Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutChap7_Recommendations Based on the previous chapters of this master plan, this chapter describes the general trail and bikeway system improvements recommended for the City of Temecula. The following recommendations are intended to take advantage of trail opportunities, programmed roadways and bicycle facilities to resolve users’ concerns for connectivity and safety. The City of Temecula has an almost complete system of Class 2 bikeways along its major roadways, and plans to install Class 2 facilities on the as-yet unbuilt roadways as well. Implementation of the programmed major roadways will provide greater choice in Class 2 routes within Temecula. Full implementation of the programmed Class 2 facilities would provide a relatively complete Class 2 system. However, public meeting comments concerning loss of Class 2 facilities were common. In addition, Temecula has only the beginnings of a comparable trail system. In subsequent sections, recommendations are made for all trails and on-street bikeway types. Short, but important, gaps in the bikeway system now occur, especially across I-15 where few crossings occur and where they do occur, they are on bridges with high motor vehicle traffic volumes with a high number of turning movements. On the approaches to the bridges over I-15 and the creeks, the Class 2 lane striping often simply disappears, the roadway narrows going over the bridge and the bike lane then reappears on the far side of the bridges. An example of such a gap is the Rancho California Road crossing over I-15. (See Figure 7-5, Proposed On-Street Bikeways.) However, simply widening the bridge would not make this a safe route for cyclists. The conditions that make this an unpleasant and even unsafe bike route are the volume and speed of motor vehicle traffic and the number of lanes and turning movements. Chapter Seven RECOMMENDATIONS Temecula currently has just a few Class 1 type facilities, but the potential exists for creating a Class 1 trail system throughout the City, along with an unpaved system for which official Caltrans designation would not be sought. Temecula already has an extensive Class 2 system on its streets and a still substantial amount of open land, but few Class 1 routes or designated trails. For this reason, many of the proposed bikeway facilities are Class 1 type routes along with a proportional number of unpaved trails, often with paved facilities in conjunction with unpaved facilities. The unpaved multi-use trails are not intended to have Caltrans Class 1 designation. Note that this master plan combines Class 1 bikeways with other trail types and shows them together on Figure 7-1, Proposed Trail System. All on-street bike facilities are shown on Figure 7-5, Proposed On-Street Bikeways. This separation is a logical distinction between the facility types since it divides on-street and off-street facility types. Unless there are overriding circumstances, it is generally inadvisable to designate specific trails as either equestrian, bicycle or pedestrian facilities since consistent enforcement is virtually impossible. Referring to all trails as “multi-use” facilities will probably be sufficient to advise users that they should expect different types of users. This should be the norm so that the City-wide system will be as consistent as possible for the benefit of all potential users. Where paved and unpaved trails are necessary within the same alignment, they can be installed adjacent to each other. Unless congestion reaches unacceptable levels, mixed-use trails generally function quite well and developing a single trail system is far more economical in terms of capital costs and land than a series of parallel trails. However, some community workshop attendees did prefer separate facilities, primarily the separation of bicycles from other user types, especially equestrians. If this develops as a high priority, such separated trails should be provided where feasible. It should be noted that some equestrian users felt that mixed use trails were acceptable. Recommendations City of Temecula Page 7-2 Chapter 7 7.1 Phasing Issues Like many Southern California cities, Temecula is growing rapidly, and as in other cities, this rapid growth poses a very real threat to implementing a functional trail system. As new developments are built, land once traversed by hikers, equestrians and cyclists on undesignated trails often becomes inaccessible, except in some cases, to the homeowners of the new developments. However, the City can help to stem this tide of trail loss by conditioning developments to provide trail segments that connect to the overall system. This will improve non-motorized access for all and improve Temecula’s already enviable reputation for its quality of life. Surveys and public meetings conducted during this study consistently noted the residents’ desires for a viable trail system as part of the Temecula lifestyle and this is consistent with the General Plan. Trail construction has been a priority for the City from its inception and is codified in the City’s General Plan. Trail phasing should be determined by those segments needed to attain the City’s primary goal of a loop system first, especially along the creeks. The first segments should be those along Murrieta Creek where funding is most readily available and the Army Corps of Engineers has proposed recreational trails on both sides for the full length of the creek within the City of Temecula. The remaining secondary trails may be implemented later, but in any case, the number of dirt roads and unofficial, undesignated trails currently available and in use should mean that some segments need only be designated and signed, requiring little capital outlay. These segments should be prioritized for implementation as a way to get as much of the proposed system “on the ground” as possible. Even the dirt road segments that are planned to be paved can be designated as trails in the short term until they can be paved. If the City applies this strategy, continued strong public support for a City-wide trail system is likely to endure. Many on-street connectivity issues will be resolved when all the programmed street additions, extensions and freeway crossings are implemented and their associated planned Class 2 facilities are in place. However, the time frame for this completion is currently unknown. The phasing criteria should include the planned date of roadway construction, cost of right-of-way acquisition, current and projected bicycling demand, the type of bikeway user expected and environmental considerations. Typical multi-use trail signage is designed to prevent user conflicts by keeping all users informed of the rules and the other types of users they may encounter. Chapter 7 Page 7-3 Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan 7.2 Proposed Multi-Use Trail Facilities The following sections describe in detail the trail system components shown on Figure 7-1, Proposed Trail System. This trails and bikeways master plan calls for a balance of paved and unpaved trail facilities that are discussed separately from on-street bikeway facilities in later sections. Note that Class 1 bike paths are contained in this section under trail facilities since they are not onstreet bikeway facilities. Wherever possible, it is recommended that paved trails be constructed to Caltrans Class 1 specifications to maintain a clear and uniform standard recognizable to all users and to take advantage of potential bikeway funding sources. Many of the paved and unpaved facilities proposed for routes in this trail and bikeway master plan have been sited to take advantage of existing well established dirt roads throughout the City, especially along the creeks and public utility easements. Routes left unpaved can not be designated as Class 1 bicycle facilities, but they are intended to be informal routes for all types of trail users, not just cyclists. Figure 7-2, Proposed Trail Surface Types, was developed to illustrate the extent of the types of surfaces the proposed trail system would have, since this affects the types of users that can safely use them. It has always been a study goal to provide facilities for all user types, including as much of a loop system as possible. To further delineate the various surface types, Figure 7-3, Activity Focus Maps, singles out the trail systems that would be available to three distinct different user groups based on their inherent mobility on certain trail surface type. The individual activity focus maps are described in the following sections. These examples of existing dirt roads illustrate the relative abundance of multi-use trail routes potentially available along public utility easements within Temecula. Recommendations City of Temecula Page 7-4 Chapter 7 Promenade Mall Old Town Temecula Valley High School CRC/Sports Park Chaparral High School City of Murrieta De Portola Road Santiago Road JedediahSmith Road RanchoVista Road Meadows Parkway Pauba Road Margarita Road ButterfieldStageRoad Ynez Road SolanaWay La SerenaWay 79 15 15 79 Nicolas RoadNicolas Road Winchester RoadWinchester Road Jefferson Avenue Diaz RoadDiaz Road Rancho California RoadRancho Road Walcott LaneWalcott Lane Pala RoadPala Road Existing Trails Proposed Trails Out of Jurisdiction 1 Mile N P R O P O S E D T R A I L S Y S T E M City of T emecula Multi-use T rails and Bik eways Master Plan Figure 7-1 *Does not include on-street bicycle facilities. Chapter 7 Page 7-5 Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan • Skates (Hard Surface Off-Street) Skaters are legally limited to hard surface routes off streets, such as sidewalks and Class 1 bike paths and their small wheels make off road use impractical. This system would at least provide a large loop around the city as well as smaller loops in the southwest quadrant on hard surfaces. In addition, existing sidewalks would provide connections between other portions of the system, allowing more loop trips. • Equestrian/Running/Hiking (Soft Surface) Equestrians, runners and hikers would be accommodated with substantially more routes, as shown in the graphic, because they can access soft surfaces. While runners and hikers can use virtually all of any proposed system, equestrians are not likely to want to use paved routes. A gap in the soft surfaced system created by an existing paved trail along a significant portion of the northern leg of the primary loop around the City along Santa Gertrudis Creek prevents equestrians from using that segment. However, there would be a number of other routes available, especially if more of the public utility easements become available for equestrian use. • Bikes (Hard Surface On-and Off-Street) As shown in the graphic, cyclists would have the greatest choice of available routes since they would have access to on-street bikeways and hard surface trails. In addition, owners of wide-tired mountain and hybrid bikes would be able to use all soft surface trails as well, essentially allowing them to use all available non-motorized facilities throughout the City. 7.2.1 Creek Trail Systems The creek corridors are ideal alignments to form the backbone of a comprehensive recreational trail system that could also provide more direct bicycle transportation access than is now possible around Temecula. The negligible grades that occur along the creeks create conditions conducive for commuting and recreational cycling, walking and horseback riding. Along Santa Gertrudis Creek, an existing paved paved trail lends itself to extension at either end as a continuous paved route. Along Murrieta Creek, improvements proposed by other agencies include paved and unpaved routes along its entire length through Temecula extending up into the City of Murrieta. (See the US Army Corps of Engineers and Riverside County Flood Control District’s Murrieta Creek Environmental Restoration and Recreation Final Feasibility Study.) Murrieta Creek Trail An unpaved trail along at least one side of Murrieta Creek is recommended. It should be the highest priority trail project since it is the most visible and can serve as a case study for the rest of the system. From Old Town, the trail system can connect with the rest of the City’s system as well as the City of Murrieta’s trail system. To further illustrate the possibilities of a trail system along Murrieta Creek, a very detailed field analysis was conducted of this area to seek out any potential resources that could be incorporated into a trail system. This area was chosen because of its potential for development as the heart of Temecula’s future trail system, taking advantage of its historical significance and proximity to Old Town, wildlife habitat, available right-ofway and potential for revegetation and environmental restoration based on Corps of Engineers plans. (See Figure 7-4, Murrieta Creek Conditions.) The graphic is an example of the level of analysis and potential development possible in later advanced stages of trail planning for specific sections, perhaps as funding for such projects becomes available. Recommendations City of Temecula Page 7-6 Chapter 7 1 Mile N Figure 7-2 P R O P O S E D T R A I L S U R FAC E T Y P E S City of T emecula Multi-use T rails and Bik eways Master Plan Promenade Mall Old Town Temecula Valley High School CRC/Sports Park Chaparral High School EXISTING TRAILS Combination Hard/Soft Multi-Use Trails Hard Surface Cycling and Walking Trail Soft Surface Hiking and Equestrian Trail PROPOSED TRAILS Combination Hard/Soft Multi-Use Trails Hard Surface Cycling and Walking Trail Soft Surface Hiking and Equestrian Trail Out of Jurisdiction Trail Type M2, M3 B1, M4 M1 M2, M3 B1, M4 M1 Chapter 7 Page 7-7 Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Figure 7-3 A C T I V I T Y F O C U S M A P S City of T emecula Multi-use T rails and Bik eways Master Plan CYCLING (Hard Surface On-and Off-Street) EQUESTRIAN/RUNNING/HIKING (Soft Surface) SKATING (Hard Surface Off-Street) INTERPRETIVE (Major Tourist Trails) Recommendations City of Temecula Page 7-8 Chapter 7 Pechanga Indian Reservation portion of Pechanga Creek A significant portion of Pechanga Creek lies within the Pechanga Indian Reservation. Native American tribal groups commonly do not actively participate in plans proposed by other jurisdictions. However, in this case, the Luiseño may regard a connection between their facility and an overall non-motorized regional trail system as advantageous for them and the surrounding community. Though it is doubtful the casino itself would draw many patrons directly from the trail system, the RV park guests may well use the trails for recreation. More importantly, trail users coming from the surrounding area may regard the reservation as the southeast terminus of the system within the Temecula area and would welcome amenities such as food service outlets and rest stops. In additions, one of the purposes of the proposed trail system is to help users become aware of the historical events that occurred in the Temecula Valley with interpretive signage or markers. Significant events in local history occurred along the creeks, including Luiseño history. This could be an opportunity to make more people aware of these events and to help tr ail users understand their significance in the context of today’s Temecula Valley. 7.3 Paved Off-Street Trails (Class 1 Bikeway Facilities) Class 1 bikeways (often called bike paths) are facilities with exclusive right-of-way for bicycles and pedestrians with cross flows by motor vehicles kept to a minimum. They are physically separated from motor vehicle routes. For this combined trails and bikeways master plan, Class 1 routes are included as components of the trails facilities, assuming they are constructed to Caltrans standards. (See Figure 7-1, Proposed Trail System.) Essentially, the routes shown on the Proposed Trails Facilities map as paved are considered to be Class 1 routes. To be designated as Class 1 routes, the trails would be paved paths designed to satisfy Caltrans specifications, but would be intended for multipurpose use in this overall trails system. For example, Class 1 pavement must be wide enough (8 feet minimum) to accommodate multiple user types and must also include unpaved shoulders (2 to 4 feet) which could be used by those trail users who prefer a softer trail tread. Greater pavement widths are recommended where higher user volumes are expected, but width must be at least the minimum or the path can not be eligible for Caltrans-administered funding. The Class 1 paths may be in addition to any proposed soft surface trails, but would not replace them where the trail types coincide. In some cases, paved and unpaved routes may be installed concurrently, if high levels of use by several trail user types is expected. In most cases, routes are to be paved or unpaved with a balance of surface types throughout the City. Paving is especially recommended for certain routes within the context of the overall trail system to maximize their value for recreational and transportational cycling throughout Temecula. Typical unpaved surface treatments customarily used for informal trail facilities would be employed for the remainder of the proposed trail routes. Opportunities exist for the installation of several paved trail facilities that would not only provide the relaxed recreational atmosphere associated with an off-street facility, but would also improve commuter connections. Normally, Class 2 facilities are preferred for transportation or commuting purposes. However, if no roadways exist through an area, these Class 1 facilities will be useful to commuters. Together, these facilities would fill in many of the gaps in the current system where topography and lack of facilities currently limit access. Wherever a Class 1 facility parallels a motor vehicle route, a wide physical separation is recommended. Any separation of less than five feet from the pavement edge of a motor vehicle route re Chapter 7 Page 7-9 Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan 79 15 15 79 1 Mile N MURRIETA CREEK TRAIL CONDITIONS City of T emecula Multi-use T rails and Bik eways Master Plan Figure 7-4 Connection to existing Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail needed Bridge costly -low water crossing feasible Existing pump station Existing park with crushed rock surfaced trail Temporary paved low water crossing (Retrofit for trail use?) Adequate clearance under bridge but problematic concrete channel side slopes Unimproved low water crossing Bench grading needed Dirt parking lot in potential trail area Large side channel Existing pump station Large side channel (Diversion possible) Existing fenced parking lot (Trail could run through reconfigured lot) Existing concrete slope (Run trail through parking lot) Existing wall (May require partial removal) Historic property (May require land purchase with potential interpretive value -Adjacent river bank steep and densely vegetated) Parking lot edge reconfiguration required (Potential loss of 10-14 spaces) Adequate clearance under east bridge end Grading/retaining walls needed Marginal clearance at west end Historic structures* Existing fence encroaches Parking lot edge reconfiguration required Constricted by cement plant Bridge needed Multiple potential routes on existing dirt roads Existing bridge Bridge to be converted to non-motorized use Numerous short side channels (Can be easily circumvented) Trail user-activated street crossing needed Existing DG surfaced trail Trail user-activated street crossing neededHistoric depot location* Remnant wooden bridge pilings* * Historic village location * * Temecula Valley Museum Rancho California Road bridge 11 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 D E G B A 5 3 4 2 1 6 17 F C H I Segment numbers Difficult grade separation or at-grade street crossing Creek or channel crossing requiring bridge or trail diversion around obstacle Potential creek crossing points Potential points of historic interest FUTURE BRIDGES Cherry Street Overland/Alvarado Ave. Rancho Way Sixth Street Western Bypass EXISTING BRIDGES Winchester Road Rancho California Road Main Street First Street ABCDE 5* Segment Trail Type M1,M2,M3,M4: 1, 4, 6,9,12,13,15,16,17 B1: 2, 3, 5, 7,14 B2/B3: 8, 10, 11 (See Figures 2-4 to 2-7) FGHI Recommendations City of Temecula Page 7-10 Chapter 7 quires a physical barrier to prevent cyclists from encroaching onto the roadway. Anywhere there is the potential for motor vehicles to encroach onto a Class 1 bicycle facility, a barrier should be provided. Class 1 routes immediately adjacent to a street are not recommended because many cyclists will find it less convenient to ride on this type of facility as compared to streets, especially for utility trips such as commuting. Other reasons that Class 1 routes immediately adjacent to a street are not recommended is because they can encourage wrong way riding on the street and can create safety problems at intersection crossings. Parallel trails adjacent to roadways will only be recommended for Rancho California Road since an extensive trail already exists there. Unlike on-street facilities that already have defined minimum design speeds, the minimum design speed of Class 1 facilities is a factor to consider. In general, the minimum design speed should be 20 mph. Speed limits may also be implemented and are generally 10 or 15 mph. 7.4 Proposed On-Street Bikeways The on-street bikeway facilities proposed for this study are Caltrans Class 2 and 3 facilities. (See Figure 7-5, Proposed On-Street Bikeways.) The Class 1 routes are included with the proposed trails in the previous section. The following sections describe these on-street bikeway components in detail. 7.4.1 Class 2 Bikeway Facilities Class 2 bikeways (often called bike lanes) are oneway facilities within roadways placed next to the curb for the preferential use of bicycles within the paved area of streets. They are designated by striping, pavement markings and signage. Class 2 facilities must be at least four feet wide where no parking occurs and five feet wide where parking does occur. Class 2 facilities are in place throughout the City of Temecula and more are planned along all programmed arterial roadways. 7.4.2 New Street Extensions and Addition of Class 2 to Existing Streets Diaz Road/Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue A specific location where widening and Class 2 lanes are recommended is the northwestern corner of the City where Diaz Road and Winchester Road meet just west of Murrieta Creek. Diaz Road is quite narrow just south of Winchester Road and lacks bicycle facilities, even though it is currently an access to the employment center west of Murrieta Creek. The segment of Winchester Road that connects Diaz Road to Jefferson Avenue also lacks bikeway facilities. Jefferson Avenue is planned to receive Class 2 lanes and it too is currently too narrow for striping. The incomplete bikeways in this northwestern corner of Temecula were mentioned in questionnaire responses. (See Figure 7-5, Proposed On-Street Bikeways.) Pala Road Another roadway lacking Class 2 lanes is Pala Road. The issue here is not so much overall roadway width as it is lane striping. Pala Road has numerous right turn lanes, with one at every block for some distance. This configuration is designed to benefit the motorist, but the available roadway width may be better apportioned to give some room to cyclists. A portion of Pala Road is planned to receive Class 2 lanes. Winchester Road (East of I-15) Winchester Road has been striped for much of its length within Temecula to accommodate three lanes of motor vehicle traffic, leaving inadequate room for a Class 2 bike lanes. Though bike lanes are planned for Winchester Road, its traffic volumes, posted speed and numerous curb cuts are likely to make it an undesirable route for most cyclists, especially the less experienced. Cyclists should be encouraged, but not required, to use the nearby Santa Gertrudis Creek trail once it is extended westward beyond Ynez Road. Chapter 7 Page 7-11 Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan EXISTING Class 2 (Bike Lane) Class 3 (Bike Route) PROPOSED Class 2 (Bike Lane) Class 3 (Bike Route) Trail Type B2 B3 B2 B3 Nicolas RoadNicolas Road Winchester RoadWinchester Road Jefferson Avenue Diaz RoadDiaz Road Rancho California Road Walcott LaneWalcott Lane Santiago Road Jedediah Smith Road RanchoVistaRoad MeadowsParkway Pauba Road Margarita Road ButterfieldStage Road Ynez Road SolanaWay La SerenaWay Pala RoadPala Road 79 15 15 79 DePortola Road Promenade Mall Old Town Temecula Valley High School CRC/Sports Park Chaparral High School P R O P O S E D O N -S T R E E T B I K E WAYS City of T emecula Multi-use T rails and Bik eways Master Plan Figure 7-5 1 Mile N Recommendations City of Temecula Page 7-12 Chapter 7 Margarita Road (2 Locations) This roadway is striped for most of its length for Class 2 lanes. The only missing portions are at the north and south ends just within the city limits, north of Winchester Road and south of De Portola Road. Meadows Parkway Meadows Parkway is substantially without Class 2 facilities at this time. The only existing facility is between Pauba Road and Highway 79. As development proceeds and new sections of this roadway are installed, Class 2 facilities could be implemented since its width is sufficient. Rancho California Road (2 Locations) Though Rancho California Road has been striped for the majority of its length (except for the segment east of Meadows Parkway) its traffic volumes, posted speeds and numerous curb cuts are likely to make it an undesirable route for most cyclists, especially the less experienced. This western remaining segment would run to Ynez Road and no further, since the next intersection west would be at I-15, an intersection that even experienced cyclists generally avoid. Butterfield Stage Road (2 Locations) The northern and southern reaches of this roadway do not have Class 2 facilities in place, but only the southern portion is currently wide enough for this to occur. The northern segment just north of Pauba Road is fairly narrow at this time, but subsequent development along this reach could provide for adequate width to accommodate Class 2 lanes. Solana Way This roadway has relatively low traffic volumes and posted speed limits, as well as adequate width, but does not currently have Class 2 lanes. This roadway would connect a significant residential area to Margarita Road and Ynez Roads. 7.4.3 Class 3 Bikeway Facilities Class 3 bikeways (often called bike routes) are not striped as bike lanes, but are identified by signage and shown on bikeway maps. They are recommended for residential streets where motor vehicle traffic volumes are low, for streets where right-of-way restrictions prevent the installation installation of a Class 2 facility and for rural routes where upgrading to Class 2 facilities is not warranted due to the expense of right-of-way acquisition and construction costs versus the projected volume of bicycle use. Since bicycles are permitted on all highways (except for some freeways), the decision to sign a route should be based on the advisability of encouraging bicycle traffic on the route. In addition, destination signing of Class 3 routes is advisable where the route covers considerable distances, or provides access to a number of different neighborhoods or destination points. Class 3 facilities are routes designated by signage only, without street striping. Their primary purpose is to create local or neighborhood street connections between Class 2 facilities. They are used on roadway segments where bicycle traffic volumes are not large enough to warrant roadway striping and designation as Class 2 facilities, but the segment fulfills the primary purpose just mentioned. They are commonly employed in residential areas and to access schools. However, they should only be employed on roadway segments with low average daily motor vehicle trips (ADTs) and posted speed limits. Temecula has a few Class 3 facilities concentrated in Old Town where they were apparently intended to funnel bicycle traffic away from Front Street. Many municipalities are no longer implementing Class 3 bike routes in lieu of Class 2 lanes where motor vehicle traffic volumes dictate and leaving routes undesignated where volume is low. The designation of a street as a Class 3 facility implies it is a safe and appropriate route. This is reasonable where adequate road width can be provided and traffic speed and volume are low. Unless a street’s volume is very low, Class 2 facilities should be provided. Reliance on Class 3 facilities to con Chapter 7 Page 7-13 Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan nect current Class 2 facilities is sometimes employed for route identification only, but it can also benefit less experience riders leery of heavy motor vehicle traffic. Removing Class 2 facilities to allow for more vehicular lanes and replacing with Class 3 should never be allowed. Three Class 3 facilities are proposed for this study and are shown on Figure 7-5, Proposed On-Street Bikeways. They are all located parallel to nearby busy roadways as alternative routes on lightly used residential streets. These routes all consist of sections of several of streets. The first Class 3 route would run south of Winchester Road from Nicolas Road to Margarita Road near the Promenade Mall, avoiding one of the busiest sections of Winchester Road. Specifically, the route would run south from Nicolas Road on North General Kearney Road, turn northwest on Calle Madera, turn south on La Colima and then west on North General Kearney Road to Margarita Road. This route should provide a more secure route for cyclists going to the Promenade Mall area. The second Class 3 route would run from Jefferson Avenue to Winchester Road, avoiding the Winchester Road/Jefferson Street intersection. Specifically, it would proceed west on Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue, turn south on Commerce Center Drive, and then west and north on Enterprise Circle West to Winchester Drive. Once a bridge is built over Murrieta Creek at Overland Drive, this route should become even more useful, especially for commuting cyclists. The third Class 3 route runs from Rancho California Road to Rancho Vista Road between Margarita Road and Ynez Road. It would turn south off Rancho California Road on Cosmic Drive, turn west on Santa Cecilia Drive and then north on Mira Loma Drive which sweeps back to the south to connect with Rancho Vista Road. This route would provide a north-south connection between Rancho California Road and Rancho Vista Road that avoids having to use Ynez Road and Margarita Road. It would be particularly useful for students to access nearby schools and the Rancho California Sports Park, which includes the Community Recreation Center and Temecula Skate Park. 7.4.4 Improvements to Existing Bikeway Facilities A needed general improvement to the Class 2 facilities is the provision of more roadway width on freeway bridges and underpasses if alternate routes can not be provided. It is common for the bikeway to end prior to the roadway segment crossing a bridge and to have the curb pinch inward, eliminating the previously available space for cyclists. In addition, many of the bridges have high curbs that could catch a cyclist’s pedals, especially if the cyclist was attempting to stay as far to the right as possible to avoid the motor vehicles on a narrow bridge. Bridge construction or reconstruction may occur infrequently, but when such work is planned, the needs of cyclists and pedestrians should be considered and crossing opportunities implemented. Retrofitting pedestrian or bicycle facilities onto existing substandard bridges is much more costly than including bicycle facilities within a scheduled improvement project. In some cities, the provision of pedestrian and bicycle facilities on bridges has been made a standard component of new bridge planning, design and construction. Besides roadway bridges, pedestrian and bicycle facilities have also been implemented as part of pipeline crossings over rivers, for example. Once in place, these planned crossings would provide pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists with much more convenient (meaning faster) routes from one area of Temecula to another. The second issue of bridge width should also be addressed during the planning stages of bridge construction and reconstruction. Though most bridges have at least some sidewalk width, it is common for bike lanes to abruptly terminate at the approach to bridges right where the curbs pinch in to narrow the roadway. This is where the bike lane would have been, if the bridge was de Recommendations City of Temecula Page 7-14 Chapter 7 signed and constructed with cyclists in mind. Compounding the lack of width, bridge curbs are often too tall for safety, creating a situation where the cyclist trying to stay as far to the right as possible to avoid motor vehicle traffic could fall due to catching a pedal on the curb. This is one of the rare situations where encouraging cyclists to ride on the sidewalk may be a reasonable exception to the rules, at least until effective bridge improvements are put into place. Signage may be installed recommending cyclists walk their bikes to take alternate routes. However, cyclists should not be prohibited from using narrow bridges. Experienced cyclists particularly may feel no qualms about such a situation. In general, there are a number of solutions short of widening the bridges. In some cases, the lanes could be restriped or the sidewalk width decreased if local, state and federal standards can be met. In other situations where the motor vehicle volumes and limited width create particularly difficult cycling situations, alternative routes could be provided. This is likely to be the most feasible solution for the intersections with the highest motor vehicle volumes, such as the Ranch California Road overcrossing of I-15. Current Caltrans plans call for replacement of the Winchester Road ramps when a new freeway interchange is constructed at Cherry Street just north of the city limits in Murrieta. Though this may not occur for ten years or more, plans should be made to accommodate trail users along Santa Gertrudis Creek to allow them to cross under I-15 to Murrieta Creek when these ramps are rebuilt. Unlike the current situation, the new bridges could be built high enough to allow comfortable non-motorized passage under them. The bridges could also be built with non-motorized lanes physically separated from the motor vehicle lanes and include ramping from the creek trail level to the bridge level, all fully separate from motor vehicle traffic. In addition, if the Corps of Engineers persuades the City to build a new bridge at Main Street, it should be designed to accommodate non-motorized users and allow safe transitions between the creek trails and the bridge. 7.4.5 School and Park Connections The proposed Class 1 facilities will run primarily along the creeks and would connect several existing and programmed schools and parks around the City. The proposed Class 1 facilities would also intersect with other proposed unpaved trails shown in Figure 7-1, Proposed Trail System and allow connection via those trails with several other parks around the City. 7.5 Other Bicycle Facilities Several other types of bicycle facilities are recommended under this master plan, but are not shown on the facility map due to scale or other factors. They are described in the following sections. 7.5.1 Connections to Urban Centers Among the criteria used in the selection of routes for this bikeway master plan was the definition of activity and employment centers, as well as GIS evaluation of population and employment densities. These types of data probably best represent what could be called “urban centers.” Using this data, bikeway routes were selected to provide the most direct connections possible between these urban centers and the existing transit centers. In some cases, existing bikeways already ran adjacent to transit centers, or an adjacent undesignated roadway was determined to be a candidate route. 7.5.2 School Access Paths/Routes In most cases, a considerable percentage of students at any particular school will get there on foot or by bicycle. For those riding bicycles, many of these children (or their parents) are not experienced, knowledgeable or comfortable with riding on streets in the midst of motor vehicle traffic. For them, alternate routes should be designated to access schools from the surrounding neigh Chapter 7 Page 7-15 Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan borhoods they serve. These routes would utilize lightly traveled streets where sidewalk riding would be unlikely to pose safety problems for themselves or other users. These routes should also be designed to cross arterials or other high volume streets, when necessary, at specific points with sufficient sight distances, crosswalks, pedestrian signals and, where appropriate, crossing guards. The students for whom these routes are designated should be encouraged to use them. 7.6 Interpretive Signage Temecula is truly unique among southern California suburban planned communities in having genuine historical underpinnings. An interpretive signage system in combination with a City-wide trail system can help illuminate that history for residents and visitors alike. The signage topics could also include environmental issues, development patterns, technology, geology, agriculture and other elements of educational interest. The interpretive signage can be be implemented along with a directional sign system that would help users orient themselves not just spatially, but in any other dimension desired, such as historically, ecologically or geologically, for examples. 7.6.1 Interpretive Topics The centuries of Native American presence, the Spanish Mission system and its subsequent secularization, the ranching empires and today’s residential development have all shaped today’s City of Temecula. The interpretive component of this trails system is intended to highlight the historical events, places and people that helped to mold today’s city and region. Not surprisingly, many of these events occurred along the creek channels which were often important conduits of trade and travel prior to the automobile. Aspects of the region’s geology, ecology and agriculture are also noteworthy. Among places of note are all three of Temecula’s town sites, Temecula Canyon, the Pechanga Indian Reservation, the Wolf Adobe and Vail Ranch Headquarters, the Wine Country, the Santa Rosa Plateau Preserve, the original rail alignment and station location, a granite quarry, etc. 7.6.2 Interpretive Themes Major sections of the trail system can be given thematic names highlighted throughout the interpretive system. Not only does this showcase the educational aspects of an interpretive system, it gives the trail segments easily recognizable names that can benefit community identity. An example is the “History Trail” along Murrieta Creek. The interpretive features could be chronologically illustrated from the oldest feature to the newest. The first sign could be at the mouth of Temecula Canyon to highlight the geology that created it, followed by a sign in the vicinity of the original Luiseño village site, then along the railroad bed, then at least one sign at Old Town and finally the most recently developed portions of Temecula near the northern city limits. Proposed trail sections and their names are shown on Figure 7-6, Interpretive Trail Themes. 7.6.3 Interpretive Signage Systems There are a a number of interpretive methods available and their use depends upon procurement and maintenance costs, relevance to their location and purpose and the desired visual effect. A signage system could take the form of a series of signs placed throughout the trail system or a brochure mapping out and highlighting the points of interest. Another method is a brochure associated with numbered marker system. Any combination of these may also be appropriate. A cost-effective interpretive method is a series of numbered markers in combination with a descriptive brochure. A numbered marker system can be effective because the marked location can be described in terms of more than one topic brochure. The points of interest can be grouped by topic for specific brochures, such as a natural resources trail or a regional history trail, or grouped by historic period or by a specific interest like geology or wildlife viewing. These markers should be distinctively labeled, for example, with the City of Temecula’s logo, or a logo developed specifically for the markers to highlight a trail corridor. Recommendations City of Temecula Page 7-16 Chapter 7 COMMUNITY TRAIL RIVER TRAIL NATURE TRAIL HISTORY TRAIL WINE COUNTRY TRAIL WATERWAY TRAIL Promenade Mall Old Town Temecula Valley High School CRC/Sports Park Chaparral High School City of Murrieta 1 Mile N I N T E R P R E T I V E T R A I L T H E M E S City of T emecula Multi-use T rails and Bik eways Master Plan Figure 7-6 Chapter 7 Page 7-17 Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan If budget allows, trailside marker signs with text and graphics are a viable alternative to a brochure and marker system. However, in addition to higher procurement costs, signs installed on trails out of view of trail heads may be subjected to vandalism. Though vandalism can not be fully remedied, high quality materials such as fiberglass imbedded graphics or porcelain on steel can minimize damage. Where vandalism is not an issue, trailside signs can be an effective interpretive method. They are especially useful at vantage points. The trailside markers can be supplemented by high quality graphic signs and maps placed at trail head kiosks to briefly describe the significance of the area for users with limited time or interest. Brochures describing the locations or events the markers are highlighting in more detail can be provided in kiosk dispensers. The kiosk maps may be used to orient users, but they can also include reproductions of relevant historic maps to give users a better understanding of the area’s development by comparing the historic maps to contemporary maps or aerial photographs and even some insight to how the area was perceived in the past compared to the present. 7.6.4 Temecula Valley Museum The trail map brochures can also be distributed at the Temecula Valley Museum in Old Town. Museum staff can hand out brochures to all visitors in the hopes that some will be intrigued enough by the brochures to use them on trail excursions. The museum can be an integral part of the interpretive element of this plan by providing more detailed information about topics mentioned in the brochure and the trails interpretive element can, in turn, direct the more interested users to the museum. The museum’s location near an existing trail makes it a reasonably short detour for users passing through Old Town. For the historical component of the interpretive element, museum experts should be consulted in defining what information should be provided in the brochures tied to the markers and where to site the markers. It is generally recognized that personal (live) interpretive programs are the most effective method of interpretation. With a little imagination, the trail system can be used to link personal interpretive programs to locales of interest. These programs would be most effective scheduled on weekends when most individuals and families would be able to attend. The interpreter could present a program at the museum and direct visitors to the trail system following the presentation, or to make the presentation even more effective, the interpreter could take the group to a nearby trail to make his or her presentation. Tying an interpretive experience to a place makes it more memorable and may be more likely to pique the interest of potential users in exploring further. 7.6.5 Directional Signs In addition to the interpretive markers, directional signs will be needed at trail intersections. These signs could also provide destination and distance information. These signs could be designed to emulate historic signs, for example, like those installed by the Vail Ranch in its heyday for its equestrian trail network. These signs could also be a new design using a hierarchy of colors or other designation such as different locally historic brands to visually define specific areas or loop trails or topics of interest. In any case, the City of Temecula’s logo should be prominently displayed on all signs, or a simple logo commissioned for the trail system. In keeping with the rural, informal ambience desired for the trail system, this logo could be fashioned into a branding iron and burned into wood posts and sign boards. 7.7 Trail Surfacing and Soil Stabilizers Many City officials and residents expressed the desire for a rural ambience for their trail system. To most people, the “true” trail experience means soft surfaces wherever possible. Hard paving is generally undesirable, except for heavily used segments, such as within urban areas. Equestrians especially prefer soft surfaces such as dirt and decomposed granite primarily for the benefit of their horses, but trail users of all types have ex Recommendations City of Temecula Page 7-18 Chapter 7 pressed a preference for such surfaces. This desire for soft surfaces is consistent with a trend the consultants have noted in other municipalities contemplating the development of trail systems, but may be in conflict with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA provides for reasonable access for disabled persons in public projects, but does not mandate total accommodation. In most cases, especially for trails projects, total accommodation would be considered onerous and unnecessary. However, it is anticipated that a significant portion of the trails proposed for this system will be accessible to the disabled even though the general preference is for a rural ambience that precludes paved surfaces. Accessibility can be maintained by using polymer soil stabilizer technology to stabilize trail surfaces of decomposed granite or even local soil. This creates a solid, but permeable surface that looks very much like the original soil. It is now being being widely used by the National Parks Service because it fulfills the NPS’s stringent access, environmental and visual quality requirements better than any other trail surface treatment, as determined by exhaustive Army Corps of Engineers testing. Other sections of the trail system need not be stabilized, such as more outlying trail segments likely to be used by equestrians, cyclists, runners or walkers on a less frequent basis than trails closer to urban areas. Areas most likely to be used by equestrians and mountain bikers should be native soil or decomposed granite, where even the addition of soil stabilizer would probably not be necessary or desirable.