Active Transportation Plan - City of Pomona

As part of the Pomona Bicycle Master Plan project, Fehr & Peers developed a list of proposed bicycle
facilities for the City with the goal of increasing connectivity and generally expanding the dedicated
bicycle network. Fehr & Peers assessed the proposed facilities for feasibility and classified the proposed
facilities based on the facility type that could be implemented under current configurations or with
associated modifications. This appendix describes the methodology behind the assessment and presents
the findings in tabular format, where applicable.
We assessed the facilities against criteria specific to the group they were presented in. In some cases,
they were assessed against criteria from other groups to determine if a facility could be built to a higher
level. The criteria are as follows:
Class 1 Bikeways: We measured the typical width and horizontal clearance in Google Earth for sections
where these might be constraining factors. The minimum width for a Class 1 Bikeway is considered to be
10’ for this study, with at least 2’ of clearance on each side from other obstructions. Crossings at streets
or physical barriers were also assessed, with special considerations noted.
Class 2 Bike Lanes: Feasibility is determined by comparing the actual curb-to-curb width of a roadway
with the minimum width necessary to support the current number of lanes plus 5’ bike lanes in each
direction. For this analysis, the minimum lane widths are considered to be 10’ for through/turn lanes, and
12’ for lanes that are curb-adjacent. Where parking is permitted, 8’ was added to the total lane width.
Painted medians and two-way left turn lanes were considered to be through/turn lanes in most cases.
Raised medians and curb lines are considered to be static; these analyses assume that no physical
construction or demolition would occur.
Through this comparison we determined if bike lanes can be installed along a roadway segment without
decreasing the number of lanes or eliminating any parking. The analysis typically breaks proposed
improvement sections into smaller segments depending on changes in layout or physical characteristics.
Thus a bike lane may be feasible within one block and infeasible within the next block if lanes are added
or total width changes.
Class 3 Bike Routes: Bike routes are typically selected where connectivity could be improved by filling
gaps in the system, but there isn’t sufficient space to install bike lanes. For this analysis, the total widths
of the proposed bike route streets were compared to the minimum widths necessary for bike lanes (as
outlined previously) to ensure that a full Class 2 facility could not be implemented.
Future Potential Bicycle Facilities: Feasibility for different facility types was tested using the steps above.
In many cases, public input, bicycle network gaps, and accessibility to key destinations indicated that there
was demand for a facility that could not be implemented with the existing roadway configuration. These
locations will undergo future study to determine the feasibility of bicycle facility implementation and
consideration of new treatments that will result in the provision of bicycle facilities.
This appendix shows the results of the analysis along with notes about facilities and any field
measurements or observations. This was done where the total width was within 4’ of the minimum width.
Tables comparing widths show the difference between the necessary width and existing width in the
columns labeled “Delta”, and use a color coding system to indicate feasibility of improvements. Green
indicates feasible, red indicated infeasible. A blue color indicates a value within 4’ of the minimum, which
was therefore verified in the field.