HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDromerob1July 1, 2010
city o f san Luis OBIS O
SLO CITY CLER K
Re : Council Agenda Item Bi- Highway 1 Major Investment Stud y
I have just completed my review of this report and find it to be exceptionally well done i n
most regards . The analysis and proposed solutions are thorough, carefully and reasonabl y
presented .
I do however find one major weakness which I feel must be corrected prior to fina l
submittal and acceptance of the document. This is found in section 6 .1 "Future Traffic
Volumes ." The analysis only considers future traffic growth due to development in the
study area . This might be appropriate in some areas, but simply is not realistic in thi s
area.
In my opinion, the study must consider the huge effect which may be caused by traffi c
generated external to the area ; Cal Poly, Cuesta College, CMC, Los Osos, north coas t
future development, and the general traffic increase which historically takes place on al l
state highways in California caused by increasing populations, commerce, and leisur e
travel . The UCSB 2009 Economic Forecast shows that under normal conditions o f
prosperity, US Route 1 traffic at Foothill rose at a rate of 1 .7% per year between 1996 -
2005 . US Route 101 traffic at Madonna Road rose at a rate of 2 .5% per year between
1996-2003 . Caltrans records show a 20 year (1995-2015) projected annual growth rate o n
Santa Rosa of .83%, and a 20 year (1995-2015) annual projected growth rate on Hwy 10 1
(at Prado) of 1 .84%. In addition, I submit that as long as housing remains so expensive i n
San Luis Obispo, we will continue to have many of our employees choosing to live i n
nearby communities and commute to SLO for their jobs, many along highways 101 an d
1 .
If we ignore these traffic generators, traffic will be underestimated, and we will suffe r
serious congestion long before many of the dates estimated in the report .
The lack of consideration of external effects, and the unrealistic assumptions regardin g
modal split were basic flaws in the 1994 Circulation element (and one of the reasons tha t
I voted against it as a Council Member). Despite millions of dollars this city has spent i n
bicycle and bus improvements and encouraging carpooling, the change in modal spli t
over the past 15 years has been very minor . This unplanned for increase in vehicula r
traffic has caused our San Luis Obispo residents to suffer with congestion that might hav e
been avoided by more realistic planning .
OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCI L
990 Palm Street ■ San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 ■805/781-711 9
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
RECEIVE D
To : City Council
DATEo ITEM #
JUL 01 201(1
From : Mayor Dave Romero
city of san Luis oBisp o
In addition, all of California is entering into a time of limited funds to make traffi c
improvements, thus allowing only slow progress when we finally reach critical point s
when something must be done .
I strongly suggest that our consultant be required to use more realistic traffic projectio n
figures . This will cause earlier dates when we must have measures in place to avoid
intolerable congestion . This would encourage the City, SLOCOG, and Caltrans t o
commence earlier planning, which will partially counter the endless delays we no w
experience with major projects .
Much of the quality of life for our future citizens rests on this decision .
Very Truly Yours ,
/L.,2,4e,e,;1Z,e),e4s
David F. Romer o
Mayor HAW Copy &Ma_
:?COUNCIL G3" CDD DI R
(FIN DI RC3'AGAG/C/V fi-aC.7'FIRE CHIE FEt-ATTORNEY C3W DI Rt3MLERK/ORIG iOLICE CH FDEPT HEADS 0RE0 DI A
LTILDI RCFi®i R
-,may ~yt~z
C~ «rac
...--'veto
Page 2 of 4
U,S .Route 101 at Madonna Road Traffi c
San Luis Obisp o
77,000 77,000
75,000
72,000
72,00 0
70,004
70,000 7000
1996
19,97 1996
1999 2000
2001
2002' 2003 2004
2005 2006 200 7
6/29/2010
TRAFFIC TREND :SLO - 1 - 16.77 A
CONTROL STA . 520A, SAN LUIS OBISPO, N. JCT. RTE. 10 1
Data Point Range :1977 2009 Volume Used :AAD T
Projection :Year Volume
Sc~1+2 1oS2 he y +~~
w 2Q g ut'
e_)( ,))-e
Startin g
Interi m
Ending
1995 I 29718
2009 I 33157
2015 (34630
Projected Number of Years :20
Linear Growth Factor :1 .1 7
Linear Annual Growth Rate :0 .83%
y = 245 .59x -46022 7
R 2 = 0 .534 9SLO-1 -16 .77 A
CONTROL STA. 520A, SAN LUIS OBISPO, N . JCT . RTE .
4500 0
4000 0
35000
n n
n
n
30000 n n n ■■
G 2500 0
2000 0
15000
1000 0
5000
0
N
O
n
COO Q)W O)O
N
ON
N
ON
NN0N
20 Year Incr Factor = 1 .17 (0.83% /Year)
TRAFFIC TREND :SLO-101-25.91 A
Control Sta . 540, San Luis Obispo, Prado Road Interchange (Mainline Only )
Data Point Range :1977 2010 Volume Used :AADT
Projection :Year Volum e
Startin g
Interi m
Ending
2006 I 55666
2010 I 59767
2026 I 76169 1
Projected Number of Years :20
Linear Growth Factor :1 .3 7
Linear Annual Growth Rate :1 .84%
y = 1025 .1x - 2E+0 6
R 2 = 0 .933 1SLO-101-25 .91 A
Control Sta . 540, San Luis Obispo, Prado Roa d
10000 0
9000 0
8000 0
7000 0
6000 0
50000
4000 0
3000 0
2000 0
10000
■■■■
■
■■
■
0
N
0)0)0)
N0)0)
N00N
NO0N
N
ON 0N ON
20 Year Incr Factor = 1 .37 (1 .84% /Year)