BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM ELEMENT

System Description

For most people, travel starts and ends with walking. Where facilities exist, many short trips and components of commuter trips can be most efficiently and economically completed by bicycle. The Safe Routes to Schools program relies almost exclusively on bicycle and pedestrian facilities. A smaller population segment relies almost exclusively on bicycles and walking for travel. In addition to our local population, visitors are drawn here for the walking and cycling. All this makes an interconnected, safe and efficient pedestrian and bicycle system an essential component of our regional transportation system.

Walking and cycling are year-round transportation choices for many Humboldt County residents – for pleasure as well as practicality. While visitors who opt for hiking and bicycle touring are more prevalent in the summer months, a variety of pedestrian and bicycle activities are locally popular throughout spring and fall. Aside from seasonal winter storms (including snow at higher elevations) the county’s overall moderate temperatures are quite suitable for pedestrian and bicycle travel of all types. Many locals are adamant walkers, and cyclists, who remain active in any weather -- and the general interest in these activities, for saving energy and for fitness, is increasing.

Commuting, Recreating and Touring

For the purposes of this section, commuting is defined as non-recreational trips to specific destinations – everything from travel for work, school or shopping, to visiting friends or attending events. Recreational walking and cycling would include any type of either activity performed essentially for fun or fitness – from mountain biking and road cycling, to urban or trail hiking and pleasure walking. Bicycle touring refers to longer distance and/or travel cycling, whether by local riders or non-residents visiting and riding through the county.

For commuters, the choice to walk or cycle often depends more on distances and safety than on weather conditions. Humboldt’s cities and communities are spread far and wide, with few connective corridors that can safely accommodate either foot or bicycle traffic. Also, depending on one’s level of fitness or experience, the overall area’s varied topography can be highly challenging. However, a growing number of cyclists do commute, regularly, often along the county’s highways. Commuter walking is more likely to occur within the various communities, albeit distances and safety issues may present obstacles inside city limits as well.

Hiking and mountain biking are popular recreational activities, with both locals and visitors, in the National Forest, State and National parks, and community parks and forests. Although more people pursue these activities during warmer, dryer months, these off-roads trails are well-used throughout the year; however, a trail’s maintenance and surfacing may dictate the levels of use. Also, since many people walk alone, in isolated areas, the perception of personal safety in these areas is paramount.

Bicycle touring has a staunch local following, and touring visitors cycle through Humboldt County at all times of the year. Safety is a primary concern for these groups. Road conditions are use-determining factors, as well as a rider’s proximity to vehicles along back roads and highways. Another significant factor is rider/driver awareness, and the continuing need for a better understanding of road etiquette -- on both sides.

Safety

Pedestrian safety issues are manifold, depending on the when, where, and how any type of walking occurs. In towns, sidewalks may separate walkers from vehicles – but obstructions such as mailboxes, power poles often force pedestrians (and wheelchairs) off the pavement, or into the street. In towns, or in the country, wherever sidewalks are not present, people typically walk in the roadways, many of which have barely useable shoulders. Street crossings, even at marked intersections, can be hazardous, depending on walker/driver awareness. Walking at night, or in areas with few people, heightens vulnerability to crime– as does the absence of enforcement officers.

On trails and beaches -- especially in the larger parks or forests – encountering a ranger or enforcement officer is a rarity. Hiker vulnerabilities may include dangers from natural conditions, wildlife, or other persons. In addition, since State, National, and some local, parks do not allow even leashed dogs on trails, one of the few personal safety measures a hiker can take is denied.

Humboldt’s multi-use trails -- which typically allow hikers, cyclists, walkers and equestrians -- present a unique safety issue. Effective use of these trails demands general public knowledge of, and appreciation for, right-of-way and speed limits. Ongoing education in effective trail etiquette, for all these user groups, is essential to promote awareness, understanding and cooperation.

Safety issues for cyclists also hinge on improved rider/driver awareness, and, as stated previously, the continuing need for both groups to develop a better understanding of road etiquette. Road conditions, countywide, also present serious safety concerns: Plethoras of potholes, dangerous debris, lack of designated bike paths or lanes -- or even a useable shoulder – all deter safe bicycle usage and set the stage for accidents.

Connectivity

Although many of Humboldt’s cities, and the County, are working on alternative routes and facilities that would provide safe access for bicyclists and pedestrians, these various facilities are not interconnected. Even within towns, designated travel pathways for both pedestrians and bicycles may be available in some sections, and not in others – and getting from one part of town to another, as a walker or cyclist, can be daunting and unsafe.

Desirability

Historically, the State and County have been minimally involved with pedestrian improvements, because the roadways under their jurisdictions are generally not designed to meet pedestrian demand. Similarly, while bicycles can legally use all State and county roadways, only a limited number of these facilities are constructed to safely carry bicycle traffic and motor vehicle in the same right-of-way. While individual cities and small towns have attempted to improve safe pedestrian and bicycle access, their financial constraints have too often dictated other priorities.

Yet, the health, environmental and economic benefits associated with walking and cycling are well documented. It has been said that every trip (except for those with disability) starts and ends with walking. The key is to extend this activity to more of each trip. For Humboldt County, the key to improving local and regional air quality, relieving traffic congestion, and enhancing tourism, may well be the provision of safer more efficient, interconnected pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Health Benefits

Sidewalks, roadway shoulders or other pedestrian facilities enable people to walk more safely, for utilitarian, recreation and personal enjoyment purposes. Recent U.S. studies show that people walk on average 70 minutes longer in pedestrian-oriented communities. Additionally, clearly marked bike lanes enable bicycle use and potentially decreasing bicyclist injuries.

Biking and walking can help people meet minimum physical activity requirements. Health benefits of physical activity include a reduced risk of coronary heart disease, hypertension, colon cancer, and diabetes mellitus and premature mortality. On the other hand, unsafe mixes of motor vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclist traffic leads to increased risk of injury and death.

In addition to individual benefits, biking and walking also reduce noise or air pollution emissions. For most, long term exposure to moderate environmental noise levels can adversely affect sleep, school and work performance, and cardiovascular disease. According to the World Health Organization, noise reductions help improve sleep. Chronic road noise can affect cognitive performance of children, contributing to attention deficits, reduced ability to concentrate, and diminished reading ability. Noise is also associated with higher stress and stress hormone levels.

Increased biking and walking trips reduce driving trips, improving air quality and reducing respiratory disease effects. According to the California Air Resources Quality Board, about half the air pollution in California is caused by cars and trucks (Humboldt County General Plan Update Health Impact Assessment - Safe and Sustainable Transportation Indicators).

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities as part of Complete Streets Concept

The term complete streets means a transportation corridor designed and operated to enable safe access for all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities must be able to safely move along and across a complete street. A complete streets policy or program would ensure that the entire corridor right of way is designed and operated to enable safe access for all users. It is expected that the next SAFETEA-LU reauthorization, expected in 2009, will include funding for complete street projects.

Needs Assessment

The quality and quantity of bicycle and pedestrian facilities (aside from those accommodating the mobility-challenged) vary widely throughout Humboldt County. The region’s pedestrian and bicycle facilities are predominantly sidewalks, crosswalks, and bicycle lanes associated with the road system.

Pedestrians and bicyclists frequently utilize roads in Humboldt County that lack sidewalks and/or bicycle lanes. A number of community and public land trail systems provide transportation and recreation opportunities; however, most of the facilities dedicated exclusively for non-motorized use are provided in urban areas of the county. The Humboldt County Pedestrian Needs Assessment Study concluded that better pedestrian access and improved safety conditions are required to ensure that the County and its communities are walkable, safe, vibrant places to live.

Cyclists are granted full access to all State route facilities in Caltrans District 1, which includes all of Humboldt County. Goals and policies for bicycle facility development, existing and planned bicycle facilities, and related implementation plans are described in HCAOG’s June 2004 Regional Bicycle Transportation Plan Update.

A 2003, Humboldt County resident opinion survey about many aspects of living in Humboldt County was conducted. Sixty nine percent of respondents felt that the County should provide walking and biking paths closer to existing communities. Sixty two percent stated that closer access to outdoor recreation including bicycling was a major reason why they live in Humboldt.

People participating in the Humboldt County Health and General Plan Update focus groups saw the health connection between land use planning that prioritized non-motorized transportation. Participants understood that bike/pedestrian network connections increase physical activity and reduce cardiovascular disease, diabetes and stress. They also recognized the value of quantifying the amount of non-motorized transportation routes, multi-use trails, and bicycle-friendly roads to building a path and trail network.

Vehicle speed limits; safe and dry bike parking; lighting; pedestrian and bike friendly traffic signals; marked, designated and mapped bike lanes; community connectivity; sidewalks and well marked cross-walks; and bike safety education; were identified as needs in the General Plan Update Health Impact Assessment (Humboldt County General Plan Update Health Impact Assessment - Safe and Sustainable Transportation Indicators).

Pedestrian Use

Pedestrian facilities are most commonly found in the County’s seven cities and larger unincorporated communities. Sidewalks and pathways of varying width are found in commercial areas, residential neighborhoods, and near schools. Existing sidewalks, in many cases, meet only the minimum ADA standards an often are obstructed by utility poles, signposts, and other obstacles. There are also sidewalk gaps, uncontrolled intersections, and street crossings that pose pedestrian travel impediments, especially to the mobility-impaired. Many outlying areas have no dedicated pedestrian facilities at all, and pedestrians must use roadways for travel between communities. In many rural locations, sharing of roadway by pedestrians, vehicle and truck drivers, bicyclists and even equestrians is common.

Bicycle Use

The cycling population is made up of recreational cyclists, touring cyclists who travel through the area, local bicycle commuters, and those who use multiple modes, such as combining bicycling and transit. While cycling is a choice for some, many of these users do not have access to other modes of transportation. Children, low-income members of the community, and college students frequently utilize bicycle transportation out of necessity.

Data from the 2000 Census showed that in Humboldt County, 1.7 percent of persons aged 16 years or older used a bicycle for work-related trips, compared to only 1.0 percent of persons age 16 years or older that use public transit for work-related trips. However, census data did not include information on individuals who use bicycles as their primary mode of transportation aside from work-related commuting, or for transportation to and from school.

According to the 2004 Regional Bicycle Facilities Plan both Humboldt State University (HSU) and College of the Redwoods (CR) "have significant potential bicyclist populations," with HSU generating "more cyclists because of its larger enrollment, parking constraints, and location in the City of Arcata." In addition, data from the Humboldt Bay Area Bicycle Use Study [RCAA 1999] indicates that over 900 cyclists passed through one intersection near HSU, during a twelve-hour period, on a weekday. That study also documented a substantial number of cyclists in the Eureka, greater Arcata, and McKinleyville area. (Refer to Bicycle Use Study data highlights, below, for general characterizations of bicycle travel).

Based on information contained in both of the above plans, it is assumed that there is a higher percentage of bicycle commuters in Humboldt County that was indicated by the 2000 census.

Local Agency and Community Organization Based Efforts

The planning and development of bicycle and pedestrian improvements by cities, Caltrans, and the County of Humboldt are supplemented -- and often pioneered by – community desires to establish bicycle and pedestrian facilities within, and between, communities. Such grassroots efforts have effectively demonstrated long-term, local commitments to implementation.

Examples in this region include:

· Humboldt Bay Bicycle Commuters Association -- advocates a balanced transportation system inclusive of bicycle transportation and has worked with Humboldt County and cities to secure grant funding for bicycle improvement projects.

· The Friends of the Annie and Mary Rail-Trail -- working to develop a trail along the out-of-service rail corridor between Arcata and Korbel.

· Citizen groups in Jacoby Creek, Redway and Garberville, Eureka and Trinidad -- supporting local pedestrian, bicycle, and trail development.

· Green Wheels - a community based organization advocating for efficient and environmentally friendly transportation alternatives. They maintain a website: www.green-wheels.org and produce a newsletter: Community Wheel.

· The Trails Trust of Humboldt Bay was formed for the purpose of both advocating and educating the community about potential projects for trail development and to raise necessary funds for the planning and permitting stages. They maintain a website: www.trailstrust.org.

· The Humboldt Partnership for Active Living (HumPAL) provides trainings and workshops to promote active living education, and contributes to neighborhood, regional, transportation design and redevelopment efforts to help ensure inclusion of active living principles into sustainable community design. HumPAL has facilitated several studies encouraging healthy transportation alternatives, which include: Active Living by Design Policy Charrette and Let’s Get Moving: A Plan for Action. The Let’s Get Moving: A Plan for Action includes a Humboldt County Physical Activity Primer and a HumPAL Strategic Plan.

Bicycle Routes, Classification and Level of Service

In general, there are three major types of bicycle facilities: bike paths, which are public land trail systems, either dedicated as bikeways or shared with pedestrian and equestrian trails systems; bicycle lanes, which are dedicated and lined along sections of roadways; and bike routes, which are signage-only, along sections of roadways. In Humboldt County, all bike paths are located in urban areas. Bicycle facility types are summarized in Table BP1 below.

Table BP1 Bikeway Definitions from Caltrans Highway Design Manual

Name	Bikeway Classification	Description*
Bike Path	Class I	Separated, surfaced right-of-way designated exclusively for non-motorized use. The minimum width for each direction is 1.5 meters, with a 2.4 meter minimum width for a bi-directional path.
Bike Lane	Class II	White stripe and Bike Lane sign on roadway providing 1.5 meters of road surface for preferential bicycle use (not including gutter). Vehicle parking adjacent to and motorist crossflow is allowed. Bike lanes must be on both sides of a two-way road for one-way travel only.
Bike Route	Class III	Shared roadway with motorists on through routes not served by Class I or II bikeways or to connect discontinuous bikeways. Established by a Bike Route sign.
*All roadways are open to bicycle use in Humboldt County; the listed facilities further accommodate bicycles.

Bicycle lanes exist in Eureka, Arcata, McKinleyville, Fortuna (see figures pages BP9-BP13). The City of Arcata provides the most interconnected system of bicycle lanes that facilitates access to, and from, various trip-generating areas. In Eureka, the bike lane system includes both north-south and east-west lanes; however, not all the City’s trip-generating areas are connected. Both McKinleyville and Fortuna have limited systems of bike lanes and designated routes.

The only example of a Class I bike path in Humboldt County is the Hammond Coastal Trail, in McKinleyville, which provides a non-motorized environment for both transportation and recreation purposes. It extends from Clam Beach to the Mad River.

State bike lane width standards were increased from four feet to 1.5 meters (approx. 5 feet) in 1997; consequently, many bike lanes constructed in Humboldt County before 1997 do not meet current State width standards.

The “Pacific Coast Bike Route, (PCBR)” begins on Highway 101 at the California/Oregon State Line, and ends 1,000 miles away, adjacent to Interstate 5 at the Mexican border. In Humboldt County, the trail diverts to Newton B. Drury Scenic Parkway, through Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park. South of the park, it rejoins Highway 101 for approximately 40 miles, up to the City of Eureka. At Eureka, the PCBR immediately diverts from Highway 101, following a series of one-way city streets with lower traffic volumes. South of Eureka, it travels along Highway 101, approximately 80 miles to the Mendocino County line.

Bicycle Level of Service

The current County Trails Plan does not include service standards. Bicycle level of service (LOS) modeling has been developed in the past five years and is gaining acceptance throughout the country (USDOT 1998). Established service standards clarify the ability of existing facilities to meet current and future needs. They can be expressed on the same A to F scale as used for roadway planning. For bike routes, for example, standards could reflect the relationship between flow rates, density and speed (see Table BP2).

Table BP2 Bicycle Flow Characteristics on Bike Paths and Bike Lanes

Level of Service (LOS)
Characteristics	A	B	C	D	E	F
Flow Rateª (bikes/min/ft)	<4.4	4.4 – 6.6	6.6 – 10.0	10.0 – 11.9	11.9 – 13.2	Variable
Density (bikes/sq. ft)	<.005	.005 - .007	.007 - .012	.012 - .017	.017 - .025	>.025
Cycling Speed	≥11.0	10.5 – 11.0	9.5 – 10.5	8.0 – 9.5	6.0 – 8.0	<6.0
ª Minimum bike path or bike lane width for which these figures apply are: LOS A-8.0 ft; LOS B-7.5 ft; LOS C-3.5 ft; and LOS D-3.2 ft. The greater widths shown for LOS A and B are necessary to allow free overtaking. Source: Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley. Fundamentals of Traffic Engineering, 13^th Edition.

As an example, in Davis, California, standards for Class I – Bike Paths and Class II Bike Lanes address the function of the facility, access control and right-of-way requirements. In Humboldt County, these standards should reflect differences between the rural and urban environments; there also may be a need for special standards in coastal areas, where bike usage is higher than in rural areas inland.

The perception of hazard is prime component of this modeling. A cyclist’s perception of hazard is based on many factors -- road and traffic conditions, as well one’s personal condition, skill level, and riding experience. Poor roadway conditions can include close proximity to motor vehicles, deteriorated pavement, presence of debris, high volume and/or speed of traffic, and intersections without traffic controls (i.e. stop signs).

The perception of hazard is also a major factor in route selection, or whether a bicycle trip is even initiated (City of Birmingham, 1996). This link between perceived hazards and cycling behavior was demonstrated in the Humboldt Bay Area Bicycle Use Study which revealed that, when local cyclists believed conditions to be “hazardous,” they were more likely to ride on the sidewalk, or against traffic, or select a different route, or not ride at all (RCAA 1999).

If recognition of the links between perceived hazards, bicycle use volume and route selection is incorporated into planning and developing bicycle facilities, ridership can be increased. In addition, a variety of facility types and cycling environments will meet the needs of a larger cycling population.

Although the above modeling is applied to cyclists, it is a model that contains components applicable to pedestrians as well -- specifically, the perception of hazard. Cyclist and pedestrian perceptions of hazard could be useful tools in determining priority areas for bike and pedestrian improvements.

It is also critical for Caltrans, City and County governments to acknowledge that improving access for cars may increase conflicts with both pedestrians and cyclists. All modes of transportation should be considered, in concert, when planning and designing phases of road construction or rehabilitation.

Bicycle Facilities

The presence of adequate parking facilities is important to many cyclists. Overall, bicycle parking facilities outside of Eureka and Arcata business centers are sporadic, and few are sheltered from weather. Also, many of the older bicycle parking facilities in the region either do not accommodate contemporary bicycle designs or no longer function effectively. However, the communities of Arcata, Eureka, and McKinleyville have installed new, low-maintenance, easy-to-use bicycle parking facilities.

In addition, steps have been taken by a few local transit providers to aid commuters that rely on the combination of transit and bicycle as their means of transportation. Humboldt Transit Authority installed improved front-loading bicycle racks on all of their Redwood Transit System buses. Blue Lake Rancheria buses are also equipped with user-friendly bike racks.

Below are figures illustrating the existing bicycle facilities for the City of Rio Dell, the City of Fortuna, the City of Eureka, the City of Arcata, and McKinleyville.

Pedestrians

Data from the 2000 Census indicates that in Humboldt County, 6.5 percent of persons aged 16 years or older walk to work. Although pedestrians typically include all segments of the population, the elderly, children, college students, low-income, and disabled individuals are most likely to rely on pedestrian travel. People with disabilities comprise a substantial part of the pedestrian population -- especially elderly citizens who have a variety of mobility and sensory limitations.

Pedestrian Facilities

Facilities most utilized by pedestrians are: sidewalks, crosswalks, and -- where those facilities are not available -- road or highway shoulders (albeit road shoulders are not considered a pedestrian facility). Many of the rural roadways in the county do not provide any facility for pedestrians, which forces people to walk in, or too near, the vehicle travel path. In a few areas, multi-use pathways, walking paths, or trails serve as transportation corridors.

Pedestrian facilities are most commonly provided in urban areas of the county (individual cities as well as a number of unincorporated communities). Where these facilities do exist, they most often meet only the minimum ADA standards. Existing sidewalks may be obstructed by utility poles, sign posts, street furniture and/or driveways, which can force pedestrians and wheelchair users into road shoulders or bicycle lanes.

In recent years, the County and some of the cities have installed more curb cuts and otherwise improved wheelchair access; however, numerous gaps in the overall pedestrian facilities system remain. For one example, existing pedestrian street crossings in some areas are difficult to negotiate, particularly for the mobility-impaired.

Again, many smaller communities, or neighborhoods in outlying areas of the county, have no dedicated pedestrian facilities at all. A number of communities are bisected by very busy state routes, or county roads with no (or limited) crossing facilities. Hence, in and between most of these smaller communities, pedestrians walk in the roadways.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Planning

This plan identifies Humboldt County’s pedestrian and cyclist needs and desires. The development of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, as well as linkages between these and other modes of transportation, became part of Humboldt County’s planning purview with the preparation and adoption of the Humboldt County Trails Plan in 1978.

In 2004, HCAOG adopted the Regional Bicycle Transportation Plan Update for Humboldt County. The document was created to facilitate coordinated, area-wide bicycle facilities development, throughout the County, and was written to be incorporated, by reference, into the RTP. Additionally, the Plan established the region’s seven cities and the county’s eligibility for the State’s Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) funding. More information about this funding source is in the financial section.

Eligibility for this funding is critical, because lack of funds is typically an obstacle to bicycle facility development. The RTP also incorporates, by reference, more in-depth planning efforts by cities and communities in Humboldt County. These local plans often contain more detail about route alignments, facility type, design, phasing and costs

The City of Arcata adopted the Arcata Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan in November of 2004. It focused on the encouragement of cycling, and walking, as preferred transportation alternatives -- whether for commuting, shopping, or other purposes. The Arcata Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan provides goals, objectives, and policies that serve to guide the planning and implementation of comprehensive network of walking and cycling routes in Arcata, with linkages to other communities.

The Avenue of the Giants Community Plan was developed in 2000. Residents of the communities along the Avenue of the Giants have expressed interest in establishing a multi-use pathway, parallel to the Avenue. Most of the pathway would be located in beautiful Humboldt Redwoods State Park, with some private property also involved. The community plan provided policies to support the development of this trail, as well as trails to, and along, the Eel River.

The Humboldt County Department of Community Development Services helped residents update the Blue Lake Community Action Plan in July of 2003, which included several proposals to improve cycling in Blue Lake. One proposed project would develop a bicycle rental program similar to Arcata’s Library Bike program. Another project goal was to adopt a trails plan that would include the Annie and Mary Rail Trail, which has the potential to evolve into a major regional trail in Humboldt County. In addition, the circulation element of the Blue Lake General Plan adopted in 1986 identifies non-motorized transportation modes as vital to the City. Policies to encourage cycling included non-vehicular access to, and along, the Mad River, pathways to schools and recreational areas, and bicycle parking requirements.

The Eureka City Council initiated the 1982 Bicycle Plan process, to enable the City to qualify for State grants, and to provide a safe and efficient network of bikeways throughout the City. Policies in that plan addressed not only the provision of bikeways, but also bicycle parking, rider/driver education, and the need for funding to implement the plan’s recommendations. The Transportation and Circulation element of Eureka’s General Plan, adopted in 1996, identifies the bicycle as a viable mode of transportation. That Plan includes a bikeway system, revised from the 1982 bicycle plan, and policies supporting the installation of bikeways and bicycle parking.

The City of Rio Dell updated its Land Use Element in 2003, as part of its efforts to maintain a small town character, focus new growth within the existing downtown neighborhoods, and revitalize the downtown area. The existing Circulation Element contains bikeway classifications and applies designations to certain streets. The Land Use Element contains transportation policies which encourage the development of bicycle routes and alternatives sources of transportation.

The City of Fortuna is currently in the process of updating its General Plan. The Transportation and Circulation Element of the General Plan will contain sections devoted to pedestrian and bicycle travel. The Background Report (the initial report in the General Plan Update process) has been released. It assessed Fortuna’s bicycle and pedestrian facilities, identifying areas for improvement that will be addressed in the General Plan Update.

The Manila Community Services District (MCSD) was awarded funding from HCAOG and Caltrans in 2003 and 20004 to study transportation in that community, particularly along Highway 255. Recommendations in the Manila Transportation Plan – Phase I (2003,) to improve bicycle safety and access, included “Share the Road” signs along Highway 255, and a rail-trail between Pacific Avenue, the Dean Street and Peninsula Drive intersection, and just north of Ward Street. The Manila Community Transportation Plan – Phase II was released in December of 2005. It recommended the development of pedestrian and bicycle paths already defined in the 2004 Humboldt County Regional Transportation Plan.

The Circulation Plan of the McKinleyville Community Plan of 2002, established policies which illustrate that community’s commitment to bicycle facilities. It designated new roadway and intersection design standards that incorporate bikeways, and funding priorities that favor safe pedestrian and bicycle access to schools. It also envisioned more off-street pathways.

The Willow Creek Community Action Plan was drafted in July of 2003. Humboldt County Community Development Staff worked with residents of Willow Creek to develop this plan, to improve the overall quality of life in Willow Creek. Building bicycle trails was recommended, to make the area more attractive to visitors and residents.

In 2003 Hoopa was awarded a grant under the Environmental Justice: Context Sensitive Planning for Communities Grant Program. The purpose of this grant-funded project was to involve the community in crafting design solutions to traffic safety problems (specifically the “critical injury cluster sites” along Highway 96) while supporting existing community development efforts. Implementation of the grant began in November 2004.

In January of 2006, the Traffic Calming and Safety Enhancement in the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation: A Conceptual Plan for “Downtown” Hoopa was released. That Plan provided a blueprint for implementing ideas related to pedestrian safety, and enhancing the pedestrian environment, through downtown Hoopa. State Highway 96 is the main route through Hoopa, yet there are no sidewalks, bikeways, or formal public trails that allow people to walk outside the travel lanes. Pedestrian crosswalks, and a pedestrian zone on Trinity River Bridge, are a few of the safety improvements recommended in the Plan.

Related Research

Bicycle Use Study: During 1997 and 1998, bicycle use in, and between, Eureka, Arcata and McKinleyville was studied. Data was collected during all seasons, including the number of cyclists, data on the cyclists, and their cycling behavior. The Humboldt Bay Area Bicycle Use Study (1999) documented bicycle use in the three communities, on Highways 101 and 255, on Old Arcata Road/Myrtle Avenue (Figure 6), and on the Hammond Trail. Bicycle use occurred throughout all the sampling periods. Cyclists were more active in spring, summer and fall months, but also were present, in appreciable numbers, during rainy winter months.

Regional Pedestrian Needs Assessment Study Update: HCAOG prepared a Regional Pedestrian Needs Assessment Update in June 2003. That update identified the existing pedestrian network, and developed recommendations to improve pedestrian access throughout Humboldt County. It assessed intersections, routes to schools, transit, downtowns, civic centers, commercial districts, recreation resources, and neighborhoods. Although the study focused on pedestrian improvements, several multi-use trails which serve either as segments of the regional bikeway network, or local routes, were identified. The assessment is being updated and the 2008 Regional Pedestrian Needs Assessment Study is scheduled to be adopted by the HCAOG Board in June of 2008.

Humboldt County General Plan Update: The County is currently updating its General Plan. Indications of the information collected to date, and the policy considerations under review, may be demonstrated by two reports: The 2001 Critical Choices Report is a compilation of public input. Non-motorized transportation –pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian travel – was a priority for many people around the county, while others approved of non-motorized improvements as long as property rights were protected and maintenance issues were addressed. The 2002 Moving Goods and People Report describes the county’s bicycle and pedestrian facility conditions, and presents policy options for inclusion in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. In addition, the Humboldt County Community Infrastructure and Services Technical Report has information about County Roadways that is applicable for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Humboldt county General Plan bicycle and pedestrian policy topics are summarized in the Goals and Policies Section.

Existing Programs

There are a number of bicycle programs already in place around the County, which are aimed at improving safety, convenience, and ridership.

Library Bikes: Arcata Library Bikes evolved from the 1990’s Green Bikes program. Volunteers repair and rebuild bicycles, from donated parts, to maintain a fleet for loan. These bicycles are available for check out with a $20 deposit for a six-month period. They can be returned before the lending period expires for a refund, or be checked out again. “Promise Bikes” are bicycles of higher quality, that are loaned to people who vow to give up their car for trips within Arcata, or for students moving to Arcata without an automobile. Both programs have been a tremendous success. Library Bike also provides an after-school program, in which they teach kids basic bicycle repair and maintenance.

Bike to Work Month Activities: The Humboldt Bay Bicycle Commuters’ Association (humboldtbikemonth.org) hosts and annual Bike to Work Day, typically during National Bike to Work Week. They encourage bicycle commuting and give prizes, and other incentives, for distinctive groups and riders.

Guiding Goals, Policies, and Objectives

Goal: Create a transportation system that provides inter-community and intra-community non-motorized pedestrian, bicycle travel throughout the region.

BP-1 Policy: Develop a cohesive system of regional bikeways that provides access to, and between, major activity centers, public transportation, recreation, and other destinations, and eliminate barriers to pedestrian and bicycle travel. [Linked to Performance Measures #9-Pedestrian Mobility and #10-Bicycle Mobility.]

Objective: Periodically evaluate designated pedestrian facilities and bicycle routes to identify barriers to local and regional pedestrian and bicycle travel. Prioritize pedestrian and bicycle roadway improvements that will eliminate those barriers -- such as bridges, roadway shoulder widening, and gap closures.

Objective: Construct and maintain contiguous sidewalks and designated bicycle routes within one mile of all public schools, and between transit stops and nearby public facilities (libraries, parks, and community centers).

BP-2 Policy: Encourage an interconnected transportation network.

Objective: Update transportation plans to include an interconnected, well-planned, and efficient regional transportation network that includes pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Objective: Develop bicycle and pedestrian trail facilities in the region, through coordination among Humboldt County (Humboldt County General Plan), Caltrans, cities, non-profits, and other entities with planning responsibilities.

BP-3 Policy: Encourage and support the creation, or expansion, of comprehensive safety awareness, driver education, cyclist education and diversion training programs for bicyclists and motorists.

Objective: Develop programs that improve the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists -- including education for bicyclists, motorists, and pedestrians -- and actively enforce bicycle safety laws.

BP-4 Policy: Encourage the pursuit of alternative non-motorized funding sources to the maximum degree plausible.

Objective: Secure alternative funding source -- such as grants and public-private partnerships-- to finance pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements.

Objective: Develop alternative approaches for providing improvements to pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

BP-5 Policy: Encourage bicycle-friendly designs for all streets and roadways, through new technologies, “best practices” standards, guidelines, and innovative treatments on new roadways and multiuse paths.

Objective: Administer resurfacing programs for local streets to include appropriate provisions for bicycle facilities. All bikeways will be developed in compliance with standards adopted by Caltrans and as required by Sections 2375 and 2376 of the Streets and Highways Code.

Objective: Secure funding augmentations for roadway improvement projects to include bicycle and/or pedestrian facility improvements, such as bridges, roadway shoulder widening, and dedicated facilities for bicycle travel.

BP-6 Policy: Maintain pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Objective: Program funds, as available, for HCAOG entities to maintain pedestrian and bicycle facilities in safe, efficient condition.

BP-7 Policy: Encourage the adoption of ordinances requiring bicycle parking and storage for all new development and redevelopment.

Objective: Provide sample ordinances that promote adequate bicycle parking facilities as part of new development projects' off-street parking requirements. Ordinances are to be applicable to commercial, industrial, and multi-family residential uses. Encourage cities and the County to adopt these bicycle parking ordinances.

BP-8 Policy: Promote use of the Bicycle Level of Service concept.

Objective: Provide member entities with information on the Bicycle Compatibility Index and the Bicycle/Pedestrian Level of Service (B/P LOS) concept.

Objective: Use the Bicycle Compatibility Index as a resource for determining BLOS and bicycle facility needs.

BP-9 Policy: HCAOG recognizes the high level of public support for provision of a dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facility between Arcata and Eureka.

Objective: Promote the study of alternatives for a dedicated facility between Arcata and Eureka.

Objective: Continue to support the multi-jurisdictional group of stakeholders, currently working to identify constraints and opportunities to develop a multi-use trail facility in NCRA and Caltrans corridor between Eureka and Arcata, under a National Park Service Technical Assistance grant.

Coordination with County General Plan Policy

The following are a representative listing of the policies topics the county is proposing for their general plan:

• Roadway Capacity Expansion and Non-Vehicle Modes.
• Right-of-Way Design Standards.
• Encourage bicycle-friendly design
• Right-of-Way Multi-Modal Level of Service Standards.
• Efficiency and Capacity Investment Priority.
• Capital Improvement Plan.
• Coordination with School Districts.
• Walkability Audits.
• Traffic Calming.
• Landscape Maintenance Zones.
• Protection of Designated Trails and access to recreation areas.
• Encourage Bicycle Storage Facilities and transport on Public Transit.
• Annie and Mary Trail & NWP Railroad Right of Way for Bicycles and Pedestrians.

The policies adopted in the Humboldt County General Plan will be implemented through county zoning and development standards.

Action Plan: Proposed Projects

The 2004 Regional Bicycle Transportation Plan for Humboldt County identifies potential bicycle projects, bicycle routes, facilities, and improvements for the region. The list of projects in that plan is detailed in the Needs Assessment section of this document. HCAOG's Pedestrian Needs Assessment was updated in June 2003 and provides recommendations for future pedestrian projects throughout the region. That complete list of recommendations is also included in the Needs Assessment.

At the initial set of RTP workshops, comments were received regarding the need for the establishment of a bicycle and pedestrian trail between Arcata and Eureka. A National Park Service technical Assistance Grant funded a study of the opportunities and constraints regarding multi-use trail facility development in the NCRA corridor between Eureka and Arcata. A group of multi-jurisdictional stakeholders who are affected by the trail development (HCAOG, RCAA, City of Arcata, City of Eureka, County officials, National Park Service, Caltrans, Humboldt Bay, NCRA) has been established, to assist the National Park Service.

High priority bicycle and pedestrian projects, identified and updated by respective entities, are illustrated in Table BP3. However, it is important to note that the Pedestrian Needs Assessment and the 2006 Regional Bicycle Transportation Plan identify additional projects throughout the county. Table BP4, found on page BP-24, highlights non-motorized illustrative projects or projects that are needed but have fiscal constraints. Table BP5, found on page BP-25, illustrates long-term, non-motorized projects. A figure of proposed regional trails can be found on page BP-29.

Table BP3 Humboldt County Non-Motorized Planned Projects

PLANNED PROJECTS
Project Description	Cost ($)
Trinidad
Main Street/ Weshaven Drive East City Limits to Trinity Street. Enhanced Class III. Planned 2008/2009	555
Patrick's Point Drive Main Street to City Limits. Enhanced Class III. Planned 2008/2009	300
Rio Dell
Center Street and Davis Street Wildwood to Ireland. Construct pedestrian refuge, sidewalks, bulb-outs, speed bumps, school access trail and striping and signing. State Funded Safe Routes to School Grant. Construction Planned in Summer 2009	528,000
Wildwood Ave Scotia Bridge to Davis Street Corridor. Planned as part of 2008 STIP Project and Pending Application for HSIP Grant
Ferndale
5th Street Arlington Avenue to Pixley Avenue Corridor. Partially funded, planned for 2008.	295,224
Arlington Avenue Main Street to 5th Street Corridor. Partially funded, planned for 2008.	125,009
Berding Street Rose Avenue to Lewis Avenue Corridor. Partially funded, planned for 2008.	30,873
Rose Avenue Berding Street to Lincoln Avenue Corridor. Partially funded, planned for 2008.	165,970
Herbert Street Rose Avenue to Dewy Avenue Corridor. Partially funded, planned for 2008.	261,502
Fortuna
Various locations throughout the City including, but not limited to, numerous corners on 8^th, 9^th, 10^th, 11^th, 12^th, 13^th, 14^th, 15^th, 16^th, Newberg, and Wood Streets, and So. Fortuna Blvd. ADA Sidewalk Accessibility Improvement Project – Phase 1 – Probable CDBG Funding. Construction through 2011.	185,000
Various locations throughout the City including, but not limited to, numerous corners on 7^th, 9^th, 10^th, 11^th, 12^th, 15^th, 16^th, Newell, Wood, Senestraro, Shamrock, and Jenny Streets. ADA Sidewalk Accessibility Improvement Project – Phase 2 – Possible CDBG Funding. Construction through 2011.	335,250
Eureka
H Street/ Campton Road Harris Street to City limit Class II Planned for 2008. City has applied for grant funding to upgrade bike lane markings to thermoplastic. If money exists we will include H Street with this project.	46,425

PLANNED PROJECTS
Project Description	Cost ($)
Arcata
Arcata Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan 2009 Update and CIP *	25,000
11th Street Q Street Janes Road Class II In Progress – Complete 04/08	22,727
Alliance Rd. Spear Avenue14th Street Class II In Progress – Complete 08/08	89,489
Samoa Blvd. K Street Buttermilk Ln. Class II. “K” – “H” Streets with Samoa Blvd. Improvements (2009) Union – Buttermilk Ln - 2010 STIP	85,938
10th Street Q Street L Street Class III Fund 2008 for Bike Blvd.	50,000
11th Street Corridor Class II / III Janes Road to Bayview Street	22,500
Sunset Avenue Class II / III Western Avenue to H Street	4,750
F Street Class II / III 7^th Street to 11^th Street	7,650
Citywide Bicycle Parking Bike Racks & Bike Lockers	42.50
Bike Routes Class II / III city wide	217,500
Bike Boulevards w/ calming Class III city wide	73,250
Hammond Trail (on RR ROW) Class I west Arcata city limit to Annie & Mary Rail Trail	770,000
Annie & Mary Rail Trail Arcata Reach Class I north Arcata city limits to Marsh / South G Street	700,000
Arcata-Eureka 101 Corridor Bike Path Class I / II H Street to South Arcata City Limit	687,000
Blue Lake
Hatchery Road Railroad Avenue to Mad River Bridge Class II Planned for construction 2009.	24,150
I Street Blue Lake Blvd to 5^th Avenue. Planned for construction 2009.
Humboldt County
Herrick Sidewalks Funded - STIP 2009 construction *	206,000
Myrtle Sidewalks Funded -STIP 2009 construction *	206,000
Sutter Sidewalks Completed Central to Park, future Park to Azalea infill *	206,000
Fieldbrook Road Widen shoulders for pedestrian and bicycles - PM 2.8 - 5.5 Funded -STIP 2008 construction *	551,000
Peninsula Drive Widen shoulders for pedestrian and bicycles. Planned for future. *	$
Park to Camellia Drive Pedestrian & bike trail connecting Sutter area to Heartwood. Planned for future. *	300,000
Annie & Mary Trail Glendale to Blue Lake portion of trail. Planned for future. *	800,000
Freshwater Road Three corners to Howard Heights, pave and stripe bike lanes. Funded - Safe Routes to School/Prop 1B, construction 2009. *	600,000
Myrtle Ave Harrison Street to Hall Ave Pedestrian Corridor. 2009 Construction
Humboldt Hill Road US 101 to Donna Drive Enhanced Class III STIP 2009 Construction	5,066
Myrtle Avenue/Old Arcata Road Hall Ave. to Bayside Cutoff Enhanced Class III STIP 2008 Construction	8,000,000
Tish Tang/Hwy 96 Intersection - Shift intersection north to be opposite shopping center. STIP planning funds approved, no construction funding yet.*	1,500,000
Central Avenue – Bella Vista shoulder widening	$
Union Street – Bicycle and pedestrian shoulder widening
* = Priority Project $ = Fund Estimates not available

Table BP4 Humboldt County Non-Motorized Illustrative Projects

ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS
Project Description	Cost
Trinidad
Edwards Street Trinity Street to Bay Street. Enhanced Class III	350
Scenic Drive Main Street to City Limits Class III	300
Trinity Street Main Street to Edwards Street Class III	250
Westhaven Drive Main Street to City Limits. Enhanced Class III	300
Main St/Westhaven Drive Scenic Drive to Hidden Creek	$
Van Wycke Trail Rehabilitation Project (Edwards St. to Galindo St.) *	200,000
Lighthouse Trail Improvement Project (Lighthouse to Beach) *	50,000
Ferndale
5th Street Arlington Avenue to Ocean Drive Enhanced Class III *	44,145
Arlington Avenue Main Street to 5th Street Enhanced Class III *	22,159
Grizzly Bluff Road Craig Street to East city limit Class III *	36,782
Main Street (SR 211) Market Street to Ocean Drive Enhanced Class III *	37,497
Ocean Avenue Shaw Avenue to Craig Street Class III *	14,800
Shaw Avenue Ocean Avenue to Berding Street Class III *	36,772
5th Street Arlington Avenue to Fairview Drive North. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk along east side. *	53,454
Fortuna
12th Street Main St. Newburg Rd. Class II*	10,800
Fortuna Boulevard Main St. Kenmar Rd. Class II	150,000
Kenmar/ Kenwood Riverwalk Drive Rohnerville Road Class II*	16,200
Main Street 9^th St. Rohnerville Road Class II *	7,200
Rohnerville Rd. Main St. School St. Class II	240,000
Riverwalk Dr. Dinsmore Dr. Kenmar Road Class II	72,000
Ross Hill Road School St. Kenmar Rd. Class II*	18,000
Redwood Way Fortuna Boulevard St. Joseph Dr. Class II*	40,000
Newburg Rd. 12th St. Rohnerville Rd. Class II*	18,000
12^th St. Overpass Newberg Rd. Dinsmore Dr. Class II*	3,600
12th Street K Street to Loni Drive	$
Newburg Road Virginia to Fortuna Blvd	$
Newburg Road at Rohnerville Road Intersection	$
Riverwalk Drive/Kenmar Riverwalk RV Park to Fortuna Blvd.	$
Ross Hill Road/School St. at Thelma Intersection	$
Eureka
Buhne St. Fairfield St. to Harrison St. Enhanced Class III*	4,088
B Street Third Street to Harris St. Enhanced Class III*	3,898
Eureka Waterfront Trail Commercial to Pound Road Class I CA Coastal Trail segment*	1,872,200
14^th Street Waterfront to West Ave. Class III*	1,809
C Street Waterfront to 7th Street Enhanced Class III Waterfront connectivity with B Street*	687

ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS
Project Description	Cost ($)
Dolbeer Harris Street to Hemlock Enhanced Class III*	1,178
E Street Harris Street to Waterfront Drive Class III*	2,576
Fairfield St. Harris Street to Wabash Ave. Enhanced Class III*	2,035
Glen Street Harris Street to Allard Ave. Enhanced Class III*	1,243
Harris Street I Street to Hall Avenue Class III*	2,711
Harrison Ave. Harris Street to Harrison St.(city limit) Enhanced Class III School route*	2,790
Hemlock St. W Street to Walnut Ave. Enhanced Class III School route*	383
Henderson St. S Street to I Street Enhanced Class III*	1,445
Hodgson St. F Street to W Street Enhanced Class III School route*	1,509
S St./West Ave./V St. Hodgson Street to First Street Enhanced Class III School route*	2,983
Utah St./Central Avenue Allard Street to Henderson Center Enhanced Class III*	1,500
W Street Hodgson Street to Hemlock Street Class III School route*	575
Wabash Avenue C Street to H Street Enhanced Class III*	965
Washington Street Waterfront to B Street Class III*	938
4th & 5th Streets Commercial Street to V Street. The City is currently working with the State on an enhanced crosswalk project.	$
6th & 7th Street Broadway Street to Myrtle Avenue	$
Broadway Street (US 101) Kmart to 5th Street. The City is currently working with the State on a sidewalk infill project in the vicinity of Vigo and Broadway and Hawthorne and Broadway.	$
H & I Streets US 101 to Harrison Street	$
Harris Street Broadway Street to Hall Avenue The City will begin shortly working on plans for a new traffic signal with full pedestrian protection at the Harris and Central location.	$
Henderson Street Broadway Street to I Street *	$
Elk River Wildlife Sanctuary to Truesdale Street*	$
Truesdale Street to Del Norte*	$
Waterfront Drive "G" to "J" Street*	$
Waterfront Drive "T" to "V" Street*	$
Transit Stop Pullout improvements, 12 locations*	$
Downtown Intermodal Transit Facility*	$
Arcata
Samoa Blvd. West City Limit K Street Enhanced Class III In Long-Term Plan	2,038
Blue Lake
Annie & Mary Rail-Trail Chartin to Hatchery Road I *	337,500
Greenwood Road Blue Lake Boulevard to Railroad Avenue Enhanced Class III	625
Railroad Avenue Greenwood Road to City limit Enhanced Class III	2,118
Greenwood Road Blue Lake Blvd to Redwood Avenue	$
Railroad Avenue Blue Lake Blvd to H Street	$
South Side Railroad Ave Chartin Road to H Street Trail *	$

ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS
Project Description	Cost ($)
Humboldt County
Hammond Trail Bridge Replacement over Mad River *	3,000,000
Sprowel Creek Road Widen Shoulders Garberville Park *	600,000
Westhaven Road Widen shoulders for pedestrian and bicycles *	1,000,000
Glendale Shoulder Widening *	$
Greenwood Heights Shoulder Widening*	$
West End Road Shoulder Widening*	$
Bald Hills Road Shoulder Widening*	$
Maple Creek Road Shoulder Widening *	$
Briceland-Thorne Road Shoulder Widening *	$
Shelter Cove Road Shoulder Widening*	$
Railroad Drive McKinleyville Class III shoulder and sidewalk N side*	$
Murray Road McKinleyville Sidewalk infill*	$
Centerville Road Ferndale City Limit to Beach shoulder widening*	$
Cannibal Island Road shoulder widening*	$
Hookton Road Shoulder Widening*	$
Tompkins Hill Road Shoulder Widening*	$
Eel River Drive Shoulder Widening/Striping*	$
Red Cap Road Shoulder Widening/Sidewalks*	$
Continuous Sidewalks/Shoulders on County Roads within 1 mile radius of schools*	$
Blue Lake Boulevard – Sidewalks and four foot shoulders	$
* = Priority Project $ = Fund Estimates not available

LONG-TERM PROJECTS
Project Description	Cost ($)
Rio Dell
Access Trail Gunnerson Lane to Edwards Drive Class I	9,000
Davis Street Wildwood Avenue to Rigby Avenue Class II	35,700
Main Street/ Wildwood US 101 - Eeloa Ave to Davis Street Class II	46,875
Painter Street Wildwood Avenue to Rigby Avenue Class II	29,040
Bellevue St. Main St. to West City Limit Class III	$
Ireland Street Center St. to Davis St. Enhanced Class III	490
Main Street Eeloa Ave. to US 101 Class III	494
Main Street/ Wildwood Ave. Davis Street to South City Limit Enhanced Class III	1,750
Rigby Avenue Davis Street to Painter St. Enhanced Class III	675
Humboldt County
Hammond Trail Mad River Bridge to Arcata City Limits Class I Implementation Strategy Private Property Issues/Alternatives Analysis Needed	797,500
Humboldt Bay Trail-East Bay Arcata Marsh & Wildlife Sanctuary to Eureka Waterfront Trail/Drive Class I Implementation Strategy	3,520,000
Humboldt Bay Trail-West Bay Arcata City Limits Samoa-potential extension to Fairhaven Class I Implementation Strategy	1,980,000

Table BP5 Humboldt County Non-Motorized Long-Term Projects

LONG-TERM PROJECTS
Project Description	Cost ($)
Redwood Drive – Garberville to Redway to US 101 Class II	$
Blue Lake Boulevard – Class II	$
Humbooldt Hill – to Eureka City Limits Class III	$
V Street – Arcata City Limits to 255 Class III	$
Riverwalk Trail Fortuna City Limits to Sandy Prairie Road Class I	550,000
SR 96: Hoopa Mill Creek Road to Shoemaker Road Class I Implementation Strategy	75,000
SR 96: Willow Creek SR 299 to Elementary School Class I Implementation Strategy	332,050
Campton Road Eureka City Limit to Walnut Drive Class II	117,614
Ridgewood Drive Elk River Road to Walnut Drive Class II	97,500
F Street Fairway Drive to Oak Street Class II	28,409
Harris Street Harrison Street to Hall Avenue Class II	56,818
Elk River Road Ridgewood to Headwaters Trailhead Class III	9,617
Hall Avenue Harris Street to Myrtle Avenue Enhanced Class III	308
Park Street Myrtle Ave. to Quaker St. Class II	39,773
Quaker St. Park Street to Trinity Street Enhanced Class III	1,278
Trinity St. Quaker St. to Myrtle Ave. Enhanced Class III	663
Mad River Rd/Upper Bay/Miller Ln/Heindon Rd Mad River Beach to Arcata City Limits Enhanced Class III	6,439
SR 255 US 101 to US 101 Class III	13,307
Glendale Drive SR 299 to Blue Lake Boulevard Enhanced Class III	5,824
Blue Lake Boulevard Glendale Drive to Blue Lake City Limit Class III	241
Blue Lake Boulevard Southeast Blue Lake city limit to Maple Creek Road Class III	256
West End Road Giuntoli Lane to Hatchery Road Class III	5,378
Hatchery Road Mad River Bridge to Fish Hatchery Enhanced Class III	1,539
Grizzly Bluff/Blue Slide Roads Ferndale City Limit to Rio Dell City Limit Class III (R)	18,568
SR 211 Fernbridge Drive to Ferndale City Limit Street Enhanced Class III	9,250
Sandy Prairie Road Fortuna City Limit to US 101 Enhanced Class III	2,936
Maple Creek Road Blue Lake Boulevard to Korbel Road Class III	2,472
Main Street Rio Dell City Limit to US 101 Enhanced Class III	3,646
Patrick’s Point Drive Trinidad City Limit to Patrick's Point - US 101 Enhanced Class III	13,750
Westhaven Drive Trinidad City Limit to US 101 Class III	4,800
Scenic Drive Trinidad City Limit to US 101 Class III	3,750
SR 299 US 101 to Trinity County Class III	63,150
SR 36 US to 101 Trinity County Class III	68,550
SR 96 SR 299 to Siskyou County Class III	67,050

LONG-TERM PROJECTS
Project Description	Cost ($)
US 101 Pacific Coast Bike Route (PCBR) Newton B. Drury Scenic Parkway to V Street Class III	74,250
Pacific Coast Bike Route US 101 Henderson Street, Eureka Mendocino County Class III	116,550
Mid Town Trail Railroad Avenue to Washington Street Class I	440,000
Airport Road Letz Avenue to Central Avenue Class II	76,350
Central Avenue US 101 to Railroad Drive Class II	310,125
Central Avenue School Road to SR 200 Class III	7,500
School Road Fischer Ave to Central Avenue Class II	47,175
Washington Avenue McKinleyville Avenue to School Road Class II	37,642
Azalea Avenue SR 200 to Sutter Road Class III	2,330
Dows Prairie Grange Road to Norton Road Enhanced Class III	1,563
Grange Road Central Avenue to Dows Prairie Road Class III	369
Halfway Ave/ Gassoway Rd Airport Road to Murray Road Class III	998
Norton Road Dow's Prairie Road to Central Avenue Class III	377
Garberville-Redway Garberville to Redway Class I Feasibility Study	20,000
South Fork High Trail Miranda to Meyer's Flat Class I	800,000
Avenue of the Giants (SR 254) US 101 to US 101 Enhanced Class III	34,935
Briceland Road Redwood Drive to Eel River Road Enhanced Class III	2,250
Redwood Drive Manzanita to Maple Lane Class III	1,200
Sprowel Creek Road Redwood Drive to Community Park Class III	1,500
SR 96 Downtown to S. Trinity Bridge to Jury	$
SR 96 Mill Creek to Shoemaker Rd	$
Loleta Drive Main Street to Franklin Ave	$
Franklin Ave Park Street to Loleta Drive	$
Park Street Loleta Drive to Franklin Ave	$
SR 255 Lupin Drive to Pacific Ave	$
NWP Trail Sandy Road to Dean Ave Trail	$
Hiller Road Central Avenue to Cliff Avenue	$
Railroad Avenue Central Avenue to Thiel Avenue	$
School Road Bugenig Ave to Fischer Road	$
Washington Street McKinleyville Avenue to School Road	$
Avenue of the Giants at School Road	$
SR 96 Post Office to Clinic	$
SR 96 Post Office to Big Rock Road	$
SR 96 within Weitchpec	$
Newton Road Sewell Road to School Road	$
SR 96 SR 299 to Trinity Elementary	$
SR 299 Roth Road to Panther Creek	$
* = Priority Project $ = Fund Estimates not available

Financing

The bicycle and pedestrian plans and programs outlined in the RTP will take years, some even decades to fully accomplish. Project phasing is dependent on a number of factors, including appropriate design, right of way acquisition, sponsorship, and funding. This part of the section focuses on financing of facilities.

Federal

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), is being reauthorized for 2010. It is hoped that this reauthorization will allow funding for continuing and significantly building upon the projects funded under prior Transportation Equity Act programs. This would include continued funding, including dollars from highway authorization bills, to ensure bicycling and walking, garnered a more prominent role in our nation’s transportation system.

To be meaningful, future SAFETEA-LU programs must provide broad funding eligibility for pedestrian and bicycle programs in addition to funding of roadways. The Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Programs established under existing SAFETEA-LU has been an important source of pedestrian and bicycle program funding. The program purpose has been to demonstrate the extent to which bicycling and walking can carry a significant part of the transportation load, and represent a major portion of the transportation solution, within selected communities. One of the pilot programs is being conducted in Marin County, California. A network of non-motorized transportation infrastructure facilities (including sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian and bicycle trails) that connect directly with transit stations, schools, residences, businesses, recreation areas, and other community activity centers, will be built in each city. Statistical information will be gathered to provide information on changes in motor vehicle, non-motorized transportation, and public transportation usage in communities participating in the program, and assess how such changes decrease congestion and energy usage, increase the frequency of bicycling and walking, and promote better health and a cleaner environment.

Several roadway improvement projects programmed in the STIP include pedestrian and bicycle components. When new pavement is laid, some projects include pavement for bikeways. In addition, the passage of Proposition 42 in March 2003 could provide additional funding for roads, which could translate into additional funding for pedestrian and bicycle improvements.

Under SAFETEA-LU, Transportation enhancement activities continue to be funded through a set-aside of 10 percent, or the amount set aside in FY 2008, whichever is greater, from STIP funds. Assuming funding levels remain constant over 20-years, the amount would be $6 million, which could implement a number of high-priority projects identified in the Action Element.

As shown in the Needs Assessment, several high-priority bikeway and pedestrian projects are identified, but not yet programmed, or costs have not been assigned. These projects will be implemented as funding becomes available. The County can affect the amount of funding by aggressively pursuing competitive funding sources. Potential funding sources are contained in the recently completed Humboldt County Pedestrian Needs Assessment Study Update.

The 1998 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) report, Implementing Bicycle Improvements at the Local Level also recommends facility improvements designed to increase bicycle safety, (Online version at http://www.bikefed.org/bike_guide_online.htm, October 9, 2002). Many of these improvements would improve pedestrian safety conditions as well. There are 13 items in the complete checklist covering urban to rural uses on a range of facility types. Those that are applicable to rural areas such as Humboldt County are displayed in Table BP6.

Table BP6 Selected Bicycle Safety Improvement Projects from FHWA Checklist

Category	Typical Concerns	Possible Projects
Street crossings	Bicyclists have difficulty crossing busy arterial thoroughfares from quiet residential streets.	Provide median refuges at key minor street crossings, bike-friendly signals, and other features on collectors.
Breaking bicycling barriers	Physical features (rivers, creeks, railroads, and freeways) often keep bicyclists from getting where they want to go.	Provide independent bicycle/pedestrian structures where necessary or combine bicycle/pedestrian structures with other existing or planned transportation facilities.
Trail networks	Trails are popular facilities among the bicycling public but they may be rare or discontinuous. In addition, some are poorly designed, constructed, or maintained.	Provide new trails where possible throughout the community, connect existing trail segments, and encourage developers to include trails in their developments. Make sure designers and operations staff-use current literature.
Transit connections	The success of a multimodal transportation system suffers when bicyclists cannot get to transit stations, when there is not adequate safe bicycle storage, and when bicyclists are not accommodated on the system itself.	Improve connections between residential areas and transit stops, provide secure bicycle parking at stops, and provide for carrying bicycles on the system.
Roadway bridge modifications	Some bridges contain narrow outside lanes, hazardous deck surfaces, hazardous expansion joints, high traffic volumes, high traffic speeds, or high speed on- and off-ramps.	Reallocate bridge deck width by shifting lane lines, modify surface for better bicycle stability, modify ramps to discourage high-speed turning movements, and, as a last resort, develop bicycle connections independent of the bridge in question.
Railroad crossings	Diagonal railroad crossings and rough crossings—regardless of crossing angle—can cause bicycle crashes.	Replace dangerous crossings with rubberized installations (especially in the outside through lane), use flangeway fillers on low-speed diagonal crossings, flair paved surface at crossing approaches to allow right-angle crossings, and use warning signs or markings.
Traffic signals	Most traffic-actuated signals have difficulty detecting bicycles. In addition, signal timing may not allow sufficient clearance time for bicyclists to get through an intersection, and programmed visibility heads may not be as visible from a typical bicyclist’s location as from a typical motorist’s location.	Provide bicycle-sensitive loop detectors in new installations and retrofit where needed; in some cases, use pavement markings to identify most sensitive locations; adjust timing requirements on signals and test heads for visibility at necessary angles.
Drainage grates and utility covers	Some drainage grate designs can trap a bicycle wheel; in addition, grates and utility covers should be kept level with the grade of the street surface and, wherever practical, such installations should be kept out of the typical path of a bicyclist.	Replace bad drain grate standards with bicycle-safe models; replace or modify existing installations; as a routine practice, consider bicyclists when locating new utilities.
Rural road shoulders	Many rural roads serve high-speed traffic and, in some cases, high volumes of motor traffic containing a significant proportion of large trucks. For bicyclists, sharing narrow roads with such traffic can be unpleasant and dangerous.	Provide smooth paved shoulders on all new construction and reconstruction; add shoulders to popular bicycling routes; adopt standards calling for adequate paved shoulders; restrict the use of rumble strips when bicycle traffic is expected (if deemed appropriate by Caltrans whose policy is to install rumble strips when their use is considered the optimal solution to an identified problem), and on new construction and reconstruction; or provide space for future shoulders if they cannot be installed at the time.
Bicycle parking	Scarce bike parking at popular destinations, undesirable bike parking devices, no bike parking zoning requirements.	Each year, provide new bike parking as a routine practice; use only parking devices that accept high security locks; or add bike parking to local zoning regulations.
Maintenance	Poorly maintained trails and roadway edges.	Alter current practices, create a user-requested bicycle spot improvement program.

Source: Implementing Bicycle Improvements at the Local Level, Federal Highway Administration, 1998.

In a more recent report, Bicycle Lanes Versus Wide Curb Lanes: Operational and Safety Findings and Countermeasure Recommendations (Publication No. FHWA-RD-99-035, October 1999, online version at http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/pubs/99035.pdf, October 9, 2002) the FHWA cites research done in Canada, Denmark, and Sweden that found that marking bicycle lanes with paint and/or raised pavement reduced bicycle-motorist conflicts and crashes at intersections by 10% to 36%.

The Bike Plan Implementation Program and/or proposed bike trails include projects applicable to several of the FHWA’s categories for bicycle safety improvements, such as:

• Widen outside through lanes or add bike lanes;
• Provide new trails where possible throughout the community;
• Connect existing trail segments;
• Provide secure bicycle parking at transit stops;
• Provide for carrying bicycles on the bus system;
• Improvement bike facilities at railroad crossings;
• Add shoulders to popular bicycling routes; and
• Provide new bike parking.

Implementation of these improvements, along with bicycle safety education, is expected to decrease conflicts, increase bicycle safety, and reduce the potential for accidents involving bicyclists. As discussed previously (see “Bicycle Safety and Education Programs” in Section 2B of this document), the Humboldt County Office of Education/ Sherrifs Department conducts bicycle safety programs in conjunction with the California Highway Patrol. By teaching children how to ride bicycles safely, the potential for bicycle accidents is reduced; however, no conclusive data is available at this time.

Safe Route to Schools: Authorized by Section 1404 of SAFETEA-LU the federal Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program came into effect in August of 2005 and is set to expire September 2009. This federal funding program emphasizes community collaboration in the development of projects that target grades K-8, and projects that incorporate elements of the 5 E’s – education, encouragement, engineering, enforcement, and evaluation. The program seeks to increase the number of children who walk or bicycle to school. Eligible agencies include state, local, and regional agencies; cities and counties; non-profit organizations; school districts; and Native American Tribes. Eligible projects include stand alone infrastructure within 2 miles of a grade school or middle school or non-infrastructure projects.

State

Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA): The BTA is intended to provide funds for bicycle transportation, which is recognized as an important and low cost mode of public transportation. The BTA provides funds to local agencies for projects that improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters. With regards to State funding, counties that prepare, and adopt, a Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) are allowed to compete for BTA funds. These funds are available on an annual basis and are competitive throughout California. BTA annual funding, per Streets and Highways Code Section 2106 is shown in table BP7:

Table BP7: BTA annual funding

Fiscal Year	Funding ($)
2000/01	1,500,000
2001/02	7,200,000
2002/03	7,200,000
2003/04	7,200,000
2004/05	7,200,000
2005/06	7,190,000
2006/07 and beyond	5,000,000

The City of Eureka received $57,420 from this account in FY 2000/01, for upgrading bicycle racks throughout the city, and constructing bicycle lanes on Wabash Avenue. In addition, a $29,520 grant was approved for the City of Arcata for bike lane improvements. The City of Arcata also received $170,000 from this account in FY 2005-06 for:

· installation of shared-lane arrow pavement markings with “Share the Road” signage;

· installation of wrong-way (R5-1b) and ride with traffic (R9-3C) signage and “STOP” legends painted in bike lanes at 4-way stop intersections;

· construction of a Class II Bikeway on South G Street from Front Street to the Arcata Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary;

· installation of 10 bicycle lockers and a covered bicycle parking area at the City Intermodal Transit Facility;

· a support library bicycle station program in downtown;

· a free public bicycle repair shop and bicycle parking adjacent to Post Office and downtown Plaza;

· support for a bicycle education rodeo with Plaza rally and ceremony for bicycle commuters;

· promotion and advertising for the bike rodeo; banner purchase; and

· children’s bicycle safety training during City downtown criterium race.

Safe Routes to School: Established in 1999, the State-legislated Safe Routes to School (SR2S) program came into effect with the passage of AB 1475. In 2001, SB 10 was enacted which extended the program for three additional years. In 2004, SB 1087 was enacted to extend the program three more years. And in 2007, AB 57 was enacted to extend the program indefinitely.  Eligible applicants include cities, counties, and school districts. Eligible projects include infrastructure projects located in the vicinity of a school; projects must be completed within four state fiscal years after project funds are allocated. Targeted beneficiaries include children in grades K through 12.

California Office of Traffic Safety: The goal of the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) is to reduce deaths, injuries and economic losses resulting from traffic related collisions. They do this by funding traffic safety programs that have impact both state-wide and in individual communities. From impaired driving enforcement to encouraging seat belt usage, speed enforcement to bicycle safety, OTS funded programs are intended to save lives on California’s roadways. For more information go to: http://www.ots.ca.gov/.

Transportation Development Act (TDA): Also known as SB 325, provides two major sources of funding for public transportation: the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and the State Transit Assistance fund (STA). These funds are for the development and support of public transportation needs that exist in California and are allocated to areas of each county based on population, taxable sales, and transit performance. Local entities may reserve 2% of the TDA funds allocated annually for pedestrian and bicycle projects.

Local Transportation Fund (LTF): The Transportation Development Act creates in each county a Local Transportation Fund for the transportation purposes specified in the Act. Revenues to the LTF are derived from 1/4 percent of the retail sales tax collected statewide. The 1/4 percent is returned by the State Board of Equalization to each county according to the amount of tax collected in that county. The LTC allocates the funds to claimants to provide public and community transportation services. Local Transportation Funds may be allocated for local streets and roads purposes if there are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet.

Department of Transportation – Section 887.8(b) of the California Streets and Highways Code permits the Department of Transportation to construct and maintain non-motorized facilities where such improvements will increase the capacity or safety of a State Highway. Section 888.4 requires an annual statewide budget of at least $360,000 for new non-motorized transportation facilities to be used by Caltrans in conjunction with the State Highway System.

Proposition 116: Clean Air & Transportation Improvement Act of 1990: Under Proposition 116, non-urban county transit funds can be made available for transit or non-motorized facilities. These funds are provided on a per capita basis, using the Federal census.

Non-Motorized Trails Grant Program: Under The Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000, program funds are appropriated for the development, improvement, rehabilitation, restoration, and enhancement of non-motorized trails, and associated interpretive facilities for the purpose of increasing public access to, and enjoyment of, public areas for increased recreational opportunities.

Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation (EEM) Program: Offers funding to remedy environmental impacts of new or improved transportation facilities. State gasoline tax monies fund EEM. Grants are awarded in three categories. “Roadside Recreational” is applicable for bicycles including projects that provide for the acquisition and/or development of roadside recreational opportunities such as trails.

Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982: Allows any county, city, special district, school district, or joint powers authority to establish a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD), which allows for financing of public improvements and services when no other source of money is available. This is an enormously flexible tool placed at the disposal of local governmental agencies within the State to help them finance needed community facilities and services through the levy of voter approved special taxes.

Community-Based Transportation Planning (CBTP) Grant Program: Provides funding for planning projects statewide that support livable communities, coordinate land use and transportation planning, and involve the community. Caltrans awards approximately $1.5 million in projects that address concepts such as improved mobility and transportation choices for a wider range of users, increased transit- oriented/ mixed use development, and/ or enhanced community/ economic development.

Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants: Provides bicycle and pedestrian grants to assist local agencies with safety and educational programs, including bicycle rodeos and bicycle helmet distribution programs. Grants are based on a statewide competitive basis, and not available for construction of bikeway facilities.

Performance Measures

The RTP Guidelines identify the requirements for “performance-based” planning. Performance measure requirements identify the criteria that should be applied to evaluate performance of the transportation system and identify the overall objective of the analysis. The following bike and pedestrian performance measures have been developed to enable HCAOG and member organizations to prioritize bicycle and pedestrian and projects for purposes of the RTP. Table BP8 includes performance measures identified to implement bicycle and pedestrian policies.

BP8 Non-Motorized Performance Measures

Performance Measure	Indicator(s)	Data Source(s)
Reduce accident rates and number of incidents at intersections with the roadway system and the non-motorized transportation system	Maintain accidents at roadway intersections with bike-lanes/routes or pedestrian crosswalks at statewide average or better based on number of accidents per million vehicle miles.	Accident statistics collected by Caltrans District 1 Safety Division; Accident reports from California Highway Patrol; and local agency accident reports.
	Implement traffic safety improvement projects addressing non-motorized transportation system accidents from prioritized list of safety enhancement projects.
Increase bicycle ridership for commuting and recreation	Implement bicycle facility improvements/projects that improve connectivity, safety, and desirability.	Bicycle system surveys to assess bicycle mobility
Increase pedestrian travel for commuting and education	Reduce pedestrian travel impediments, in particular to the mobility-impaired, by implementing pedestrian facility improvements/projects	Sidewalk and user surveys to assess pedestrian mobility

Accomplishments Since the 2006 RTP

Arcata

· Installed sharrows on the following streets: 11^th Street corridor from Janes Road to Shirley Boulevard, 14^th Street from K Street to Union Street, Buttermilk Lane from Samoa Boulevard to eastern City Limits, and K Street from 4^th to 11^th Streets.

Blue Lake

· Completed the Broad Street walkway improvements and the B Street walkway improvements.

Eureka

· Completed Class II bikeway on 7th street from J Street to Myrtle Avenue.

· Enhanced Class III bikeway on Waterfront/ First Street from L Street to Commercial, the Pacific Coast Bike Route was also signed through this area.

· The Pacific Coast Bike Route was relocated to northbound Broadway to Wabash, west on Wabash to Railroad Ave, north on Railroad Ave./Waterfront Drive to “C” Street, continue east on First Street to “H” Street, south on “H” Street to Second Street, east on Second Street to “L” Street, north on “L” Street to Waterfront Drive, east on Waterfront Drive to “T” Street, south on “T” Street to First Street, east on First Street to “V” Street, south on “V” Street to Fourth and Fifth Street (Hwy 101).

· In the fall of 2007, the city completed the installation of pedestrian improvements at the intersections of West Avenue at Tydd Street (near Silvercrest), S Street near Zane Middle School, and W Street at Russell Street (near Sequoia Zoo). Crosswalk warning light systems were installed, as a pilot program, at these three locations to enhance driver awareness and improve pedestrian safety. System components include advance warning signs, overhead beacons, audible messages, and lights installed in the roadway surface along the crosswalk, all of which are activated by pedestrians with the push of a button.

Fortuna

· Installed ADA Compliant Curb Ramps on various street corners on Newberg Road, Wood Street, Toddy Thomas School entrance, and 10^th Street.

HCAOG

· Eureka Arcata Trail Feasibility Study

Humboldt County

· Completed Class II bikeways on Sutter Road from Central Avenue to Azalea Avenue, on McKinleyville Avenue from Washington Street to School Road, and on Walnut Drive from Hemlock Street to Ridgewood Drive.

· Completed Class III bikeways on Herrick Road from US 101 to Fairway Drive, on Hiller Road from Ocean Avenue to Central Avenue, and on Rohnerville Road from Hydesville to Fortuna City Limit.

· Hammond Trail extension – Murray to Letz dual trail.

· Hammond Trail – Fisher Road / School to Montana.

· Installed sidewalks on McKinleyville Avenue-Washington Avenue to Murray Road.

· Installed sidewalks on Walnut Drive-Cypress Street to Fern Street.

· Installed sidewalks on Sutter Road-Central to Camilla.

Rio Dell

· Constructed ADA Compliant Curb Ramps; updated curb ramps to meet ADA guidelines on Wildwood between Belleview and Side Street.

· Repav