ADOPTED APRIL 2012

Southern California Association of Governments

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

APPENDIX
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

Existing Conditions 1

Physical Setting 1

Political Environment 1

Existing Plans 2

Bicycling and Walking Overview 4

Types of Bicyclists 5

Riding Styles 7

Types of Bicycle Facilities 7

Class I Bikeways 7

Class II Bikeways 9

Class III Bikeways 9

Cycletracks 9

Bicycle Boulevards 9

Bicycle Boulevards 9

Bicycle Safety 9

Pedestrian Oriented Design and Access Requirements 11

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 11

Schools 11

Transit 12

Street Design and Access to Destinations 12

Pedestrian Safety 12

Deficiencies and Needs Analysis 14

Pedestrian Facility Deficiencies 14

Bicycle Access to Transit 22

Pedestrian Access to Transit 22

Access to Bicycle Routes 25

California Coastal Trail 35

Policy Recommendations 39

Agencies, Groups and Individuals in Bicycle and Walking Planning 39

Performance Measures 39

Proposed Policies 39

Air Quality Improvements 42

Potential VMT Reduction 42
T

he Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the nation’s largest 

metropolitan planning organization (MPO) representing six counties (Imperial, 

Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura) and 191 cities. The 

2012–2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Sustainable Communities 

Strategy (SCS) seeks to develop a comprehensive and interconnected network of bicycle 

and pedestrian facilities throughout the region to increase transportation options, so that 

bicycling and walking become more practical and desirable choices for travel. Increasing 

bicycling and walking within the region will assist in reducing road congestion, enhancing 

public health, and improving air quality. The RTP supports Active Transportation through 

the development of bicycle and pedestrian policies.

Active Transportation refers to transportation such as walking or using a bicycle, tricycle, velomobile, wheelchair, scooter, skates, skateboard, push scooter, trailer, hand 

cart, shopping car, or similar electrical devices. For the purposes of this report, Active 

Transportation will generally refer to bicycling and walking, the two most common methods. Walking and bicycling are essential parts of the SCAG transportation system, are low 

cost, do not emit greenhouse gases, can help reduce roadway congestion, and increase 

health and the quality of life of residents. As the region works towards reducing congestion and air pollution, walking and bicycling will become more essential to meet the future 

needs of Californians 

The strategies established by the Active Transportation Chapter will adhere to the following goals and objectives:

 Goal 1: Increase dedicated funding for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

 Objective 1.1: Develop a Constrained Plan that analyzes existing funding and 

provides quantitative support for future funding requirements.

 Objective 1.2: Estimate the benefits of current investments to analyze future 

funding needs.

 Goal 2: Increase accommodation and planning for bicyclists and pedestrians.

 Objective 2.1: Include a Strategic Plan that includes additional investments 

needed to develop a comprehensive and interconnected network of bicycle 

and pedestrian facilities throughout the region. 

 Objective 2.2: Estimate project costs associated with this vision.

 Objective 2.3: Estimate the benefits of these investments.

 Objective 2.4: Support local jurisdictions with the development of their 

local plans.

 Goal 3: Increase transportation options, particularly for trips less than three miles. 

 Objective 3.1: Increase linkages between bicycling and walking with transit.

 Objective 3.2: Examine bicycling and walking as an integral part of a congestion/transportation management tool (e.g. Safe Routes to School).

 Goal 4: Significantly decrease bicycle and pedestrian fatalities and injuries.

 Objective 4.1: Address actual and perceived safety/security concerns that 

prohibit biking and walking from being considered as viable mode choices.

The following sections will illustrate the existing conditions, identify potential opportunities and provide recommendations that may assist in achieving a more bicycle and 

pedestrian friendly region. The policies and recommendations established by this Active 

Transportation chapter can also assist local jurisdictions and agencies in the development 

of more comprehensive policies that improve public health, safety, and welfare.

Existing Conditions

Physical Setting

The climate in the SCAG region varies by location. The western Los Angeles Basin, 

Ventura County and western Orange County experience marine climates, cool ocean 

breezes and moderate average temperature variations. The inland areas within the 

region are comprised of more arid climates with more significant temperature variations 

throughout the day. Rainfall in the SCAG region typically averages only 30 days per year, 

which provides ideal conditions for walking and bicycling. The majority of the western 

portion of the region is highly developed with suburban areas, with some areas of dense 

urbanization. The inland areas of the region are becoming developed with significant 

suburbanization and pockets of urban development, but are primarily undeveloped or 

designated as national and state parkland.

Political Environment

Recent shifts in the political environment have increased support for Active Transportation 

(please see FIGURE 1 Legislative Timeline). The Intermodal Surface Transportation 

Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) challenged officials to make “bicycles a more viable 

part of the transportation network.” The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 

(TEA-21) provided additional Federal funds for surface transportation, such as pedestrian 

Active Transportation 1
walkways, until 2003. The Act also extended the Disadvantaged Business Enterprises 

program and created new incentives for bicycle and pedestrian safety and educational 

programs. TEA-21 continued to research new transportation systems and “ensure[d] the 

consideration of bicyclists and pedestrians in the planning process and facility design.” 

Safe, Accountable Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA-LU) increased funding for non-motorized transportation. SAFETEA-LU also 

established the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program to “enable and encourage primary 

and secondary school children to walk and bicycle to school” and to support infrastructure-related and behavioral projects that are “geared toward providing a safe, appealing 

environment for walking and bicycling that will improve the quality of our children’s lives 

and support national health objectives by reducing traffic, fuel consumption, and air pollution in the vicinity of schools.”

FIGURE 1 Legislative Timeline

1990

1991

Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Efficiency 

Act (ISTEA)

1998

Transportation Equity Act 

for the 21st Century 

(TEA-21)

2005

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA-LU) 

2006

Assembly Bill 32: Global 

Warming Solutions Act

(AB 32)

2007

Assembly Bill 1358: 

The Complete

Streets Act (AB 1358)

2008

Senate Bill 375: 

Regional Targets

(SB 375)

2000 2010

At the State level, Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) were established 

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. AB 32, enacted in 2006, directed the California 

Air Resource Board (CARB) to develop early actions to reduce greenhouse gases and to 

prepare a scoping plan to identify specific strategies to meet the 2020 limit. SB 375, 

enacted in 2008, focuses on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated by cars 

and light trucks and requires SCAG to develop a Sustainable Community Strategies (SCS) 

for the region. The new law also provides incentives for local jurisdictions and developers to implement new land use development strategies that would help reduce GHGs. 

Some of these strategies include non-motorized transportation strategies. The Complete 

Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358) required cities and counties to incorporate the concept of 

Complete Streets in their general plan updates to ensure that transportation plans meet 

the needs of all users. SCAG has also adopted similar strategies in the 2012 RTP and has 

the opportunity to provide information and resources to support local cities and counties 

as they implement Complete Streets strategies within their jurisdictions.

Existing Plans

All six of the counties within the SCAG region have developed their own bicycle and 

pedestrian plans. All local bicycle/pedestrian plans finalized by September 30, 2011 are 

considered part of the SCAG Active Transportation Plan.

IMPERIAL COUNTY

In 2003, Imperial County developed a Bicycle Master Plan, which was adopted by its 

Board of Supervisors in 2007. The guiding vision of the plan is to “encourage and promote 

bicycling as a safe and convenient form of transportation and recreation achieved through 

engineering, education, enforcement, and encouragement.” Imperial County is currently 

working on updating their Bicycle Master Plan, which is anticipated to be completed by 

the end of 2011. The proposed plan is anticipated to implement 374.4 miles of bikeways 

at an estimated cost of $6.4 million.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) developed a 

Bicycle Transportation Strategic Plan (BTSP) in 2006 to be used by “the cities, the County 

of Los Angeles and transit agencies in planning bicycle facilities around transit and 

2 Active Transportation
setting priorities that contribute to regional improvements. The goal is to integrate bicycle 

use in transportation projects.” In addition, Metro also created a Bicycle Transportation 

Account Compliance Document (BTA Document) to provide an “inventory and mapping 

of existing and proposed facilities, and an estimate of past and future expenditures for 

bicycle facilities.”

The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works released a draft of their revised 

Bicycle Master Plan in February 2011, which was developed with the over arching goal 

of increasing “bicycling throughout the County of Los Angeles through the development 

and implementation of bicycle-friendly policies, programs, and infrastructure.” The plan 

recommends the development of an interconnected network of bicycle corridors, with 

approximately 695 miles of bikeway facilities at a proposed cost of $284.8 million.

In addition Metro has developed a Long Range Transportation Plan that includes all of the 

regional bike trail projects that were identified in the BTSP as well as the Arroyo Seco 

Bike Trail, Compton Creek Bike Trail, Dominquez Channel Bike Trail, and the San Jose 

Creek Bike Trail Phase 2B.

ORANGE COUNTY

The 2009 Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Commuter Bikeways Strategic 

Plan was developed “to encourage the enhancement of Orange County’s regional bikeways network, in order to make bicycle commuting a more viable and attractive travel 

option.” The plan identifies approximately 116 miles of priority bikeway projects, estimating $71.5 million; and is expected to be updated for 2014. 

The strategic plan of the Orange County Long Range Transportation Plan also includes 

advanced active transportation treatments at key intersections within the Central 

County Major Investment Study (MIS) study area. On January 23, 2012, the OCTA Board 

of Directors directed staff to work with local agencies to develop the Orange County 

Bikeway program for strategic corridor planning, developing detailed development implementation plans, and construction of high priority projects. The goal of the program is to 

take advantage of grant funding opportunities by developing shelf’ready projects along 

regaionl bikeway corridors.

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) and the Coachella Valley 

Association of Governments (CVAG) have developed Non-Motorized Transportation Plans 

in 2010 for their respective jurisdictions covering most of Riverside County. WRCOG’s 

2010 Non-Motorized Transportation Plan proposes the development of over 440 miles 

of bikeways in order to provide a “regional backbone network of bicycle and pedestrian 

facilities to provide enhanced transportation mobility options.” The 2010 CVAG NonMotorized Transportation plan recognizes the “value of providing opportunities for local 

residents and visitors to bicycle for work and recreation, as well as to use off-road trails 

for hiking, equestrians and jogging.”

One innovative project is Parkway 1e11, a proposed 54-mile grade separated bicycle / 

pedestrian / neighborhood electric vehicle path in the Coachella Valley connecting Desert 

Hot Springs to Palms Springs to Coachella and the cities in-between. The Parkway, in the 

preliminary planning stages, will provide an alternative transportation corridor to State 

Route 111. In addition, by the inclusion of neighborhood electric vehicles, it provides 

additional mobility as well as access to activities for active senior citizens. Once completed the parkway will become part of the regional bikeway Network alignment through 

the Coachella Valley.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

The 2011 San Bernardino County Non-Motorized Transportation Plan’s goals include: 1) 

improving pedestrian access to transit; 2) removing existing barriers to pedestrian travel; 

3) developing regional trails and pathways, which provide improved pedestrian access to 

destinations; and 4) improving the pedestrian environment on major regional arterials and 

at regional activity centers.

VENTURA COUNTY

The 2007 Ventura County Bicycle Master Plan “provides a broad vision, strategies and 

actions for the improvement of bicycling” by maximizing funding sources for implementation; improving safety and encouraging cycling; expanding the network and support facilities; and enhancing the quality of life in Ventura County. The combined cost 

of the identified projects in the Ventura County Bicycle Master Plan is approximately 

$93.1 million

Active Transportation 3
4 Active Transportation

TABLE 1 County Active Transportation Plans

County Plan Adopted

Imperial Imperial County Bicycle Master Plan 2007

Los Angeles Metro Bicycle Master Plan 2006

Department of Public Works 2011 Bicycle Master Plan 2011

Orange Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 2009

Riverside CVAG Draft Non-Motorized Transportation Plan 2010

WRCOG Non-Motorized Plan 2010

San Bernardino 2011 Non-Motorized Transportation Plan 2011

Ventura County Bicycle Master Plan 2007

LOCAL JURISDICTIONS

In addition to county plans, many local jurisdictions have developed their own active 

transportation plans or include active transportation components in the Circulation 

Element of their General Plan. Many street enhancement projects or capital improvement projects include active transportation elements as well. For example, many street 

improvement projects may include the striping of bikeways or new developments may 

include sidewalk enhancements. By examining the annual budgets of the 20 most 

populous cities in the SCAG region and their expenditures associated with active transportation projects such as new sidewalks or bikeways we were able to estimate that on 

average cities spend $5.45 per capita on active transportation each year. Based on an 

average 1 percent annualized population growth and 3 percent adjustment for inflation, it is estimated that local jurisdictions would spend a total of $4.1 billion dollars 

between 2011 and 2035 on active transportation, which is not accounted for in the 

2012–2035 RTP/SCS.

Bicycling and Walking Overview

The majority of commuters within the SCAG region commute via car, truck or van. 

According to the American Community Survey in 2008, more than 85 percent of all commuters traveled to work by car, truck or van; and less than 4 percent traveled to work via 

an active transportation mode (0.7 percent bicycled and 2.5 percent walked). The 2012 

RTP/SCS allocates approximately $6.7 billion for active transportation. This is an increase 

of more than 270 percent over the commitments made in the 2008 RTP. Aproximately 

$700 million was added to the allocation provided in the Draft 2012-2035 RTP/SCS, 

partly in response to the overwhelming support received for higher level of funding during the comment period. This amount primarily reflects regional commitments and does 

not include many of the locally funded projects associated with active transportation, 

nor does it include projects where bicycle/pedestrian facility construction is part of a 

larger project. So, when the local expenditures are considered, the region is expected to 

spend significantly more than $10 billion in active transportation over the period of the 

plan.

FIGURE 2 Commuter Mode Share in the SCAG Region (2008)

Car, truck, or van

86%

Public transportation

5%

Bicycle

1%

Walk

3%

Other

1%

Worked at Home

4%

Source: American Community Survey, 2008

In 2009 the National Household Travel Survey California Travel Survey Add-On (NHTS-CA) 

data estimated that approximately 20.94 percent of all trips in 2009 were conducted by 

walking (19.24 percent) or bicycling (1.7 percent), this is an approximately 75 percent 
increase from the 11.9 percent active transportation mode share in 2000. The 2009 NHTS 

data also showed that there was a decrease in driving from 83.9 percent to 75.0 percent; 

this was a 10.6 percent decrease from 2000.

FIGURE 3 Mode of Travel for Total Trips (2000)

Drive

84%

Transit

3%

Bike

1%

Walk

11%

Other

1%

Source: National Household Travel Survey, 2000

FIGURE 4 Mode of Travel for Total Trips (2009)

Drive

75%

Transit

3%

Bike

2%

Walk

19%

Other

1%

Source: National Household Travel Survey California Travel Survey Add-On, 2009

However, between 2005 and 2009, the percentage of commuters that traveled by car, 

truck or van has decreased while the percentage of bicycling and walking to work has 

increased. This increase in active transportation usage may have been attributed to 

changes in the economic climate or increases in gas prices. This steady increase in active 

transportation mode share may indicate a greater demand for active transportation infrastructure and planning.

TABLE 2 Commuter Mode Share in the SCAG Region Car, Truck, or Van Public Transportation Taxicab, 

Motorcycle, 

or other

Worked 

at Home

Bicycle

Walked

Total

2005 87.40% 4.50% 1.30% 4.10% 0.50% 2.10% 100.00%

2006 86.70% 4.90% 1.20% 4.20% 0.60% 2.40% 100.00%

2007 86.40% 4.80% 1.20% 4.50% 0.60% 2.40% 100.00%

2008 85.90% 5.10% 1.30% 4.50% 0.70% 2.50% 100.00%

2009 85.90% 5.00% 1.10% 4.80% 0.70% 2.50% 100.00%

Source: U.S. Census, 2005-2009

Types of Bicyclists

Bicyclists have varying levels of riding experience and confidence, which influence their 

decision to bicycle. SCAG recognizes that there are a number of factors that motivate 

people to bicycle, and has identified the following three types of bicyclists:

TRANSPORTATION/COMMUTER

Individuals that use their bicycle as a form of transportation on a reasonably regular 

basis, particularly for traveling to work, are classified as bicycle commuters. These 

cyclists utilize cycling primarily for utilitarian travel, not recreation. Some riders in this 

group may choose to travel by bicycle in place of a car while others use bicycling because 

of a lack of other feasible options. Some individuals use bicycling as a method of transportation due to economic necessity or because they are restricted by law from operating 

a motor vehicle. These include the low income individuals, immigrants, and the young 

Active Transportation 5
adults. These individuals are often referred to as “invisible cyclists” and are often under 

counted in surveys. They may also lack proper equipment for nighttime riding, lack basic 

riding safety knowledge, and are more inclined to ride on sidewalks when there are no 

dedicated bikeways.

These riders typically fall into one of three categories: 1) adult employees, 2) students, 

and 3) shoppers. Transportation or commuter riders tend to travel during peak traffic 

hours and have increased exposure to vehicles. Routes leading to major businesses, 

shopping, education and other commercial areas of high importance to transportation cyclists. Transportation cyclist needs are consistent throughout the SCAG region 

and include: personal safety and security, safe and secure parking, infrastructure that 

accommodates riding in changes in weather and darkness, and fair treatment from 

law enforcement.

EXERCISE/RECREATION

Recreational cyclists include both competent, experienced individuals and beginner 

riders, including adults and children. Some weekend riders, mountain bikers, and other 

recreational cyclists may drive to other locations in order to ride their bicycles, and ride 

as a form of recreation rather than transportation.

Primary needs of recreational cyclists are similar to that of transportation cyclists except 

that their travel routes are less focused on access to business, shopping, and other 

commercial areas. They tend to travel in lower traffic and more scenic areas or seek out 

off-road paths and trails. Some experienced recreational cyclists may be interested in 

bicycling as transportation, but are concerned about safety, distances, sweat and body 

odor in the work environment.

SOCIAL GROUP

Social bicycle riders represent a growing group of riders, especially in Los Angeles County 

with its growing bicycle culture. The City of Los Angeles has been growing and supporting 

bicycling through a number of activities and advocacy efforts including informal and formal rides such as the Bicycle Kitchen and similar co-ops, Critical Mass, Midnight Ridazz, 

and C.I.C.L.E. (Cyclists Inciting Change through Live Exchange).1

1 Although referencing various advocacy groups in this document, SCAG makes no endorsement of any 

external group’s policies, goals or positions.

The State of California shows its commitment to active transportation 

in the following documents:

 Highway Design Manual 

 Deputy Directive on Accommodating Non-motorized 

Transportation (DD64)

 Director’s Policy on Context Sensitive Solutions (DP22)

 Main Streets: Flexibility in Design and Operations Assembly 

Concurrent Resolution 211

 California Supplement to the MUTCD

 California Blueprint for Bicycling and Walking

 California Bicycle Transportation Act

 California Vehicle Code

 California Streets and Highway Code

 California Access Compliance Reference Manual

6 Active Transportation
Riding Styles

Just as there are different types of cyclists, there are different riding styles. While no 

one entirely fits into one category or another, it is an attempt to broadly explain riding 

styles to understand the needs of the various members of the bicycling community. The 

following “Four Types of Cyclists” categorization was first developed in 2005 by the City 

of Portland, Oregon as it began to consider what it would take to dramatically increase 

bicycle use in Portland. The definitions that follow have been expanded somewhat to 

more closely match the demographics in southern California.

FULLY CONFIDENT CYCLIST

Often called “Vehicular Cyclists,” these cyclists ride their bicycles in the same manner that one would drive a motor vehicle. These individuals are confident in riding with 

motorized traffic in almost all conditions, and may forgo using dedicated bicycle facilities. 

These individuals are accustomed to riding in a variety of environments and can navigate 

in less space. Many of these individuals advocate for vehicular cycling because they are 

capable of operating their bicycles on the road in a visible, predictable manner, and follow 

the rules of the road, which may enable automobile drivers to be able to better predict 

how these bicyclists will act, and respond accordingly.

ENTHUSED AND CONFIDENT CYCLIST

These cyclists are as comfortable as the fully confident cyclists in sharing the roadway, 

but prefer using designated bicycle facilities. It is believed that enthused and confident 

cyclists comprise the majority of the tremendous growth in commuter cycling in Portland 

after investments were made in bicycling infrastructure.

INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED CYCLIST

Interested but concerned cyclists make up the majority of cyclists. They are curious about 

regular bicycling as a form of transportation, but may be inexperienced. Due to financial 

or immigration issues, they may also be unable to afford to own or operate a motor vehicle. Also, due to the graduated licensing program, older teenagers also fall into this group. 

According to the “Four Types” categorization, those in the “Interested but Concerned” 

category like riding a bicycle, but they are afraid to ride. They would ride if they felt safer 

on the roadways, if cars were slower and less frequent, and if there were more quiet 

streets with few cars and paths without any cars at all.

Inexperienced cyclists tend to have minimal riding skill and little experience, and are 

not comfortable riding with traffic or within the roadway. These cyclists may lack 

confidence or knowledge of safe cycling practices and regulations. These riders tend to 

use sidewalks, school grounds, parks, bicycle lanes, and Class I bicycle paths as their 

preferred riding environments.

NO WAY, NO HOW

This group is not interested in bicycling for transportation. Some may not own a bicycle or 

ride at all. Others may ride for recreation only on off-road bikeways. This could be attributed to the distance between home and work, making bicycling too difficult or impossible. 

Shorter utilitarian trips are an option, but may also be considered difficult or impossible.

It is important to note that these are not clear cut definitions, and there is some overlap 

between categories, particularly as one’s level of interest and confidence increases since 

this may shift the demand for bicycle facilities. The Portland report lists that less than 

one percent of bicyclists were fully confident, seven percent were enthused and confident, 60 percent were interested but concerned, and 33 percent were classified as no 

way, no how.

Types of Bicycle Facilities

A bicycle facility may include a variety of facilities, from bicycle lanes to bicycle parking 

facilities, and other related facilities. Varying types and groups of riders prefer different 

types of riding environments. The Caltrans Highway Design Manual currently classifies 

bicycle lanes, bicycle paths, and routes in the following method:

Class I Bikeways

Class I Bikeways are also known as bicycle paths, shared-use paths or bicycle trails. 

A Class I Bikeway provides a completely separated right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and/or pedestrians with cross flows by motorists minimized.

Active Transportation 7
8 

EXHIBIT1 Existing Bikeways in the SCAG Region
Class II Bikeways

Often referred to as a bicycle lane, a Class II Bikeway provides a striped lane for one-way 

bicycle travel on a street or highway.

Class III Bikeways

Class III Bikeways are also known as bicycle routes and provide for shared use with 

pedestrians and/or motor vehicle traffic.

Cycletracks

Cycletracks are bicycle lanes on a street or highway physically separated from travel 

lanes occupied by vehicles.

Bicycle Boulevards

Bicycle Boulevards refer to low speed, mostly residential streets where bicycling and 

walking are considered the primary modes. Sometimes used for traffic calming, the 

installation of bicycle boulevards often includes discouragement of non-local vehicle 

traffic while allowing free flow of bicyclists. As an example, traffic diverters allow free 

flow for bicyclists and allow vehicle access to property for homeowners, but do not allow 

motorists to continue driving in the same direction. By reducing speeds and access, 

safety for bicyclists and pedestrians is increased.

The City of Long Beach has installed a bicycle boulevard on Vista Street in the Belmont 

Heights neighborhood. Methods used include traffic circles, a bicycle only signal, 

road narrowing and barriers forcing motorists to turn left or right while allowing 

bicyclists access.

TABLE 3 Existing Bikeways (in Miles) Imperial Los Angeles Orange

RiversideSan BernardinoVenturaTotal Existing% of Total

Class 1 2.9 264.0 204.9 925.1 77.4 56.5 1,530.8 35.5%

Class 2 4.4 484.6 638.5 235.7 275.8 203.1 1,842.1 42.7%

Class 3 38.1 518.2 102.4 103.6 116.7 62.9 941.9 21.8%

Total Existing 45.4 1,266.9 945.8 1,264.3 469.9 322.5 4,314.8 100.0%

Bicycle Boulevards

Bicycle Boulevards are low speed streets optimized for bicycle travel over vehicle travel.

Like their auto-driving counterparts, most bicyclists will most often use the fastest or 

most convenient route to reach their destinations. Bicyclists are legally allowed to use any 

public roadway in California unless specifically prohibited by State law (e.g. Freeways). 

Therefore, while some roadways are not designated or classified as bikeways, motorists 

should expect and anticipate bicyclists to share the road.

Bicycle Safety

Based on data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), the 

majority of counties in the SCAG region have experienced an increase in the number of 

traffic-related bicyclist fatalities for every 100,000 persons between 2003 and 2006, 

followed by a decrease in the number of fatalities between 2006 and 2008. Most of the 

counties experienced a decrease in traffic-related bicycle injuries for every 100,000 persons between 2003 and 2007; followed by an increase between 2007 and 2008.

Active Transportation 9
FIGURE 5 Number of Traffic Related Bicyclist Fatalities 

for Every 100,000 Persons

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Fatalities per 100,000 persons

Year

Imperial County Los Angeles County Orange County Riverside County

San Bernardino County Ventura County SCAG Region

Source: State-Wide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), 2003-2008

FIGURE 6 Number of Traffic Related Bicyclist Injuries 

for Every 100,000 Persons

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Injuries per 100,000 Persons

Year

Imperial County Los Angeles County Orange County Riverside County

San Bernardino County Ventura County SCAG Region

Source: State-Wide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), 2003-2008

In 2008, 3.98 percent of all traffic-related fatalities in our region involved bicyclists, 

and 4.31 percent of all traffic-related injuries involved bicyclists. Orange County had the 

highest percentage of traffic-related bicyclist fatalities (6.17 percent), and Ventura County 

had the highest percentage of traffic-related bicyclist injuries (5.83 percent) in the SCAG 

region in 2008.

10 Active Transportation
FIGURE 7 Percentage of Traffic-Related Fatalities Involving Bicyclists

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

California

SCAG Region

Del Norte County (1st)

Orange County (11th)

Los Angeles County (17th)

Riverside County (20th)

Ventura County (23rd)

Imperial County (26th)

San Bernardino County (27th)

San Joaquin County (31st)

Source: State-Wide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), 2008

FIGURE 8 Percentage of Traffic-Related Injuries Involving Bicyclists

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%

California

SCAG Region

Santa Cruz County (1st)

Ventura County (10th)

Orange County (12th)

Los Angeles County (21st)

Imperial County (37th)

Riverside County (40th)

San Bernardino County (46th)

Mariposa County (56th)

Source: State-Wide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), 2008

The SCAG region has seen a greater percentage of traffic-related fatalities involving 

bicyclists than the statewide average, but had a lower percentage of traffic-related 

injuries involving bicyclists. Los Angeles and Orange Counties were the only counties with 

a higher percentage than the statewide percentage of traffic-related bicycle fatalities. 

Orange and Ventura Counties were the only counties with a higher percentage than the 

statewide percentage of traffic-related bicycle injuries.

Pedestrian Oriented Design 

and Access Requirements

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

The ADA was signed into law in 1990 and requires that all public facilities be accessible 

to people with disabilities. The impact of the ADA has been far-reaching. For example, 

multi-level facilities including transit stations must include elevators, sidewalks must 

have sloped surfaces at intersections and other crossings to allow wheelchair accessibility, buses must have lifts, and signage must include Braille for the blind.

SCAG estimates that $90 million is necessary annually to maintain the existing pedestrian 

infrastructure in usable condition and to maintain consistency with ADA requirements, 

assuming a sidewalk life expectancy of 35 years. A portion of the $6.7 billion dollars allocated toward Active Transportation in the 2012 RTP will be applied toward infrastructure 

improvements that will maintain and improve sidewalks to ADA standards.

Schools

Pedestrian access between schools and nearby neighborhoods is a high safety priority. 

Clear crosswalks, signals adequately timed to allow children to cross streets, crossing 

guards, and school speed limit zones provide a safer environment for children on foot. 

Additionally, pathways and neighborhood parks can provide easier and safer access to 

schools by allowing children, both on foot and bicycle.

The Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program aims to increase the number of students 

walking or bicycling to school. Both the federal government and the State of California 

provide funding for SRTS programs.

Active Transportation 11
Transit

Efficient and well-used public transit (busses, subway, light rail, commuter trains) contribute to improved mobility and air quality, and extends accessibility for active transportation. However, the effectiveness of transit is decreased if individuals are unable to easily 

access it in a safe manner. It is estimated that transit users will walk half a mile (Ohland, 

2004) and bicycle two miles (Mineta Transportation Institute, 2002) to a transit stop. 

One of the barriers for commuters to take transit is the convenience to access transit or 

the distance between their starting point and final destination (first-mile/last-mile gap). 

Transit stations benefit from Park-and-Ride lots by expanding the pool of potential riders 

by bringing them to a central point. Yet, studies have shown that the effective distance for 

many Park-and-Ride users is 5 miles or less to these facilities. Placing adequate transit, 

pedestrian, and bicycle facilities within this radius may address the first-mile/last-mile 

gap and encourage ridership and active transportation.

The SCAG region has already taken steps to address the first mile/last mile connectivity. Metro Rail has removed some seats on the Red/Purple lines allocating that space for 

bicycles. Metrolink has 12 dedicated bicycle cars on their commuter trains. The cars can 

hold up to 18 bicycles on the lower level. 

Street Design and Access to Destinations

Buildings are often set further back from the street with a large parking lot between 

the entrance and the sidewalk, making them more accessible to visitors that arrive by 

car. This form of building design can act as a deterrent to bicyclists and pedestrians. 

Pedestrian and bicyclist access to retail and major activity centers is an integral part of a 

walkable community. Research on walkability has identified that the availability and distance of potential destinations, such as grocery stores, restaurants, cafes, public spaces, 

and retail stores are significant variables associated with walkability. Smaller blocks with 

more extensive sidewalk coverage along major streets with higher densities are positively associated with walkability. Similarly, the Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358) 

required cities and counties to accommodate and plan for all users. 

Pedestrian Safety

Based on SWITRS data, in 2003, San Bernardino County had the highest number of 

traffic-related pedestrian fatalities for every 10,000 persons, and Imperial County had 

the lowest. Imperial County had the highest number of traffic-related pedestrian fatalities 

from 2004 to 2007, while Ventura County had the lowest. In 2008, Los Angeles County 

had the highest number of traffic-related pedestrian fatalities for every 10,000 persons, 

while Ventura County had the lowest. Los Angeles County has consistently had the 

highest number of traffic-related pedestrian injuries for every 10,000 persons. Riverside 

County had the lowest number of traffic-related pedestrian injuries for every 10,000 

persons in 2003. San Bernardino County has had the lowest number of traffic-related 

bicyclist injuries for every 10,000 persons between 2004 and 2008.

FIGURE 9 Number of Pedestrian Fatalities for Every 100,000 Persons

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Fatalities per 100,000 persons

Year

Imperial County Los Angeles County Orange County Riverside County

San Bernardino County Ventura County SCAG Region

Source: State-Wide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), 2003-2008

12 Active Transportation
Active Transportation 13

FIGURE 10 Number of Pedestrian Injuries for Every 100,000 Persons

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Injuries per 100,000 Persons

Year

Imperial County Los Angeles County Orange County Riverside County

San Bernardino County Ventura County SCAG Region

Source: State-Wide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), 2003–2008

While bicycle deaths and injuries are fairly low when compared to other modes of transportation, pedestrian deaths and injuries represent a much more significant percentage 

of all traffic-related incidents, particularly in urban areas. In 2008, 20.94 percent of all 

traffic-related fatalities in the SCAG region involved a pedestrian, and 5.74 percent of 

traffic-related injuries involved pedestrians. Los Angeles County had the highest percentage of traffic-related pedestrian fatalities (29.65 percent) and the highest percentage of 

pedestrian injuries (7.05 percent) within the SCAG region in 2008.

FIGURE 11 Percentage of Traffic-Related Fatalities Involving Pedestrians

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

California

SCAG Region

San Francisco County (1st)

Los Angeles County (4th)

Orange County (12th)

San Bernardino County (20th)

Riverside County (28th)

Ventura County (29th)

Imperial County (36th)

Kings County (41st)

Source: State-Wide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), 2008

FIGURE 12 Percentage of Traffic-Related Injuries Involving Pedestrians

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%

California

SCAG Region

San Francisco County (1st)

Los Angeles County (4th)

Ventura County (15th)

Orange County (18th)

San Bernardino County (30th)

Imperial County (34th)

Riverside County (36th)

Siskiyou County (56th)

Source: State-Wide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), 2008
Most counties in the SCAG region have a smaller percentage of traffic-related pedestrian 

fatalities involving a pedestrian when compared to the statewide average; Los Angeles 

and Orange County were the only two counties to have a higher percentage of pedestrianinvolved fatalities. Most counties also had a smaller percentage of traffic-related injuries 

involving a pedestrian versus the statewide average; Los Angeles County was the only 

county that had a higher percentage of pedestrian involved injuries.

FIGURE 13 Fatalities and Injuries by Mode (in 2008)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Fatalities Injuries Fatalities Injuries Fatalities Injuries Fatalities Injuries Fatalities Injuries Fatalities Injuries Fatalities Injuries

Imperial Los Angeles Orange Riverside San Bernardino Ventura SCAG

Driver Passenger Pedestrian Bicyclist

Source: State-Wide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), 2008

Deficiencies and Needs Analysis

The existing active transportation infrastructure may provide access for many of the 

residents within the region but fails to accommodate the needs of the youth, elderly, 

and disabled. Added consideration must be given to these populations as any of them 

do not currently feel secure or able to utilize the existing active transportation facilities. 

The population within the SCAG region is expected to expand with an additional 4 million 

residents within the next 25 years. This growth in population will put added strain on the 

existing transportation infrastructure and contribute to more congestion if no improvements are made. In addition to the population increase, the average age of our population 

will increase, changing the characteristics and demand on travel. The aging population 

will place a greater demand on transit and active transportation modes.

Pedestrian Facility Deficiencies

The 1994 AASHTO Green Book describes pedestrian facilities as “sidewalks, crosswalks, 

traffic control features, special walkways found on some portions of freeway rights-ofway, curb cuts (depressions), and ramps for the older walkers and persons with mobility 

impairments. They are also parts of bus stops or other loading areas, grade separations, 

and the stairs or escalators related to these facilities.”

The coordination of local plans and county/regional policies is necessary to develop a 

regional interconnected network of bicycle facilities. Individuals base their travel decisions based on convenience, accessibility and safety. The need for a regional approach 

towards bicycle and pedestrian planning is attributed to the fact that travelers are not 

restricted to a single jurisdiction and often cross multiple jurisdictions during their trip. 

Existing facilities and infrastructure, and the planning for the infrastructure are often 

disjointed and do not provide easy accessibility for users.

Similarly, the dominance of motorized transportation has led to a disproportionate allocation of funding and adequate planning for pedestrian accessibility. Examples include areas 

that are not in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); areas that have 

long blocks between intersections and high speed limits, which all can make active transportation more difficult. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) has identified in their 2008 

SWITRS that 50 percent of all pedestrian fatalities in California occurred within the SCAG 

region. The high percentage of pedestrian fatalities demonstrates a need for change 

14 Active Transportation
 15

EXHIBIT 2Access to Public Transit in Imperial County
16 

EXHIBIT 3 Access to Public Transit in Los Angeles County
 17

EXHIBIT 4Access to Public Transit in Orange County
18 

EXHIBIT 5 Access to Public Transit in Riverside County
 19

EXHIBIT 6Access to Public Transit in San Bernardino County
20 

EXHIBIT 7 Access to Public Transit in Ventura County
 21

EXHIBIT 8Cities Without Stops Within the SCAG Region
within the SCAG region. Existing facilities should be retrofitted to reduce or prevent 

bicycle and pedestrian accidents and new facilities should be designed to reduce known 

conditions that contribute to bicycle and pedestrian related accidents. Furthermore, 

streets should be designed to promote the use of alternative modes of transportation 

through the provision of bicycle parking, street landscaping and other amenities that 

would create a more inviting environment for all users.

Bicycle Access to Transit

Accessibility is one the primary performance measures used to evaluate active transportation. Accessibility measures how well the current infrastructure provides individuals 

with the opportunity to access facilities. The following provides a general analysis of the 

deficiencies and gaps with our region’s current active transportation infrastructure.

Envisioning Neighborhoods with Transit-Oriented Development Potential (Mineta 

Transportation Institute, 2002) found that “bicycling distance, [is] usually approximated 

as less than 2 miles.” By using a 2-mile buffer around the transit station, we found 

that the majority of residents in the SCAG region have access to transit by bicycle (97.0 

percent), with Los Angeles County having the highest percentage of bicyclist access to 

transit (99.1 percent) and Imperial County having the lowest (87.5 percent).

TABLE 4 Percentage of Bicyclists with Access to Transit

County Population Served Total Population Percentage Served

Imperial 155,254 177,448 87.50%

Los Angeles 10,243,811 10,341,602 99.10%

Orange 3,088,474 3,124,761 98.80%

Riverside 1,933,589 2,088,521 92.60%

San Bernardino 1,826,414 2,052,928 89.00%

Ventura 806,437 831,029 97.00%

SCAG Region 18,053,980 18,616,290 97.00%

Pedestrian Access to Transit

The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development (Ohland, 2004) 

states that residents are willing to walk “between a quarter- and a half-mile” to access 

transit. By using a 0.5-mile buffer, we found that the majority of residents in the SCAG 

region have access to transit by walking (85.7 percent), with Los Angeles County having the highest percentage of pedestrian access to transit (93.5 percent) and Riverside 

County having the lowest (64.2 percent).

TABLE 5 Percentage of Pedestrians with Access to Transit

County Population Served Total Population Percentage Served

Imperial 116,245 177,448 65.50%

Los Angeles 9,668,821 10,341,602 93.50%

Orange 2,781,863 3,124,761 89.00%

Riverside 1,341,002 2,088,521 64.20%

San Bernardino 1,417,039 2,052,928 69.00%

Ventura 628,540 831,029 75.60%

SCAG Region 15,953,510 18,616,290 85.70%

All 7 incorporated cities in Imperial County contain transit stops.

Of the 88 incorporated cities in Los Angeles County, 83 cities contain transit stops. 

The five cities that do not are Avalon, Bradbury, Hidden Hills, La Habra Heights, and 

Rolling Hills.

All 34 incorporated cities in Orange County contain transit stops

All 25 incorporated cities in Riverside County contain transit stops.

Of the 24 incorporated cities within San Bernardino County, 20 cities contain transit 

stops. The cities that do not are Barstow, Needles, Twenty-Nine Palms, and Yucca Valley.

All 10 of the incorporated cities in Ventura County contain transit stops.

Of the 181 member cities within the SCAG region in 2008, 172 contained transit stops. 

The remaining nine cities that do not contain transit stops are Avalon, Bradbury, Hidden 

22 Active Transportation
 23

EXHIBIT 9Bikeway Access in the SCAG Region
24 

EXHIBIT 10 Existing and Proposed Bikeway Access in Imperial County
Hills, La Habra Heights, Rolling Hills, Barstow, Needles, Twenty-Nine Palms, and 

Yucca Valley.

While the majority of the population has access to the existing transit network, additional 

improvements are needed. Access to a transit stop does not ensure that individuals will 

utilize transit, since the transit stop that is near them may not provide them with access 

to their desired destination. Therefore, additional analysis is needed to ensure that individuals are being served with adequate access to transit by both walking and bicycling. 

Furthermore, additional analysis regarding access to the transit stops is required. This 

would include gaps in sidewalks, ADA compliance, and the transit network.

While access is a key topic of concern, bicycle and pedestrian facilities also need to 

be considered. Adequate bicycle facilities such as bicycle parking, lockers, or showers 

should also be evaluated in order to address the needs of bicyclists. Consideration for 

pedestrian access should also include adequate lighting, complete sidewalks, and ADA 

requirements in order to ensure the ease of access and improve pedestrian mode share.

Access to Bicycle Routes

According to a study conducted by the Oregon Transportation Research and Education 

Consortium (OTREC) in 2008, bicyclists would travel 0.27 miles to utilize a bikeway. By 

using a 0.27-mile buffer, we found that less than half of the SCAG region has access to 

bikeways (42.6 percent), with Ventura County having the highest percentage of residents with access to bikeways (64.0 percent) and Los Angeles County having the lowest 

(38.0 percent).

TABLE 6 Percentage of Population with Access to Existing Bikeways

County Population 

Served

Total

Population

Percentage 

Served

Commuter 

Bicyclist Mode 

Share

Imperial 80,170 177,448 45.2% 0.0%

Los Angeles 3,929,538 10,341,602 38.0% 0.8%

Orange 1,987,805 3,124,761 63.6% 0.9%

Riverside 832,429 2,088,521 39.9% 0.5%

San Bernardino 624,552 2,052,928 30.4% 0.4%

Ventura 531,515 831,029 64.0% 0.5%

SCAG Region 7,933,592 18,616,290 42.6% 0.7%

Source: American Community Survey, 2008

While a significant portion of the region has access to bikeways, only a small percentage utilizes the bikeways for their daily work commutes (less than 1 percent). The lack 

of bicycling commute trips may be attributed to the type of bikeways, confidence of the 

rider, adequate facilities at their destination (bicycle parking, showers, etc.) and accessibility to their desired destinations.

Once the locally proposed bikeways (projects identified by the local jurisdictions) are 

implemented, accessibility to bikeways will increase from 42.6 percent to 62.4 percent. 

Orange County would then have the highest percentage of bicyclists with access to bikeways (89.4 percent) and Riverside County would have the lowest (52.7 percent).

TABLE 7 Locally Proposed Bicycle Facilities (in Miles) Imperial Los Angeles Orange Riverside San Bernardino

VenturaTotal Proposed% of Total

Class 1 63.4 197.8 172.0 172.8 285.6 142.5 1,034.1 20.8%

Class 2 294.8 509.9 499.2 693.4 798.6 248.6 3,044.5 61.1%

Class 3 16.3 318.7 61.4 136.5 248.6 119.9 901.4 18.1%

Total 374.4 1,026.4 732.6 1,002.7 1,332.7 511.1 4,979.9 100.00%

Active Transportation 25
26 

EXHIBIT 11 Existing and Proposed Bikeway Access in Los Angeles County
 27

EXHIBIT 12Existing and Proposed Bikeway Access in Orange County
28 

EXHIBIT 13 Existing and Proposed Bikeway Access in Riverside County
 29

EXHIBIT 14Existing and Proposed Bikeway Access in San Bernardino County
30 

EXHIBIT 15 Existing and Proposed Bikeway Access in Ventura County
TABLE 8 Percentage of Population with Access to 

Existing and Proposed Bikeways

County Population Served Total Population Percentage Served

Imperial 136,207 177,448 76.8%

Los Angeles 5,503,786 10,341,602 53.2%

Orange 2,794,871 3,124,761 89.4%

Riverside 1,101,478 2,088,521 52.7%

San Bernardino 1,456,946 2,052,928 71.0%

Ventura 691,812 831,029 83.2%

SCAG Region 11,615,295 18,616,290 62.4%

In 2008, 153 out of SCAG’s 191 member cities contain bikeways. Of the 7 incorporated 

cities in Imperial County, 4 cities contained bikeways. Once the proposed bikeways have 

been developed, all 7 incorporated cities in Imperial County will contain bikeways.

Of the 88 incorporated cities in Los Angeles County, 79 cities contain bikeways. Once the 

proposed bikeways have been developed, only four will not contain bikeways.

All 34 incorporated cities in Orange County contain bikeways.

Of the 25 incorporated cities in Riverside County, 21 cities contain bikeways. The 4 cities 

that do not are Banning, Beaumont, Blythe, and Calimesa. Once the proposed bikeways 

have been developed, only four will not contain bikeways.

Half of the 24 incorporated cities within San Bernardino County contain bikeways. 

All 10 of the incorporated cities in Ventura County contain bikeways.

In an effort to increase mobility for bicyclists in the SCAG region, a 2,012.2 mile SCAG 

Regional Bikeway Network (Network) has been developed. This network has identified 

specific regional corridors that may be used to increase bicyclist mobility and connectivity within the SCAG region. The Network includes 432.2 miles of existing bikeways. In 

addition, local jurisdictions have currently proposed an additional 752.5 miles of bikeways within their local plans that would contribute to the Network. As part of the 2012 

Strategic Plan, SCAG has identified 827.5 miles of bikeways that may be developed to 

close gaps in the Network. Completion of the Network would provide approximately 

570,000 additional individuals with access to bikeways.

TABLE 9 SCAG Regional Bikeway Network Route Lengths 

by County and Class Type

County Class Existing 

Network

Proposed 

Network

SCAG 

Corridors Total

Imperial Class 1 2.9 63.4 - 66.3

Class 2 4.4 294.8 202.3 501.4

Class 3 38.1 16.3 51.8 106.2

Total 45.4 374.4 254.1 673.9

Los Angeles Class 1 264.0 197.8 3.9 465.7

Class 2 484.6 509.9 79.0 1,073.5

Class 3 518.2 318.7 127.0 964.0

Total 1,266.9 1,026.4 209.9 2,503.2

Orange Class 1 204.9 172.0 - 377.0

Class 2 638.5 499.2 0.6 1,138.3

Class 3 102.4 61.4 - 163.8

Total 945.8 732.6 0.6 1,679.0

Riverside Class 1 925.1 172.8 5.3 1,103.1

Class 2 235.7 693.4 31.9 960.9

Class 3 103.6 136.5 198.6 438.7

Total 1,264.3 1,002.7 235.8 2,502.8

San Bernardino Class 1 77.4 285.6 - 363.0

Class 2 275.8 798.6 16.6 1,091.0

Class 3 116.7 248.6 90.2 455.4

Total 469.9 1,332.7 106.8 1,909.4

Ventura Class 1 56.5 142.5 4.5 203.6

Class 2 203.1 248.6 0.4 452.1

Class 3 62.9 119.9 15.3 198.1

Total 322.5 511.1 20.2 853.8

Regional Total  4,314.8  4,979.9 827.3 10,122.1

Active Transportation 31
32 

EXHIBIT 16 Existing, Proposed and SCAG Regional Bikeways
 33

EXHIBIT 17Existing SCAG Regional Bikeway Network
34 

EXHIBIT 18 Proposed SCAG Regional Bikeway Network
Completion of the locally proposed projects would increase the bikeway network from 

4,314.8 miles to 9,294.7 miles (4,979.9 mile increase). Completion of the Network would 

increase the total network system to 10,122.1 miles (an additional 827.4 mile increase).

TABLE 10 Population Served by the SCAG Regional Bikeway Network

Regional Network Bikeway 

Miles

Population 

Served

Total 

Population

Percentage 

Served

Existing Bikeways 4,315 7,933,592 18,616,290 42.6%

Existing Bikeways + 

Locally Proposed Bikeways 8,439 11,615,295 18,616,290 62.4%

Existing Bikeways + 

SCAG Proposed Bikeways 4,286 8,225,263 18,616,290 44.2%

Existing Bikeways + 

Locally Proposed Bikeways 

+ SCAG Regional Bikeway 

Network

10,122 11,865,083 18,616,290  63.7%

The completed system will include the existing bikeway facilities, facilities proposed by 

local jurisdictions (constrained plan), and the SCAG Regional Bikeway Network Projects 

(strategic plan).

The existing bikeways that belong to the SCAG Regional Bikeway Network are highlighted. 

The existing system currently includes 432.2 miles of existing bikeways.

The proposed bikeways that belong to the SCAG Regional Bikeway Network have been 

highlighted, of these proposed projects 752.5 miles have been proposed by local jurisdictions and 827.4 miles have been identified by SCAG as regional bikeway corridors. These 

corridors provide a network, linking cities and facilities throughout the SCAG region; 

which may provide an increase in the number of bicycle commuters as well as bicycle 

tourists and recreational riders.

The SCAG Regional Bikeway Network was developed using local existing and planned 

facilities to the greatest extent possible to develop an interconnected bikeway network 

that allows bicyclists to travel between multiple jurisdictions. The new corridor facilities 

are graphically shown to close the gaps between the existing and locally planned facilities 

and do not necessarily represent specific alignments or facilities. Further, analysis and 

collaboration with local jurisdictions is necessary to determine specific route structures. 

The $6.7 billion dollars allocated toward Active Transportation projects will significantly 

improve the existing bikeway network through the maintenance, improvement and expansion of the existing infrastructure.

California Coastal Trail

In addition to bikeways, local trails have been able to increase accessibility and provide 

opportunities for active transportation. Trails along the coast of California have been 

utilized as long as people have inhabited the region. In an effort to develop a “continuous 

public right-of-way along the California coastline; a trail designed to foster appreciate and 

stewardship of the scenic and natural resources of the coast through hiking and other 

complementary modes of non-motorized transportation” the California Coastal Trail (CCT) 

was established by Coastal Act of 1976. 

The Coastal Initiative Collection (Proposition 20) of 1972 “created six regional commissions and one statewide commission to oversee the use and development of California’s 

1,000 mile coastline, and was designed to address the state legislature’s failure to 

produce an acceptable compromise measure regarding coastal ecology, protection, 

and preservation.” Four years later Costal Act established the California Coastal Trail. 

In 1999 the CCT was designated as California’s Millennium Legacy Trail to encourage 

federal agencies to assist in its development. In 2001, Assembly Concurrent Resolution 

20 declared the CCT an official State trail and Senate Bill 908 directed the Coastal 

Commission and State Parks Department to develop a plan to complete the CCT by 2008.

In 2003, the Coastal Conservancy developed the Completing the California Coastal Trail 

plan to provide a strategic blueprint to complete the CCT. The plan attempted to create a 

consistent, quality and connective trails throughout the length of the state by adhering to 

the following principles:

 Proximity – the CCT “should be within sight, sound or at least the scent of the sea.”

 Connectivity – the CCT “should effectively link starting points to destinations.”

 Integrity – the CCT “should be continuous and separated from motor traffic.”

 Respect – the CCT should be “located and designed with a healthy regard for the 

protection of natural habitats, cultural and archaeological features, private property 

rights, neighborhoods, and agricultural operations along the way.”

Active Transportation 35
 Feasibility – the CCT alignment should identify “timely, tangible results with the 

resources that are available, both interim and long-term.”

Government Code Section 65080.1 requires each MPO that includes a “portion of the 

California Coastal Trail, or property designated from the trail shall coordinate with the 

State Coastal Conservancy, the California Coastal Commission and Caltrans regarding the 

development of the trail. The trail must be identified in the RTP.”

In 1976 the American Revolution Bicentennial Commission of California and the California 

Department of Transportation developed the “Pacific Coast Bicentennial Bike Route.” 

The route began on Highway 101 at the California/Oregon State line, and ended near 

Interstate 5 at the Mexican border. This existing route is considered challenging and 

generally recommended for experienced bicyclists only. A pilot project to provide signage 

along the route in Caltrans District 1 included the installation of 19 bicycle guide signs 

in Mendocino County, providing cyclists with food, camping and directional information 

along the bikeway. This existing bikeway coincides with the CCT in some areas depending on the geographical characteristics of that area. While the CCT includes the use of 

all of forms of active transportation, the primary goal of the CCT is to provide hiking or 

pedestrian trails.

Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura County each contain a number of bikeways located 

along the coast, which may be contribute to the completion of the CCT. Ventura County 

currently contains approximately 322.5 miles of existing bikeways, roughly 23.1 miles are 

located along the coast. Los Angeles County currently contains approximately 1,266.9 

miles of existing bikeways, roughly 63.9 miles are located along the coast. Orange County 

currently contains approximately 945.8 miles of existing bikeways, roughly 30.2 miles are 

located along the coast. Completion of the CCT in these areas will require coordination 

between local and state agencies. New development projects that require approval from 

the California Coastal Commission may include Conditions of Approvals that provide for 

enhancements or additions to the CCT.

Completion of the 1,200 mile trail would provide citizens with the SCAG region and the 

state to have increased access to the California coast through active transportation 

modes. Additional public benefits from completing the CCT would include:

 Economic Benefits – According to the American Hiking Society’s factsheet, The 

Economic Benefits of Hiking, “Revenues generated from trail-related recreation and 

sports activities provide substantial income and employment opportunities.”

 Environmental Protection and Enhancement – having an established, marked trail 

may help minimize human impacts on the environment by directing them away from 

environmentally sensitive areas or resources and encouraging the use of active 

transportation to reduce GHGs.

 Quality of Life Benefits – the trails may increase recreational activities by providing 

safe trails for hiking, and riding and may also increase accessibility to other recreational facilities such as the beach or camp grounds.

 Public Health Benefits – improved accessibility to trails may encourage individuals to 

participate in a more active lifestyle by utilizing active transportation for recreational 

or transportation purposes.

In addition to the policy initiatives, the following projects have been identified to complete 

significant portions of the CCT within Ventura, Los Angeles and Orange County.

VENTURA COUNTY

1. Assist Caltrans in evaluating and improving non-motorized access opportunities 

along the Highway 101 corridor between the County line and Mussel Shoals.

2. Design a recreational access trail along the Santa Clara River to encourage nonmotorized access to the coast from inland cities.

3. Restore the pedestrian and bicycle pathway damaged by erosion at Surfers’ Point 

(County Fairgrounds). Encourage the U.S. Navy to provide a shoreline public access 

connection on the Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port Hueneme, consistent 

with military security requirements.

4. Provide pedestrian and bicycle paths in conjunction with planning for restoration of 

the Ormond Beach wetlands, to connect with the trail in Port Hueneme.

5. Work with the City of Oxnard to design and construct recreational support facilities 

at the terminus of Arnold Road to improve beach access opportunities and avoid 

impacts to sensitive habitat areas.

36 Active Transportation
LOS ANGELES COUNTY

1. Assist Caltrans in evaluating and improving non-motorized access along State 

Highway 1 corridor from Leo Carrillo State Beach to the beginning of the South 

Bay Bicycle Path near Temescal Canyon. Encourage Caltrans and local agencies to 

extend bicycle and pedestrian improvements through Malibu.

2. Facilitate continuous lateral access along the Malibu shoreline from Leo Carrillo 

State Beach to the city limit.

3. Link the inland portions of the Santa Monica Mountains national Recreation Area 

with the coast by assisting the National Park Service, State Parks, the Santa Monica 

Mountains Conservancy, and the City of Malibu to acquire necessary rights-of-way 

and develop improvements to complete the Coastal Slope Trail.

4. Extend the pedestrian/bicycle path from Washington Street to the north jetty of 

Marina del Rey, and support the seasonal ferry service for pedestrians and cyclists 

across the channel to Playa del Rey.

5. Assist the Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach in providing a continuous pedestrian and bicycle access across the replacements for the Vincent Thomas Bridge and 

Gerald Desmond Bridge linking San Pedro to Long Beach.

ORANGE COUNTY

1. Implement the planned State Highway 1 improvements between Seal Beach and 

Anderson Street in Huntington Beach to create a separated non-motorized trail.

2. Encourage local agency efforts to work with private landowners and acquire public 

access rights necessary to provide a trail connection to the coast from Aliso Creek 

Regional Park.

3. Encourage local agency land acquisitions, trail design, and development to provide 

a public access connection to the coast from Laguna Coast Wilderness Park.

4. Complete improvements of “missing links” to provide safe pedestrian and bicycle 

access adjacent to State Highway 1 between the cities of Laguna Beach and 

Dana Point.

5. Support the effort by the City of San Clemente to provide a safe pedestrian and 

bicycle trail along the railroad right-of-way west of State Highway 1.

It is estimated that the CCT in the SCAG region would be comprised of 183 miles. 

Approximately 87 miles are considered adequate and an additional 96 miles are still 

needed in terms of highway corridor improvements, acquisition and construction on 

private lands, and construction on public lands. Completion of the CCT in the SCAG region 

is estimated to cost approximately $41,860.

TABLE 11 Improvements Needed to Complete the Coastal Trail: 

Estimated Linear Miles by County

County

Highway 

Corridor 

Improvements

Acquisition/

Construction 

on Private 

Lands

Construction 

on Public 

Lands

Current 

Improvements 

Adequate

Total

Ventura 21 - 6 25 52

Los Angeles 22 5 25 34 86

Orange 11 3 3 28 45

SCAG Total 54 8 34 87 183

CCT Total 245 269 245 548 1,307

TABLE 12 Estimated Capital Outlay Costs to Complete the Coastal Trail

County

Highway 

Corridor 

Improvements

Acquisition 

of New 

Right-of-Way

Trail Construction

Total Hard 

Surface Rural Signing

Ventura $3,200 - $2,400 - $20 $5,620 

Los 

Angeles $3,400 $2,300 $20,600 $100 $100 $26,300 

Orange $1,600 $1,800 $6,700 - $40 $9,940 

Total $8,200 $4,100 $29,700 $100 $160 $41,860 

CCT Total $37,200 $121.40 $123,300 $38,450 $1,200 $321,550 

Completion of these projects would help increase bicycle and pedestrian accessibility to 

the coast and assist in the development of a regional bikeway network.

Active Transportation 37
38 

EXHIBIT 19 California Coastal Trail 
Active Transportation 39

Policy Recommendations

While SCAG is not an implementing agency SCAG may work with local jurisdictions to 

assist them with developing policies and projects that may improve active transportation.

Agencies, Groups and Individuals 

in Bicycle and Walking Planning

Federal and state regulations require SCAG to plan and accommodate for bicycle and 

walking transportation. As the region’s MPO, SCAG develops regional planning strategies 

and encourages local jurisdictions to think about transportation at the regional level, since 

individual travel decisions are not bound by political boundaries and often transverse 

multiple jurisdictions. A regional approach towards transportation planning will provide 

increased connectivity and accessibility. The 2012 RTP has been developed in cooperation and collaboration with federal, state and local stakeholders. Each stakeholder plays a 

different role in the development and final adoption of the RTP.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Federal statutes have mandated Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to include 

pedestrian and bicycle facility strategies as part of their overall systematic approach in 

addressing current and future transportation demands.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

The State of California and Caltrans has long supported active transportation planning, 

design policies and practices.

COUNTIES

Each county within the SCAG region has developed and maintained a bicycle and walking 

master plan to guide their active transportation development.

CITIES

Many of the cities within the SCAG region have developed and maintained a bicycle and/

or walking plan as part of their circulation element or as a separate document. These 

plans are used to guide their transportation development and assist them with the implementation of their active transportation policies.

Performance Measures

In addition to the established goals and objectives the following performance measures 

have been identified in an effort to maximize the benefits of active transportation modes:

1. Change in Active Transportation mode share: Increase bicycling and walking in 

the SCAG region by creating and maintaining an active transportation system that 

includes well maintained bicycle and pedestrian facilities, easy access to transit 

facilities, and increased safety and security.

2. Change in the amount of Active Transportation facilities: Increase accommodation 

and planning for bicyclists and pedestrians (including persons with disabilities) for 

all transportation planning projects.

3. Change in the number of accidents involving Active Transportation users: Decrease 

bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities and injuries by increasing transportation safety.

4. Change in land use patterns and Active Transportation: Support local jurisdictions 

comply with the Complete Streets Act and the development of local active transportation plans. SCAG will also work with local jurisdictions in developing a regional 

active transportation plan.

Proposed Policies

The goals, objectives and policies in this report were derived from information gathered 

over the course of the planning process, including public input, review of bicycle and 

pedestrian master plans from local jurisdictions throughout the region.

GOAL 1: DECREASE BICYCLIST AND PEDESTRIAN 

FATALITIES AND INJURIES

 Objective 1.1: SCAG will work with local jurisdictions to support a safe transportation environment in the SCAG Region.

 Policy 1.1.1: SCAG will work with local jurisdictions to provide comprehensive 

education for all road users.
40 Active Transportation

 Policy 1.1.2: SCAG will work with local jurisdictions to direct enforcement 

agencies to focus on bicycling and walking safety to reduce multi-modal 

conflicts.

 Policy 1.1.3: SCAG will partner with local advocacy groups and bicycle related 

businesses to provide bicycle-safety curricula to the general public.

The 2006 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) established goals to make walking and 

street crossing safer; and improve bicycle safety. The SHSP intended on achieving these 

goals by 2010, reducing the number of pedestrian fatalities attributed to vehicle collisions 

and the number of bicycle roadway fatalities by 25 percent from their 2000 level. These 

goals were established by the Legislature in the 2002 California Blueprint for Bicycling 

and Walking, and assumed that the Legislature’s mobility goal of a 50 percent increase in 

bicycling and pedestrian trips by 2010 would also be achieved.

Improved data collection regarding pedestrian and bicycle trip characteristics, facility conditions and injuries and fatalities would provide local jurisdictions with a clearer 

understanding of the active transportation conditions within their jurisdictions. Analysis 

generated from this data would also provide decision makers with a better understanding 

of the deficiencies and needs within the existing active transportation system.

FIGURE 14 California Coastal Trail Timeline

1970 1980 2000

1972

COASTAL INITIATIVE COLLECTION 

(PROPOSITION 20)

Created six regional and one state 

commission to develop California’s 

1,000 mile coastline. 

1976

CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT

Defined the “coastal zone” as the area 

of the state that extends 3 miles 

seaward and 1,000 yards inland.

1999

COASTAL ACCESS PROGRAM:

CALIFORNIA’S MILLENNIUM 

LEGACY TRAIL

The California Coastal Trail was 

recognized and designated as 

California’s Millennium Legacy 

Trail.

2001

ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT 

RESOLUTION 20 

The California Coastal Trail 

was declared an official 

State Trail.

SENATE BILL 908

The State Coastal 

Conservancy developed 

the “Completing the 

California Coastal Trail” 

report. 

2003

COMPLETING

THE CALIFORNIA 

COAST TRAIL

The “Completing the 

California Coast Trail” 

plan was completed.

1990 2010
Active Transportation 41

GOAL 2: DEVELOP AN ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION FRIENDLY 

ENVIRONMENT THROUGHOUT THE SCAG REGION

 Objective 2.1: Produce a comprehensive regional active transportation plan

 Policy 2.1.1: SCAG will work with local jurisdictions to adopt and implement 

the proposed SCAG Regional Bikeway Network

 Policy 2.1.2: SCAG will work with local jurisdictions to connect all cities in the 

SCAG region via bicycle facilities

 Policy 2.1.3: SCAG will work with local jurisdictions to complete the California 

Coastal Trail

The need for active transportation needs to be fully considered for all transportation planning projects. Increased accommodation for bicyclists and pedestrians requires increased 

funding, multi-modal planning, programming, and design. As planners increase accommodation for active transportation users, an increase in bicyclist and pedestrian safety 

should also occur.

Research by Dr. Jennifer Dill, Portland State University Associate Processor, and anecdotal evidence from New York City (NYC) indicate that increases in dedicated bicycle 

facilities (bicycle lanes and bicycle paths) in those cities have resulted in greater bicycle 

usage. In addition, in NYC, while bicycling use has doubled along with the number of 

bicycle facilities, bicycle fatalities have not grown, and injuries have actually declined in 

total. Collaborative efforts that are capable of integrating the needs of all commuters are 

essential to developing a safe and accessible transportation system for all users.

Adoption of the SCAG Regional Bikeway Network would increase bicycle facilities by 

827.5 miles beyond existing local plans, and may further promote ridership in the SCAG 

region. In addition, SCAG may partner with local jurisdictions on grant opportunities such 

as the Caltrans Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) or Safe Routes to School (SRTS) 

projects. SCAG may also provide local jurisdictions with assistance in the development 

of their local active transportation plans and by providing them with Pedestrian Safety 

Action Plan (PSAP) workshops. The SCAG Compass Blueprint program may further assist 

local jurisdictions with the development of innovative transportation and land-use planning projects.

Adoption of a Complete Streets Policy that would ensure that all streets are safe, comfortable, and convenient for travel for everyone, regardless of age or ability—motorists, 

pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transportation riders.

GOAL 3: INCREASE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION USAGE 

IN THE SCAG REGION

 Objective 3.1: Adoption of a Safe Routes to School Policy

 Policy 3.1.1: Enable and encourage children, including those with disabilities 

to walk and bicycle to school

 Policy 3.1.2: Make bicycling and walking to school a safer and more appealing transportation method, thereby encouraging a healthy and active lifestyle 

from an early age

 Policy 3.1.3: Facilitate the planning, development, and implementation of project and activities that will improve safety and reduce traffic, fuel consumption, and air pollution in the vicinity (approximately 2 miles) of primary and 

middle schools (Grade K-8)

 Objective 3.2: Adoption of a Complete Streets Policy

 Policy 3.2.1: Encourage local jurisdictions to prioritize and implement projects/policies to comply with ADA requirements

 Policy 3.2.2: Encourage local jurisdictions to develop and implement 

Complete Streets Policies. 

Increasing bicycling and walking requires well maintained bicycle and pedestrian facilities, easy access to transit facilities, and increased safety and security. While pedestrian sidewalks are fairly well established in most areas, it is estimated that there are 

only 4,315 miles of dedicated bicycle facilities in the region, with an additional 7,154 

miles planned.

Reliable data for planning is also needed to increase active transportation and investments. Active transportation data needs include, but are not limited to, comprehensive 

user statistics, user demographics, bicycle travel patterns/corridors, accident mapping, bikeway system characteristics, and sub-regional improvement projects and 

funding needs.
42 Active Transportation

GOAL 4: ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF 

LOCAL ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLANS

 Objective 4.1: SCAG will assist local jurisdictions with the development and maintenance of their local active transportation plans

 Policy 4.1.1: SCAG will work with local jurisdictions in the development of 

bicycle/pedestrian plans for all cities in the region

 Objective 4.2: Develop Pedestrian Safety Action Plans

 Policy 4.2.1: SCAG will work with local jurisdictions in the development of 

PSAPs by conducting workshops

 Objective 4.3: Encourage the use of Intelligent Traffic Strategies

 Policy 4.3.1: Encourage the use of Intelligent Traffic Signals that are able to 

detect slower pedestrians in signalized crosswalks and extend the signal time 

appropriately

SCAG will work with all member counties and cities to develop bicycle and walking plans 

and policies. Active transportation plans have been created or updated within the previous four years are eligible for BTA funds.

Air Quality Improvements

In addition to increased mobility for all users throughout the SCAG region, implementation 

of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS will further improve the environment and congestion of the 

region through the reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

Potential VMT Reduction

As described previously, active transportation has grown dramatically in recent years. 

This trend is expected to continue into the foreseeable future aided by several factors. 

First, dramatic increase in the bicycle network, as demonstrated earlier, will result in 

improved access to bicycle network for the Region’s residents by more than 50 percent. 

Second, more compact mixed use urban forms in the future will be much more conducive to biking and walking. Third, better coordination with other modes, primarily transit, 

will become an incentive for some to switch to biking or walking. Most importantly, a 

significant change in the culture that values a healthy lifestyle, bikeability and walkability 

will become a greater impetus in promoting active transportation as a viable means 

of accessing opportunities. Given this context and survey data that supports dramatic 

increase in bicycling and walking mode shares in recent years, it is reasonable to assume 

this trend will continue into the future. For example, according to the NHTS data, bicycle 

mode share increased for all trips from 0.8 percent in 2000 to over 1.7 percent in 2009. 

This is an increase of almost 9 percent on an annualized basis. The share of walk trips for 

all trip purposes increased by approximately 6 percent on an annualized basis during the 

same period.

So, if we assumed annualized increase of 9 percent in mode share of bicycle trips for all 

trips, the potential bicycle mode share could be as high as 4.4 percent in 2020 and as 

high as 16 percent in 2035. However, it is somewhat unrealistic to assume that 9 percent 

growth rate could be sustained over such a long period of time. On the other hand, given 

the significant investments proposed for active transportation and the current trends, it is 

reasonable to assume that at least 2/3 of all trips shorter than 3 miles or half of all trips 

that are 5 miles or less could be converted to active transportation by 2035.

As indicated earlier, based on NHTS-CA Survey for all trips, bicycling and walking mode 

share for all trips are approximately 1.7 percent and 19.24 percent respectively for 

2009. This represents a little over 50 percent of all trips less than 3 miles. Assuming 

2/3 of all trips under 3 miles or half of all trips under 5 miles as the upper limit of Active 

Transportation mode share in 2035, relative increase (from the base year of 2008) in 

bicycling and walking mode shares can be estimated as 1.7 percent and 3.1 percent in 

2020, and 3.9 percent and 6.3 percent in 2035. Relative reduction in VMT resulting from 

these mode shifts are estimated at approximately 7.8 million miles and 20.4 million miles 

for 2020 and 2035 respectively.

REGIONAL OFFICES

Imperial County

1405 North Imperial Avenue

Suite 1 

El Centro, CA 92243 

Phone: (760) 353-7800 

Fax: (760) 353-1877

Orange County

OCTA Building 

600 South Main Street

Suite 906 

Orange, CA 92863 

Phone: (714) 542-3687 

Fax: (714) 560-5089 

Riverside County

3403 10th Street

Suite 805 

Riverside, CA 92501 

Phone: (951) 784-1513 

Fax: (951) 784-3925

San Bernardino County

Santa Fe Depot 

1170 West 3rd Street

Suite 140 

San Bernardino, CA 92410 

Phone: (909) 806-3556 

Fax: (909) 806-3572

Ventura County

950 County Square Drive

Suite 101 

Ventura, CA 93003 

Phone: (805) 642-2800 

Fax: (805) 642-2260 

818 West 7th Street, 12th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90017 

Phone: (213) 236-1800 

Fax: (213) 236-1825

www.scag.ca.gov

please recycle 2347 2012.04.09