weave across bicycle
traffic in bike lanes, the BEGIN RIGHT TURN Bike Lane
R4-4
LANE YIELD TO BIKES sign may be used to Class II
inform both the motorist and the bicyclist of
this weaving maneuver.
The NO MOTOR VEHICLES sign may be Bike Path
R5-3
installed at the entrance to a shared-use path. Class I
The Bicycle WRONG WAY sign and RIDE WITH
TRAFFIC plaque may be placed facing wrong-
way bicycle traffic, such as on the left side of a Bike Lane R5-1b
roadway. This sign and plaque may be Class II R9-3cP
mounted back-to-back with other signs to
minimize visibility to other traffic.
If the installation of signs is necessary to
Bike Lane R7-9
restrict parking, standing, or stopping in a bike
Class II R7-9a
lane.
Where pedestrians are prohibited, the No
Bike Path
Pedestrians sign may be installed at the R9-3
Class I
entrance to the facility.
Appendix G
Implementation Toolbox
Facility CA MUTCD
Description Graphic
Type CODE
The R9-5 sign may be used where the crossing
of a street by bicyclists is controlled by Signal R9-5
pedestrian signal indications.
The R9-6 sign may be used where a bicyclist is
required to cross or share a facility used by
Signal R9-6
pedestrians and is required to yield to the
pedestrians.
The Shared-Use Path Restriction (R9-7) sign
may be installed on facilities that are to be Bike Path
R9-7
shared by pedestrians and bicyclists. The Class I
symbols may be switched as appropriate.
The Bicycle Signal Actuation sign may be
installed at signalized intersections where
markings are used to indicate the location Signal R10-22
where a bicyclist is to be positioned to actuate
the signal
Where it is not intended for bicyclists to be
controlled by pedestrian signal indications, the
Signal R10-26
BICYCLE PUSH BUTTON FOR GREEN LIGHT sign
may be used.
The Bike Path Exclusion sign may be used to
identify a bike path and prohibit motor
vehicles and motorized bicycles from entering
Bike Path
the bike path. R44A
Class I
If motorized bicycles are permitted, the
“Motorized Bicycles” portion may be replaced
with “Motorized Bicycles Permitted”.
The BIKE LANE sign shall be placed at the
R81
Bike Lane
beginning of each designated bike lane and R81A
Class II
along each at all major changes in direction. R81C
Appendix G
Implementation Toolbox
Guide Signage
Facility CA MUTCD
Description Graphic
Type CODE
If used, Bike Route Guide signs should be
placed at the beginning and end of bike routes
D11-1
and repeated at regular intervals so that
M4-14
bicyclists entering from side streets will have
Bike Route M4-6
an opportunity to know that they are on a bike
Class III M4-5
route. Similar guide signing should be used for
M1-8
hared roadways with intermediate signs
s
M1-8a
placed for bicyclist guidance. The M1-8 sign
may be used on numbered routes.
If used, Bike Route Guide (D11-1) signs should
be provided at decision points along
designated bike routes, including
supplemental signs to inform bicyclists of bike
route direction changes and confirmation
M6-1 / M6-
signs for route direction, distance, and
2
destination.
M6-3 / M6-
Option:
4
The M4-14, M4-6, and M4-5 supplemental
M6-5 / M6-
plaques may be mounted above the
6
appropriate Bike route Guide signs, Bike route
Bike Route M6-7
signs, or Interstate Bike route signs.
Class III D1-1
Destination (D1-1, D1-1b, D1-2B, D1-3, D1-3b,
D1-1b (R)
and D3-1) signs may be mounted below Bike
D1-1b (L)
signs, or
route Guide signs, Bike route
D1-2b
Interstate Bike route signs to furnish
D1-3
additional information, such as directional
D1-3b
changes in the route, or intermittent distance
D3-1
and destination information.
Guidance:
If used, the appropriate arrow (M6-1 through
M6-7) sign (see Figure 9B-4) should be placed
below the Bike route Guide sign.
Appendix G
Implementation Toolbox
Facility CA MUTCD
Description Graphic
Type CODE
The BICYCLE PARKING AREA (D4-3) sign or
BICYCLE PARKING (G93C(CA)) sign may be
Bicycle D4-3
installed where it is desirable to show the
Parking G93C (CA)
direction to a designated bicycle parking area.
The arrow may be reversed as appropriate.
Directional sign for bikeway access to bike
D11-1
paths. The wording on the D11-1 and S17 (CA) Bike Path
S17 (CA)
signs can be changed to reflect a bike path and Class I
M6-1
a specific bike path, respectively.
Appendix G
Implementation Toolbox
Warning Signage
CA MUTCD
Graphic
Description Facility Type
CODE
The Bicycle Warning sign alerts the road user
to unexpected entries into the roadway by
bicyclists, and other crossing activities that Non
might cause conflicts. These conflicts might be Bikeway W-11-1
relatively confined, or might occur randomly Facilities
over a segment of roadway. This sign may use
supplemental signs below the sign.
Other bicycle warning signs such as SLIPPERY
WHEN WET may be installed on bicycle W8-10
All Bikeways
facilities to warn bicyclists of conditions not W8-10p
readily apparent.
Other bicycle warning signs such as Hill may be
installed on bicycle facilities to warn bicyclists All Bikeways W7-5
of conditions not readily apparent.
Other bicycle warning signs such as BIKEWAY
NARROWS may be installed on bicycle facilities Bike Path
W5-4a
to warn bicyclists of conditions not readily Class I
apparent.
Other bicycle warning signs such as NARROW
BRIDGE may be installed on bicycle facilities to
All Bikeways W5-2
warn bicyclists of conditions not readily
apparent.
May be used to warn bike path users of Bike Path
W11-2
pedestrian activity. Class I
May be used to warn bikeway users of a traffic
All Bikeways W3-3
signal ahead.
Other bicycle warning signs such as BUMP may
be installed on bicycle facilities to warn All Bikeways W8-1
bicyclists of conditions not readily apparent.
Other bicycle warning signs such as DIP may
be installed on bicycle facilities to warn All Bikeways W8-2
bicyclists of conditions not readily apparent.
May warn bike path users of a playground Bike Path
W15-1
ahead that may be adjacent to the path. Class I
To warn motorists to watch for bicyclists
Bike Route
traveling along the highway, the SHARE THE W16-1
Class III
ROAD plaque may be used with W11-1 sign.
Exhibit B - 1
Existing and Proposed
Bicycle Facilities
I
m
p
e
r
i
a
l
H
w
y
C
ro
w
the
r
A
ve
|ÿ
90
|ÿ
i
r
91
za
n
era
n
p
s
Ey
T
n
u
R
Orangethorpe Aved
i
n
La Palma Ave
|ÿ k
Fa
O
r
a
a
nD
o
i
r
91
B
k
l
u
Romneya Dr
Ge
Romneya Dr
nyonRd
SantA
IA anaCa
u
t
La Palma Ave
r
m
La Palma Ave
t
S
h
y
t
r
o
ia
N
CR
t
im
S
e
r
o
m
a
c
y
S
N
R
o
d
h
R
l
R
a
Crescent Ave
e
v
A
n
l
o
c
n
i
L
s
|ÿ
y
a
w
d
a
o
r
r 241
IA
B
M
t
S
e
p
a
nm
I
A
a
t
n
a
S
Lincoln Ave
|ÿ
South St
t
S
55
h
t
u
o
S
Broadway
|ÿ
e
v
57
A
t
n
o
m
r
e
V
Orange Ave
Wagner Ave
§
¨¦
Ball Rd
Ball Rd
5
e
v
A
Cerritos Ave
s
Cerro
it
Disney Way
Katella Ave
k
Gene Autry Way
Orangewood Ave
Proposed Top Priority
Existing Class I Bikeway
Transit Station
k
Class II Bikeway
Exisitng Class II Bikeway
Park-and-Ride
IA
Chapman Ave
Proposed 2nd Priority
Existing Class III Bikeway
Class II Bikeway
Parks/Open Space
Existing Off Road Trail
Proposed 3rd Piority
Class II Bikeway
School
Proposed Off Road Trail
Proposed Top Priority
City Boundary
Proposed Top Priority
Class III Bikeway
Class I Bikeway
Sphere-of-Influence
Proposed 2nd PriorityProposed 2nd Priority
Class I BikewayClass III Bikeway
Proposed 3rd Priority
Proposed 3rd Priority
Class I Bikeway
Class III Bikeway
Adopted: May 25, 2004
Revised: November 23, 2016
City of Anaheim
00.512
Miles
General Plan Program
Figure C-5 Page C-33
Exhibit B - 1
Existing and P
Bicycle Facilities
I
m
p
e
r
i
a
l
H
w
y
C
ro
w
the
r
A
ve
|ÿ
90
ÿ
|
i
r
91
za
n
era
n
p
s
Ey
T
n
u
R
Orangethorpe Aved
i
n
La Palma Ave
|ÿ k
Fa
O
r
a
a
nD
o
i
r
91
B
k
l
u
Romneya Dr
Ge
Romneya Dr
nyonRd
SantA
IA anaCa
u
t
La Palma Ave
r
m
La Palma Ave
t
S
h
y
t
r
o
ia
N
CR
t
im
S
e
r
o
m
a
c
y
S
N
R
o
d
h
R
l
R
a
Crescent Ave
e
v
A
n
l
o
c
n
i
L
s
ÿ
|
y
a
w
d
a
o
r
r 241
IA
B
M
t
S
e
p
a
nm
I
A
a
t
n
a
S
Lincoln Ave
|ÿ
South St
t
S
55
h
t
u
o
S
Broadway
|ÿ
e
v
57
A
t
n
o
m
r
e
V
Orange Ave
Wagner Ave
§
¨¦
Ball Rd
Ball Rd
5
e
v
A
Cerritos Ave
s
Cerro
it
Disney Way
Katella Ave
k
Gene Autry Way
Orangewood Ave
Chapman Ave
ExistingP
Transit Station
k
Class I Regional Bike Path
Park-and-Ride
Class I Bike PathClass I Bike Path IA
Parks/Open Space
Class II Bike LaneClass II Bike Lane
School
Class III Bike RouteClass III Bike Route
City Boundary
Off Road TrailOff Road Trail
Sphere-of-Influence
City of Anaheim
00.512
Miles
General Plan Program
Figure C-5 Page C-33
Exhibit B - 2
Green Plan
I
m
p
e
r
i
a
l
H
w
y
Cr
ow
t
he
r
Av
e
|ÿ
90
|ÿ
i
r
91
za
an
er
pn
Es
y
T
n
u
R
Orangethorpe Aved
i
n
La Palma Ave
|ÿ
k
Fa
O
r
a
a
nD
o
i
$
91+
r
B
l
u
Romneya Dr
Ge
Romneya Dr
n
d
CanyonR
SantaAna
u
!(
h
P
i
")
t
La Palma Avem
r
S
La Palma Ave
t
S
h
ty
r
o
a
N
l
C
tR
si
m
S
e
R
r
oR
d
m
a
c
y
S
N
od
h
R
l
R
a
Crescent Ave
e
v
A
n
l
o
c
n
i
L
s
y
|ÿ
a
w
d
$
+a
o
r
r
B
M
$
+241
t
$
+
S
e
ap
nm
I
A
a
t
n
a
S
$
+
$
+
$
+
Lincoln Ave
South St
t
|ÿ
S
h
t
u
o
S
55
$
+
Broadway
|ÿ
e
v
A
t 57
n
o
m
r
e
V
Orange Ave
Wagner Ave
§
¨¦
5
Ball Rd
Ball Rd
e
v
A
Cerritos Ave
s
Cerrito
Disney Way
Katella Ave
Gene Autry Way
Orangewood Ave
Riding/Hiking, Pedestrian and Mountain Bike Trail
Public Parks
Chapman Ave
General Park Location
(
Open Space
P
)General School Location
Golf Course
S
$
Cultural Facilities
Public Schools
Water Uses
Groundwater Protection Zone
Park Deficiency Areas*
City Boundary
Sphere-of-Influence
*Residential areas outside half-mile radius of
Neighborhood or Community Park or quarter-
mile radius of a Mini Park.
Adopted: May 25, 2004
Revised: November 23, 2016
City of Anaheim
00.512
Miles
General Plan Program
Figure G-1 Page G-5
Exhibit B - 2
Green Plan
I
m
p
e
r
i
a
l
H
w
y
Cr
ow
t
he
r
Av
e
|ÿ
90
ÿ
|
i
r
91
za
an
er
pn
Es
y
T
n
u
R
Orangethorpe Aved
i
n
La Palma Ave
|ÿ
k
Fa
O
r
a
a
nD
o
i
91$+
r
B
l
u
Romneya Dr
Ge
Romneya Dr
n
d
CanyonR
SantaAna
u
!
(
h
P
i
"
)
t
La Palma Avem
r
S
La Palma Ave
t
S
h
ty
r
o
a
N
l
C
tR
si
m
S
e
R
r
oR
d
m
a
c
y
S
N
od
h
R
l
R
a
Crescent Ave
e
v
A
n
l
o
c
n
i
L
s
y ÿ
|
a
w
d
$+a
o
r
r
B
M
$+241
t
$+
S
e
ap
nm
I
A
a
t
n
a
S
$+
$+
$+
Lincoln Ave
South St
t
|ÿ
S
h
t
u
o
S
55
$+
Broadway
|ÿ
e
v
A
t 57
n
o
m
r
e
V
Orange Ave
Wagner Ave
§
¨¦
5
Ball Rd
Ball Rd
e
v
A
Cerritos Ave
s
Cerrito
Disney Way
Katella Ave
Gene Autry Way
Orangewood Ave
Riding/Hiking, Pedestrian and Mountain Bike Trail
Public Parks
Chapman Ave
General Park Location
(
Open Space
P
General School Location
)
Golf Course
S
$
Cultural Facilities
Public Schools
Water Uses
Groundwater Protection Zone
Park Deficiency Areas*
City Boundary
Sphere-of-Influence
*Residential areas outside half-mile radius of
Neighborhood or Community Park or quarter-
mile radius of a Mini Park.
City of Anaheim
00.512
Miles
General Plan Program
Figure G-1 Page G-5
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 343 FOR
CITY OF ANAHEIM 2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN
CEQA Action: Addendum to the Program Environmental Impact Report No. 330 (EIR 330) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No.
346 (EIR 346)
Project Description –
1. The 2017 Bicycle Master Plan (Miscellaneous Case No 2017-00651) Project is a City-initiated update to the City of
Anaheim’s 2004 Bicycle Master Plan. The project includes amendments to the General Plan (General Plan Amendment No. 2017-00513)
to provide consistency between the proposed 2017 Bicycle Master Plan and the General Plan.
Property Owner/Developer –
2. Any owner or developer of real property within the City boundaries.
Environmental Equivalent/Timing –
3. Any Mitigation Measure and timing thereof, subject to the approval of the City, which will have the
same or superior result and will have the same or superior effect on the environment. The Planning Department, in conjunction with any
appropriate agencies or City departments, shall determine the adequacy of any proposed “environmental equivalent/timing” and, if
determined necessary, may refer said determination to the Planning Commission. Any costs associated with information required in order to
make a determination of environmental equivalency/timing shall be borne by the property owner/developer. Staff time for reviews will be
charged on a time and materials basis at the rate in the City’s adopted fee schedule.
Timing –
4. This is the point where a mitigation measure must be monitored for compliance. In the case where multiple action items are
indicated, it is the first point where compliance associated with the mitigation measure must be monitored. Once the initial action item has
been complied with, no additional monitoring pursuant to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan will occur because routine City practices and
procedures will ensure that the intent of the measure has been complied with. For example, if the timing is “to be shown on approved
building plans” subsequent to issuance of the building permit consistent with the approved plans will be final building and zoning
inspections pursuant to the building permit to ensure compliance.
Responsibility for Monitoring –
5. Shall mean that compliance with the subject mitigation measure(s) shall be reviewed and determined
adequate by all departments listed for each mitigation measure.
Ongoing Mitigation Measures –
6. The mitigation measures that are designated to occur on an ongoing basis as part of this mitigation
monitoring program will be monitored in the form of an annual letter from the property owner/developer in January of each year stating
how compliance with the subject measures(s) has been achieved. When compliance with a measure has been demonstrated for a period of
one year, monitoring of the measure will be deemed to be satisfied and no further monitoring will occur. For measures that are to be
monitored “Ongoing During Construction,” the annual letter will review those measures only while construction is occurring. Monitoring
will be discontinued after construction is completed.
Building Permit –
7.For purposes of this mitigation monitoring program, a building permit shall be defined as any permit issued for
construction of a new building or structural expansion or modification of any existing building but shall not include any permits required for
interior tenant improvements or minor additions to an existing structure or building.
-1-
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 343 FOR 2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN
Responsible for
Timing Mitigation Measure Completion
Monitoring
AIR QUALITY
Applicable Mitigation Measures from the 2004 Certified EIR
Prior to the Public Works
issuance of grading 5.2-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the property Department/Engineering
permits. owner/developer shall include a note on all grading plans, which Division, Traffic and
requires the construction contractor to implement following Transportation Division;
measures during grading. These measures shall also be discussed at
the pregrade conference. Planning
Use low emission mobile construction equipment. Department/Building
Division
Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them
tuned.
Use low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment.
Utilize existing power sources (i.e., power poles) when
feasible.
Configure construction parking to minimize traffic
interference.
Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. When feasible,
construction should be planned so that lane closures on existing
streets are kept to a minimum.
Schedule construction operations affecting traffic for off-peak
hours.
Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference
from construction activities (the plan may include advance
public notice of routing, use of public transportation and
satellite parking areas with a shuttle service).
Prior to issuance of 5.2-6 The City will encourage the incorporation of bus stands, bicycle Public Works
building permit. racks, bicycle lanes, and other alternative transportation related Department/Engineering
infrastructure in new developments. Division, Traffic and
Transportation Division;
Planning
Department/Building
Division
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 343 FOR 2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN
Responsible for
Timing Mitigation Measure Completion
Monitoring
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Prior to issuance of 5.3-1 Retention of rare communities shall be incorporated into building Planning
grading permit. and project design to the maximum extent practical. Rare Department/Building
communities include oak, riparian and wetland, walnut woodland, Division, Advanced
and coastal sage scrub. If retention is not practical, healthy Planning Division; Zoning
specimens shall be relocated and/or replaced. Division
Prior to issuance of 5.3-2 Property owners/developers will be required to restore and re-Planning
certificate of vegetate where the loss of small and/or isolated habitat patches is Department/Building
occupancy. proposed. Division, Advanced
Planning Division; Zoning
Division
Prior to issuance of 5.3-3 If construction activity is timed to occur during the nesting season Planning
grading permit. (typically between March 1 and July 1), developers will be required Department/Building
to provide focused surveys for nesting birds pursuant to California Division, Advanced
Department of Fish and Game requirements. Such surveys shall Planning Division; Zoning
identify avoidance measures taken to protect active nests. Division
Ongoing during 5.3-4 Removal of nonnative trees shall be permitted only outside the Planning
constructionnesting season. Department/Building
activities. Division, Advanced
Planning Division; Zoning
Division
Ongoing during 5.3-5 Any crushing of existing habitat during the breeding season of the Planning
constructiongnatcatcher shall occur only under the supervision of a biological Department/Building
activitiesmonitor. Division, Advanced
Planning Division; Zoning
Division
Prior to issuance of 5.3-6 Preserved and/or protected areas will be identified by the project Planning
grading permit. biologist and isolated with construction fencing or similar materials Department/Building
prior to clearing or grading activities. Protected areas include Division, Advanced
existing woodland and coastal sage scrub adjacent to revegetation Planning Division; Zoning
areas and individual trees and patches of native habitat to be Division
preserved within revegetation areas.
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 343 FOR 2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN
Responsible for
Timing Mitigation Measure Completion
Monitoring
Prior to issuance of 5.3-7 Lighting in residential areas and along roadways shall be designed Planning
building permit. to prevent artificial lighting from reflecting into adjacent natural Department/Building
areas. Division, Advanced
Planning Division; Zoning
Division; Public Works
Department/Traffic and
Transportation Division
Prior to issuance of 5.3-8 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for any project potentially Public Works
grading permit. affecting riparian or wetland habitat, the property owner/developer Department/Engineering
shall provide evidence that all necessary permits have been obtained Division; Planning
from the State Department of Fish and Game (pursuant to Section Department/Building
1601-1603 of the Fish and Game Code) and the U.S. Army Corps of Division, Advanced
Engineers (pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) or that Planning Division; Zoning
no such permits are required, in a manner meeting the approval of Division
the City of Anaheim Planning Department. If a Section 404 Permit
from the ACOE is required, a Section 401 Water Quality
Certification will also be required from the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prior to issuance of 5.4-1 City staff shall require property owners/developers to provide Planning
grading permit. studies to document the presence/absence of historic resources for Department/Building
areas with documented or inferred resource presence. On properties Division, Advanced
where resources are identified, such studies shall provide a detailed Planning Division; Zoning
mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or Division
in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a
qualified specialist.
Prior to issuance of 5.4-2 City staff shall require property owners/developers to provide Planning
grading permit. studies to document the presence/absence of archaeological and/or Department/Building
paleontological resources for areas with documented or inferred Division, Advanced
resource presence. On properties where resources are identified, Planning Division; Zoning
such studies shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a Division
monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan,
based on the recommendations of a qualified specialist.
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 343 FOR 2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN
Responsible for
Timing Mitigation Measure Completion
Monitoring
Prior to issuance of 5.4-3 All archaeological resources shall be subject to the provisions of Planning
grading permit. CEQA (Public Resources Code) Section 21083.2. Department/Building
Division, Advanced
Planning Division; Zoning
Division
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Prior to issuance of 5.5-1 The City shall require geologic and geotechnical investigations in Planning
grading permit. areas of potential seismic or geologic hazards as part of the Department/Building
environmental or development review process. All grading Division
operations will be conducted in conformance with the
recommendations contained in the applicable geotechnical
investigation.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Prior to issuance of 5.6-3 Prior to issuance of any discretionary permit for a current or former Planning
any discretionary hazardous waste disposal site or solid waste disposal site, the project Department/Building
permit for a property owner/developer shall submit a Phase I Environmental Site Division, Advanced
current or former Assessment to the City. If possible hazardous materials are Planning Division; Zoning
hazardous waste identified during the site assessments, the appropriate Division
disposal site or response/remedial measures will be implemented in accordance with
solid waste the requirements of the Orange County Health Care Agency
disposal site. (OCHCA) and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB), as appropriate.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Ongoing. 5.7-1 The City shall work with the Orange County Flood Control District Public Works
to ensure that flood control facilities are well maintained and capable Department/Engineering
of accommodating, at a minimum, future 25-year storm flows. Division; Planning
Department/Advanced
Planning Division
Prior to issuance of 5.7-2 The City shall require that new developments conduct a drainage Public Works
grading permit. study and mitigate its drainage impacts if the development creates a Department/Engineering
deficiency in an existing storm drain facility or discharges to an Division; Planning
existing deficient facility. Department/Building
Division