Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/11/2020 Item 6, Mills Wilbanks, Megan From:Russell S Mills < To:Advisory Bodies Subject:Agenda Comments from Mills Attachments:ATP Design RSM Comments 061120.pdf ATC: I’ve written down my comments regarding the ATP Design Guidance and Policies and am now sharing it with you prior to the meeting. See attachment. Russell Mills ATC Member 1 RSM 06/11/2020 1 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN DESIGN GUIDANCE AND POLICIES Attachment 5 to ATC Agenda 06/11/2020 RSM Comments General Comments Rigid bollards are an extreme hazard for bicyclists in particular (they are, in fact, forbidden in motorways because they can damage a car). They should not be used except in extreme circumstances with strong justification and great care. This objective should be stated in this document as a design policy. Pavement used by bicyclists and pedestrians should receive enhanced considerations for monitoring and maintenance. A small pavement imperfection may not even be noticeable to a motorist but could be hazardous to a pedestrian or cyclist. This document should clearly and explicitly address this issue – it does so in some locations, but in specific circumstances (e.g., p. 7 and p. 23) and with regard to multi-use paths and to striping. I suggest a separate general section regarding Monitoring and Maintenance. Plus, monitoring can include much more than pavement condition. pp. 1-2 Guidance Basis Most of these references are public documents and, as such, will be publicly available. Provide durable hyperlinks to documents, when available. California Guidance Suggest adding reference to the California Bicycle Coalition – Our Initiatives. While this is not a design policy, it can be used to help guide future policies that might be implemented in the future. https://www.calbike.org/our_initiatives/ p. 3 Disabled Pedestrian Design Considerations The term “disabled” should be more broadly defined. I have been an expert witness on accessibility and, in my experience, “disabled” in this context can mean any kind of impairment, not, for example, just someone needing a cane or wheelchair. On the other hand, if you design for more severe disabilities, you will likely also accommodate less severe ones. It would be helpful to make this distinction in the text. This will also increase the understanding that everyone benefits when the disabled are accommodated, not just those with more severe disabilities. RSM 06/11/2020 2 pp. 5 - 8 Design Needs of Bicyclists Bicycles with electric assist are already common in SLO and are becoming even more common. They present unique design challenges and should be included in the text as a common type of pedal-driven cycle. In my casual observation, 8-12 mph is too slow for a typical speed in SLO. Suggest 10-20 mph. This is particularly important in the design of corners and for adequate sight distance. This is especially true for electric assist and fitness riders, of which there are many in SLO. Unclear what the “*” footnote is for. The illustration of a bicycle towing a child trailer is inaccurate. Child trailers do not align directly behind the tow bicycle because the hitch will be substantially offset to clear the rear wheel. This will increase the likelihood of collision by the right wheel of the trailer with an obstacle, particularly with less experienced riders, if adequate clearance is not provided. For both types of trailers, the trailer will track inside the bicycle on corners, requiring greater clearance. pp. 8-10 The Overall Network This is really good. But a few things. 1.2 Traffic Calming add the option of a road diet. 1.23 Bikeway Surface Tolerances a ¾” perpendicular step is too high. A step that high, for example, can damage a wheel or bounce a gallon of milk completely out of a bicycle basket (I know by personal experience). 1.24 Bikeway Width Design Standards it is unclear if Class II width may include the gutter pan – it should not. A cyclist riding in a bike lane will instinctively ride to the edge of the lane away from motor traffic. But it is too hazardous to ride in a gutter pan, so this area should not be considered suitable for riding. (Note: This issue is adequately addressed later, on p. 36). p. 11 Addressing Bicycling and Walking at Intersections Push buttons, if used, must be reachable by a mounted cyclist when the cyclist is positioned appropriately in the roadway. p. 14 Marked Crosswalks Add a section regarding “Unmarked Crosswalks.” It is a common misconception that pedestrians only have right-of-way in marked crosswalks. The way this section is structured may erroneously foster this misconception. This section is really addressing circumstances when an unmarked crosswalk should be upgraded to a marked crosswalk. RSM 06/11/2020 3 p. 19 Sidewalk Zones and Width Stamped concrete may provide visual appeal, but it can be very uncomfortable for the disabled, especially for wheelchair users. If stamped concrete is used, a smooth longitudinal strip should be provided for use by wheelchair pedestrians in particular. p. 22 Curb Extensions (Bulbouts) Excellent – “Curb extensions should not impede bicycle travel in the absence of a bike lane.” Though I might suggest adding “line of travel.” The idea is that the cyclist should not have to move further into the motor vehicle lane to avoid a bulbout. p. 23 Median Refuge Islands I couldn’t find anywhere in the document a requirement for pedestrian detection or activation in the island for signalized crossings. This should be added to “Design Features.” p. 32 Lane Configurations At a building livable communities conference I once attended, I was struck by how a speaker described a notable benefit of a single motor vehicle lane of travel. An advantage is lower peak speeds, because the prudent driver will set the speed. In other words, it will be difficult for an imprudent driver to drive at excessive speed because a prudent driver will be in their way. Can we include the underlined text in some fashion? pp. 40 and 43 Protected Bike Lanes The illustrations show a separated bike lane, not a protected one. There is no physical barrier between the motor vehicles and the bicyclist. The photographs are better. Though one heading says “separated bike lane” when it should say “protected bike lane.” p. 74 Roundabout These present a unique design challenge for pedestrians and bicyclists. I look forward to seeing this section.