HomeMy WebLinkAboutChap2_Intro
This multi-use trail and bikeway master plan is intended to guide trail and bicycle facility planning for the City of Temecula. The process included evaluating existing and proposed
trail routes and on-street bicycle facilities using conventional field techniques, computerized geographic information systems analysis, community meetings and both mail-in and Web-based
survey questionnaires. The plan recommends revisions to existing facilities, construction of new facilities and an implementation program. The plan also includes general and specific
design and engineering guidelines for the development of these facilities. use, general plan, specific plan, flood plain, ownership and liability considerations. These considerations
also included the preliminary costs of construction and maintenance. Other considerations were land ownership, availability and rights-of-way. The study also addressed the potential
impacts of the proposed trail system as it relates to environmental considerations. 2.1.2 Needs Analysis The master plan process evaluated the community’s need for a city-wide multi-use
trail system. The community’s needs analysis included workshops, survey questionnaires and evaluation of potential for connectivity to planned County and regional trail systems. 2.1.3
Trail Development The master plan process considered the level of improvements and projected maintenance costs, costs of land acquisition, connectivity to existing and future Class 2
bike lanes, risk management and public safety issues. 2.1.4 Development of Design Standard The master plan process developed details and specifications for trail construction including
trail cross-sections, drainage, site furnishings and signage. The study also included maximum grades and materials specifications for items such as trail surfaces, fencing and drainage.
2.1.5 Preparation of Maps, Plans, Exhibits and Conceptual Designs The master plan process included presentations at Trails Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings, community meetings, the
Community Services Commission and the City Council. A detailed map of the City trail system and illustrative sections, elevations and photographs were produced to depict the plan elements.
2.2 Project Study Area The project study area was specifically within the City of Temecula. The adjacent community of Murrieta was analyzed where proposed adjoining Chapter Two INTRODUCTION
Trails have been a part of the Temecula area for decades. This sign dates from the Rancho California era and lists destinations that appeared on 1970-era sales brochures. 2.1 Project
Scope The primary purpose of this master plan is to identify future multi-use trails and bikeways in the City of Temecula, including acquisition, construction and maintenance costs,
design standards and funding sources. The specific study tasks from the City’s project scope were as follows: 2.1.1 Site Analysis and Environmental Impacts The master plan process explored
all the opportunities and constraints of the proposed trail and trail-related facilities, including topography, l
andIntroduction City of Temecula Page 2-2 Chapter 2 P R O J E C T L O C A T I O N City of T emecula Multi-use T rails and Bik eways Master Plan Figure 2-1 805 Newport Beach ORANGE COUNTY
Escondido Temecula Murrieta Oceanside San Clemente SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LOS ANGELES COUNTY Los Angeles MEXICO Pacific Ocean 91 60 15 215 10 60 10 62 15 5 15 78 5 8 405 RIVERSIDE COUNTY
SAN DIEGO COUNTY San Diego
Chapter 2 Page 2-3 Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan trail systems indicated opportunities for connections with Temecula’s trail system, as well as proposed trails in adjacent
unincorporated areas of Riverside County. (See Figure 2-1, Project Location.) 2.3 Methodology The project methodology included a literature review of applicable documents, aerial photography
analysis, field work, a mail-in and Web-based survey questionnaire, community workshops and geographic information systems (GIS) analysis of the field work data. Temecula’s existing
trails and bikeways were analyzed for a number of factors using both traditional field survey and GIS techniques. 2.3.1 Literature Review A literature review was conducted of applicable
excerpts from documents relevant to this multiuse trails and bikeway master plan. These documents were from the City of Temecula, the City of Murrieta, the County of Riverside, and a
variety of specialized trails and bicycling publications. (See bibliography in Appendix A) In addition, the gathering of data for the project GIS data base could be considered part of
the traditional literature review. Data were acquired from the County of Riverside and the City of Temecula. (See Chapter 3, Background Information.) 2.3.2 Field Work All trails segments
and all roadway segments with an existing bicycle facility were personally inventoried at least once by the project team, either on foot or by bike. The consultant team’s philosophy
is that a trail user or cyclist’s perspective is important to understanding the condition of the trail and bikeway systems in Temecula. Roadway segments were examined for the presence
or absence of bicycle facilities, posted speed limits, number of travel lanes, estimated outside lane widths, and the presence of specific paving and roadway conditions that could adversely
affect cycling, such as rough paving or steep grades. Roadways were divided into segments at points where sufficient variation occurred in roadway configuration to warrant regarding
a segment as different from adjoining segments. Such variations included changes in the number of lanes, posted speed limits, roadway widths, or presence or absence of bicycle facilities.
Potential trail routes were initially examined on a general level due to the varied nature of the existing trails, often with little more detail than presence or absence of a trail.
In some cases, routes were reviewed that do not currently support trails, but were evaluated to determine whether they could logically function as new trail routes or extensions of existing
ones. The sheer quantity of potentially available trail routes in Temecula makes it likely that full construction of trails from the “ground up” will not be required except in specific
locations where connectivity would be enhanced by such construction. Existing dirt roads and “unofficial” trails can be designated as trails to form the backbone of a comprehensive City
system. Dirt roads exist throughout the City, usually assoicated with public utility easements.
Introduction City of Temecula Page 2-4 Chapter 2 The evaluation of potential trail routes began by examining the creek corridors that run along Temecula’s northern, western and southern
boundaries to determine whether a loop could be developed using these corridors. At least one of the utility easements running north and south through the central area of the city, or
portions of more than one, may be needed to complete the desired primary Citywide loop. A significant portion of Santa Gertrudis Creek, which forms the northern portion of the primary
loop, already has a developed asphalt trail running along its southern bank. Other more localized routes throughout Temecula that could connect with the primary loop were then sought
out and evaluated. Many more routes than would be needed were reviewed, but many were subsequently dropped due to right-of-way problems, excessive roadway crossings or the availability
of nearby superior routes making some routes redundant. Some routes were chosen for evaluation by reviewing the Open Space Element of the General Plan, citizen input via questionnaires
and community meetings, examination of aerial photographs and field work. In some cases, it was determined that proposed routes did not actually exist once field work revealed their
location fell within private golf courses. Other proposed routes were discovered to be so steep that they would require excessive grading to make them accessible and other available
parallel routes were far more feasible. 2.3.3 Survey Questionnaire A survey questionnaire was developed specifically for this study with the assistance of City staff and the members
of the Trails Advisory Committee. It was distributed via a City newsletter to every resident of the City of Temecula and was made available on the City of Temecula’s web site. The questionnaire
was a single sheet with informational and attitudinal questions on the front and a map of current trails and bikeways on the reverse side. This map included instructions to the respondent
to indicate which routes they used most frequently, where they would like to see new routes, which routes they did not use and why. The Webbased questionnaire was identical to the mailed
questionnaire except the requested map comments were confined to what the respondent could describe in words. (See Section 6.2, Questionnaire Results and Analysis.) 2.3.4 Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) An industry textbook describes GIS as: “An organized collection of computer hardware, software, geographic data and personnel designed to efficiently capture,
store, update, manipulate, analyze and display all forms of geographically referenced information.” While this definition is technically accurate, it is rather cryptic for the layperson.
Basically, a GIS is a computerized map with various types of associated information attached to specific places on the map. Using a computer system configured for the purpose, a user
can query the GIS about the place in question and selectively call up its associated information. A GIS is much more than just a computer system for making maps. It is an analytical
tool that allows the user to identify spatial relationships between map features. A GIS does not store a map in the conventional sense, but it can be used to store a particular image
or view of a geographic area, such as an aerial or satellite photograph, as an aid in visualizing the physical context of the project area. Instead of a conventional mapping program,
a GIS stores the data from which a user can draw a desired view to suit a particular purpose. (Many of the maps in this master plan were generated from a single data base compiled specifically
for this project.) With a computer system capable of holding and using data describing specific features on a map, a user can overlay a number of related data layers to represent the
many interrelated
Chapter 2 Page 2-5 Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan characteristics of the feature in question. The real value of GIS is its ability to overlay information from multiple sources
over a map feature, often revealing relationships that would not otherwise have been noticeable. Several data sources were used to contribute to the GIS data base for this project. Land
use data was acquired from Riverside County, and roads and trails from the City of Temecula. 2.4 Project Background and Goals 2.4.1 Project Background The City of Temecula surveyed its
residents in 1991 to determine their desires in the way of City services and to set priorities. Residents expressed strong interest in a well-defined trail system that would serve several
functions: • Access key destinations within the City and region • Serve as both recreation and transportation routes • Connect neighborhoods to parks, schools, employment and commercial
areas • Form loops that follow creeks and utility easements wherever feasible 2.4.2 Project Goal With the 1991 survey and strong community support, the City contracted with the planning
and landscape architecture firm of Kawasaki Theilacker Ueno + Associates (KTU+A) to develop a Multi-Use Non-Motorized Trail Master Plan. A bikeways element was added after the initial
planning effort was underway. With the 1991 survey results in mind, the consultants worked with City officials and a Trails Advisory Committee to develop the following primary project
goal, based on the desired functions noted above: “An interconnected system of pathways and bike routes is needed to support a variety of recreational uses and non-motorized transportation
requirements for Temecula residents.” “This system should be community-wide and should connect a variety of community and regional destinations (such as schools, parks and other areas
of interest) and should utilize open space corridors, flood control channels, utility easements, publicly owned lands and roadways most appropriate for non-motorized uses.” “Trails and
bike routes should be provided to improve the quality of life for residents of Temecula, offer transportation alternatives, accommodate recreational enjoyment and increase the value
and connectiveness of the community.” 2.4.3 Project Approach The overall approach for this master plan was developed by the project team, City staff, the Trails Advisory Committee (TAC)
and community workshop participants. The approaches listed below support the planning goals for this study. The specific approaches include: • The trail and bicycle master plan should
be integrated into all transportation plans, especially if the proposed bicycle facilities will use general purpose roads shared with other forms of transportation. The planning efforts
should include the integration of various modes of transportation including transfers between modes at transit centers and park and ride facilities, where applicable. • The aim of planning
for non-motorized multiuse trails should not be focused on any particular facility type so much as it should be focused on their safe, efficient and pleasant travel. This will generally
require both the use of the existing transportation infrastructure and the construction of special facilities for non-motorized multiuse trail users. • The maintenance of multi-use trails
and bicycle facilities and the monitoring and assessment of their performance are critical for ensuring safe, efficient and pleasant travel for all users. Planning for non-motorized
multi-use trail and bikeway users is an ongoing process.
Introduction City of Temecula Page 2-6 Chapter 2 • The coexistence of cyclists and drivers on roads requires that both are sensitive to and recognize a common set of rules. Training,
education and enforcement are as important as physical planning and design. • It is imperative that a “non-motorized, multiuse perspective” guide any planning for pedestrians, cyclists,
equestrians and skaters. People on foot, on bicycles, on horseback and on skates have their own characteristics, constraints and opportunities that planners must consider. This must
be combined with the recognition that non-motorized multi-use trail and bikeway users do not form a homogeneous group in terms of age, ability, experience or traffic judgment. • An integration
of land use planning and transportation planning is needed in order to support future projects that are not intensively dependent on the automobile. This study needs to take into account
future land use and population projections and provide non-motorized multi-use trails and bikeway facilities to help decrease auto dependence. • Though it is still uncommon for municipalities
to conduct non-motorized, multi-use trails and bikeways facilities planning efforts concurrently, this master plan considers the needs of all nonmotorized user groups, including pedestrians,
cyclists, equestrians and skaters. This plan strives to ensure that appropriate levels of facilities are provided for all non-motorized multi-use trail and bikeway users. Trails and
bikeway facilities must be designed to reflect a wide variety of user experience and abilities. 2.4.4 Expected Trail and Bikeway Users From past similar projects and extensive personal
trail and bikeway experience, the consultant team has developed a compilation of the user types likely to use proposed trails and bikeways. (See Figures 2-2 and 2-3, Trail User Types
and Bikeway User Types.) The primary differences between the user groups portrayed on the two graphics are that serious road cyclists and small-wheeled users such as skaters are not
not likely to use unpaved trails and that the only user group not likely to use paved bikeways is equestrians. The similarities between the user categories in the two graphics is more
striking than the differences. The primary similarity is that several categories of cyclists are found on both facilities. This is due primarily to the fairly recent prevalence of mountain
bikes and similar wide-tired hybrid bicycles with greater off-road capabilities that account for the vast majority of current bicycle sales. Until these bikes became widely available,
few cyclists would venture onto trails. Finally, note that other user types can and will use almost any facility, whether it is designated a “trail” or a “bikeway.”
Chapter 2 Page 2-7 Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Family Commuters Recreational Serious Cyclists Kids Typical Ages Preferred Facility Typical Usage Days per Week 6-16 6-65+
18-55 18-55+ Early weekday mornings and afternoons, weekends 5-6 1 4-6 2-5 Quiet streets, scenic trails, flat terrain (Class I) Sidewalks, trails, quiet streets, flat terrain (Class
I) Streets, bike lanes, direct arterial routes (Class II & III) Arterials, flat or hilly circuitous routes (Class II & III) Speed Range 4-8 mph 5-10 mph 10-20 mph 12-25 mph Weekends,
occasional early evenings Average Distance 1-2 miles 2-4 miles 3-20 miles 20-75 miles Early weekday mornings and late afternoons Weekday mornings and late afternoons, weekends Joggers
Equestrians Recreational Walkers 16-70+ 18-55 16-70+ 1-2 3-6 2-5 Unpaved trails, dirt roads, flat terrain Sidewalks, scenic trails, flat terrain (Class I) Sidewalks, Scenic trails, flat
terrain (Class I) 5-10 mph 5-9 mph 3-5 mph Weekends, occasional early evenings 2-5 miles 3-5 miles 1-2 miles Early weekday mornings and late afternoons, weekends Weekday mornings and
late afternoons, weekends Adult Exercise 25-65+ 1-2 Quiet streets, scenic trails, flat terrain (Class I & II) 8-15 mph Weekends, occasional early evenings 5-20 miles Exercise Walkers
16-70+ 2-5 Sidewalks, scenic trails, flat terrain (Class I) 4-7 mph 2-4 miles Weekday mornings and late afternoons, weekends Typical Origins and Destinations Residences, schools, parks,
open space, retail centers Residences, parks, open space Residences, parks, open space Residences, employment centers, retail centers Residences (Rides typically originate or extend
outside city) Residences, parks, open space Residences, parks, open space Residences, parks, retail centers Residences, parks, open space T R A I L U S E R T Y P E S City of T emecula
Multi-use T rails and Bik eways Master Plan Figure 2-2
Introduction City of Temecula Page 2-8 Chapter 2 Family Commuters Recreational Serious Cyclists Kids Typical Ages Preferred Facility Typical Usage Days per Week 6-16 6-65+ 18-55 18-55+
Early weekday mornings and afternoons, weekends 5-6 1 4-6 2-5 Quiet streets, scenic trails, flat terrain (Class I) Sidewalks, trails, quiet streets, flat terrain (Class I) Streets, bike
lanes, direct arterial routes (Class II & III) Arterials, flat or hilly circuitous routes (Class II & III) Speed Range 4-8 mph 5-10 mph 10-20 mph 12-25 mph Weekends, occasional early
evenings Average Distance 1-2 miles 2-4 miles 3-20 miles 20-75 miles Early weekday mornings and late afternoons Weekday mornings and late afternoons, weekends Skaters Joggers Skateboarders
Recreational Walkers 8-45 18-55 16-70+ 1-2 3-6 2-5 Quiet streets, paved trails, flat terrain, (Class I) Sidewalks, scenic trails, flat terrain (Class I) Sidewalks, Scenic trails, flat
terrain (Class I) 5-15 mph 5-9 mph 3-5 mph Weekends, occasional early evenings 2-5 miles 3-5 miles 1-2 miles Early weekday mornings and late afternoons, weekends Weekday mornings and
late afternoons, weekends Adult Exercise 25-65+ 1-2 Quiet streets, scenic trails, flat terrain (Class I & II) 8-15 mph Weekends, occasional early evenings 5-20 miles Exercise Walkers
16-70+ 2-5 Sidewalks, scenic trails, flat terrain (Class I) 4-7 mph 2-4 miles Weekday mornings and late afternoons, weekends Typical Origins and Destinations Residences, schools, parks,
open space, retail centers Residences, parks, open space Residences, parks, open space Residences, employment centers, retail centers Residences (Rides typically originate or extend
outside city) Residences, schools, parks Residences, parks, open space Residences, parks, retail centers Residences, parks, open space B I K E W AY U S E R T Y P E S City of T emecula
Multi-use T rails and Bik eways Master Plan Figure 2-3
Chapter 2 Page 2-9 Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan 2.5 Project Definitions The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) standard for referring to designated bikeway
facility types is used throughout this document. Standardized designation is required for consideration for Caltrans-administered bikeway funding. However, many of the proposed routes
in this master plan are not intended to receive Caltrans bikeway designation since they would be unpaved trails intended primarily for recreational use and are referred to as non-motorized
multiuse trails. General definitions are given below. (See Figures 2-4 to 2-7, Trail and Bikeway Types) • Non-Motorized, Multi-Use Trail (Trail) – Route separated from roadways primarily
for pedestrian, bicycle, equestrian and other non-motorized uses. Trails are generally unpaved, but may vary widely in width and configuration, depending upon expected types and numbers
of users, local topography and design intent, including adjacent parallel paved and unpaved unpaved segments. Throughout this study, these non-motorized, multi-use routes are referred
to simply as “trails.” Note that some agencies and municipalities may refer to paved routes as trails, whether or not they meet Caltrans Class 1 bikeway requirements. For example, the
City of Murrieta employs such a designation for its onstreet routes, calling them “roadway trails.” (See Figures 2-4 and 2-5, Illustrations M1 to M4, Trail Types) • Class 1 Bicycle Facility
(Bike Path) -Caltransspecified, non-motorized route physically separated from vehicular roadways with a minimum width of 12 feet, of which eight feet is paved and two feet is graded
on each side. Specific horizontal and vertical clearances also apply. Generally restricts equestrian use, but specific situations vary, especially where the graded side paths can be
widened sufficiently. Allows other uses, but may require a wider cross section if multiple uses are accommodated or if higher volumes are expected. (See Figures 2-6, Illustration B1,
Bikeway Types) • Class 2 Bicycle Facility (Bike Lane) -Caltransspecified, on-street bicycle lane designated by striping and signage with a minimum width of five feet from face of curb
or roadway edge where parking occurs and four feet where parking does not occur. (See Figures 2-6, Illustration B2, Bikeway Types) • Class 3 Bicycle Facility (Bike Route) -Caltransspecified,
on-street bicycle route designated by signage only. Usually installed on roadways with low traffic volumes and low posted speed where additional bikeway facility development is not needed
or where a bikeway facility is desirable, but Class 2 standards can not be met. (See Figures 2-6, Illustration B3, Bikeway Types)
Introduction City of Temecula Page 2-10 Chapter 2 M2 M1 Dual Path Multi-Use Trail Hiking Trail or Bridle Path T R A I L T Y P E S City of T emecula Multi-use T rails and Bik eways Master
Plan Figure 2-4 Post & Rail or Post & Cable Fence (where appropriate) 2’ 8’ Rip Rap or Slope 4’ Adjacent Side path: Compacted or Polymer-stabilized Soil Outer Edge: Compacted Soil or
DG Primary Surface: Concrete, Asphalt or Polymer-stabilized Soil Note: Skates and other small-wheeled uses not advised unless surface is concrete or asphalt Width varies 1’ (up to 6’)
1’ Rip Rap or Slope Outer Edge: Compacted Soil or DG Outer Edge: Compacted Soil or DG Primary Surface: Polymer-stabilized or Compacted Soil (Post & Rail or Post & Cable Fence where appropriate)
Not to scale
Chapter 2 Page 2-11 Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan M4 Separated Path Multi-Use Trail M3 Dual Path Multi-Use Access Road T R A I L T Y P E S City of T emecula Multi-use T rails
and Bik eways Master Plan Figure 2-5 8’ Primary Surface: Concrete or Asphalt Adjacent Side Path: Compacted or Polymer-stabilized Soil 8’ Post & Rail Fence 1’ Rip Rap or Slope 2’ Primary
Surface: (Compacted DG, Polymer-stabilized Soil, Concrete or Asphalt) Outer Edge: Compacted DG (6’ or 12’ Chain Link Fence where appropriate) 4’ Adjacent Side Path: Polymer-stabilized
Soil 10’ (8’ if service/emergency vehicle access not required) Note: Skates and other small-wheeled uses not advised unless surface is concrete or asphalt Not to scale
Introduction City of Temecula Page 2-12 Chapter 2 B1 B2 B3 B I K E W AY T Y P E S City of T emecula Multi-use T rails and Bik eways Master Plan Figure 2-6 Class 3 (Bike Route) 14’ Shared
Lane Minimum • 5’ total width where curb occurs • Wider bike lane recommended for high bike volumes or if adjacent to on-street parking Bike lane symbols and 4-6” striping on road surface
Existing Sidewalk 1’ 4’ Bike Lane Existing Road Curb/Gutter Class 2 (Bike Lane) • May be similar to Trail Type M4 depending on expected users • Wider lanes recommended for high bike
volumes or high levels of mixed use 2’ 8’ Primary Surface: Concrete Outer Edge: Compacted Soil 2’ Outer Edge: Compacted Soil Class I (Bike Path) Not to scale
Chapter 2 Page 2-13 Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan B R I D G E T R A I L T Y P E S City of T emecula Multi-use T rails and Bik eways Master Plan Figure 2-7 • 20’ Dedication
Bridge/Trail: Full Accommodation 4’ Sidewalk 4’ Bike Lane Motor Vehicle Lanes (2-6 Lanes) 8’ Pedestrian/Equestrian Path 4’ Bike Lane B/T1 • 12’ Dedicaton Bridge/Trail: Minimum Accommodation
4’ Bike Lane Motor Vehicle Lanes (2-6 Lanes) 4’ Bike Lane 4’ Sidewalk B/T2 • 16’ Dedicaton Bridge/Trail: Split Accommodation 4’ Bike Lane Motor Vehicle Lanes (2-6 Lanes) 12’ Pedestrian/Bike
/Equestrian PathB/T3 Not to scale