HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/11/2020 Item 6, Otto (2)
Wilbanks, Megan
From:Gary Havas <
To:Garrett Otto
Cc:Advisory Bodies
Subject:Re: 6/11 ATC Meeting Item 6
Thanks all! I'll stand by this also.
Gary Havas,
President, Bike SLO County
805-458-0755
Wherever you go, please get there safely!
On Jun 10, 2020, at 3:05 PM, Garrett Otto < wrote:
Dear ATC,
In reviewing the proposed design guidance and policy, it was a bit difficult to determine
what was a guidance and what is policy. I suggest the policy language be designated
somehow in the final memo. I think it's important to have strong policy language. There
are plenty of details in the many pages of the document, but I want to focus on some
high level policy that will be most effective in implementing the plan quickly and
achieving many of the City’s ambitious goals. A few months back I gave a presentation
to you on Quick Builds. In discussions with staff, they agreed that the ATP would be a
suitable place to include a quick build policy. Let me remind you of my
recommendations quick build policy language that mimics other cities who have
adopted such policies:
Quick Build/Rapid Implementation Policy:
1. San Luis Obispo is committed to achieving its Vision Zero safety goal,
Circulation Element’s mode share goals, and Climate Action Plan by prioritizing
non-private automobile transportation and implementing key elements of
Active Transportation Plan.
2. Use Quick Build strategies to provide separated and protected (Class IV)
bikeways to complete the core bicycle network by 2030.
3. City Traffic Engineer to approve reversible and/or adjustable parking and
traffic modifications such as painted safety zones, bike lanes, adjustments to
parking regulations, parking and loading changes, changes to the configuration
1
of traffic lanes and/or other safety improvements to be implemented using
materials such as roadway and curb paint, traffic signs, traffic delineators, traffic
signal changes, and transit boarding islands.
4. Quick Build Projects shall remain installed for a 24 months evaluation and
to allow enough time for behavior changes. A report will be provided at the
conclusion of the evaluation period with findings and future recommendations.
5. Improvements and resurfacing projects shall implement elements of the
Active Transportation Plan.
6. The city shall develop pre-approved low cost temporary residential traffic
calming design/elements in the public right of way such as traffic circles, painted
intersections, mid-road flex posts, chicanes, medians and roadway planters that
residents can apply for, fund, and build with City’s oversight. The intent is to
make neighborhood streets feel safe for walking, running, biking, playing, and
socializing especially for our youngest and most vulnerable residents. Pre-
approved design and resident led implementation will reduce the time and cost
it takes the City to typically implement these features. The City may decide to
make these permanent or upgrade them during road repaving efforts.
Here are some suggestions for other policy language that I think would greatly impact
safety, ridership, and funding ATP projects.
Major Policy Additions:
1. All streets with posted speed limits of 35MPH or greater shall include Class
IV bikeways.
2. All streets shall be designed or redesigned for a maximum speed of 35MPH.
A collision at speeds greater than 35MPH, a pedestrian or cyclist is more like to
be killed than to survive.
a. Methods: Narrow travel lanes to minimum allowed width, remove
additional travel lanes which only encourage passing and higher speeds,
use of vertical barriers to visually narrow roadway width.
3. New developments and projects which increase VMT mitigate the increase
by building or providing fair share funding for bicycle, pedestrian, and transit
facilities in proportion to the City’s mode share goals.
4. An impact fee shall be collected at all city owned parking lots, structures,
and metered spaces to fund projects and elements of this active transportation
plan. Fees shall not be less than $0.25 per hour or less than 10% of long-term
pass cost.
Though I did not want to spend time on every proposed policy in the attachment I want
to point out a couple of items with regards to guiding documents.
Attachment 5, Page 8 of 74
2
1.1 –Consider amending to not reference just the California Highway Design
Manual. This manual may be many years behind best practices and can be more car
focused in sever aspects. If we have adopted guidelines from organizations like
NACTO and AASHTO then we should expand the statement to read some like this
instead:
“All bicycle and pedestrian facilities shall meet or exceed minimums set forth in
guidance documents list previously including future updates or revisions to
those documents.
Thanks for all of your hard work and effort on this.
Sincerely,
Garrett Otto
SLO Resident
Bike SLO County Advocacy Chair
SLO Streets for All committee member
3