The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6/11/2020 Item 6, Havas Wilbanks, Megan From:Gary Havas < To:Advisory Bodies Subject:ATC Communication: Meeting Thursday, June 11, 2020 Attachments:200605 ATC Comments.pdf Greetings folks and staff! I have examined the agenda packet for the ATP update and offer the following: Thanks to you all for your work in this important project! Cheers! Gary Havas Board President, Bike SLO County 805-458-0755 gphavas6953@gmail.com 1 Comments from Gary Havas. Page number references are to the Agenda Packet pages rather than the document pages. 1.Page 8 graphics and dimensions: trikes are wider than the trailer shown (Catrike Expedition is 2’-10”, and the ICE is 2’-8”) 2.Page 8, Point 1.4 “…transportation to, from, and within a development.” Awkward statement given isolated developments are not required to create a way out of their property lines. 3.Page 9: “1.8 Class III Bike Routes and neighborhood greenways shall…” Is point this consistent with the Anholm Greenway Project? 4.Page 9: “1.12 When constructing protected bike lanes, elevated or sidewalk level bikeways should be the preferred facility, where feasible.” Would “grade separated” sufﬁce and provide better latitude? 5.Page 9: “1.17 New Class III bikeways should not be considered on roadways with prevailing speeds over 25 mph” seems redundant given 1.8 above it. 6.Page 9: “1.19 Bike ramps should have a minimum width of 6 feet with ﬂared transitions instead of vertical curbsspeeds above 25 mph. When speeds exceed these thresholds, trafﬁc calming measures should be utilized.” I cannot make sense of this. 7.Page 10: “1.20 Bike ramps should not include truncated domes that can be confused with pedestrian ramps”. I cannot make sense of this, either. 8.Page 35: “A “Pass Bicycle 3 FT MIN” sign (R117(CA)) can be installed to indicate to drivers the required passing distance per California Vehicle Code section 21760” I like this and feel it would do something to augment the pavement markings. I don’t think I have seen this implemented yet. 9.Page 35: “Though not always possible, placing the markings outside of vehicle tire tracks will increase the life of the markings and the long- term cost of the treatment.” Prioritize visibility and clarity in this statement. 10.Page 37: "• 1.40 The preferred location of bike lanes is at the edge of the road, adjacent to a curb. Bike lanes shall run parallel to the motor vehicle lane, not the curb. Where on-street motor vehicle parking is allowed, bike lanes shall be located along the outside of parking bays next to the travel.” Will this contradict the use of parked cars as a buffer separating cyclists as the plan had been on Newport in Grover Beach? Or make reference to “Protected Bike Lanes” in a following section. 11.Page 37: “If manholes or other utility access boxes are to be located in bike lanes within 50 ft. of intersections or within 20 ft. of driveways or other bicycle access points, special manufactured permanent nonstick surfaces are required to ensure a controlled travel surface for cyclists breaking or turning.” This seems a poor choice of language. Maybe “non-skid” would be better? 12.Page 44: “A two-way protected bikelane on one way street should be located on the left side.” Redundant to statement on Page 43. 13.Page 65: Under “Lateral Clearance” “…An additional ft of lateral clearance (total of 3’) is …” Use “foot”. I know you will… 14.Page 65: “…d. Include a smooth riding surface to minimize noise…” Add “non-skid”