The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/30/2020 Item 2, Englert ATC, While I am a Board Member for Bike SLO County, I am writing as a resident of SLO for the past 19 years to comment on Agenda Item 2, ATP update. Overall I would like to congratulate the ATC members and Staff for putting together such a well thought out ambitious plan to meet mode share goals by 2030. First I'd like highlight some great quotes: P21 "Even in the absence of actual collision history,just the perception of an unsafe or stressful journey is often enough justification for many San Luis Obispo residents to travel by car, even for short trips." This is spot on. Glad to see it acknowledged. P21 "2.4a - Support design strategies that encourage traffic speeds of 20 mph on residential and local streets and 15-20 mph along neighborhood greenways and within school zones. Explore development of a city ordinance to authorize posting speed limits as low as 15 mph in designated school zones consistent with California Vehicle Code procedures." YES! If state law prohibits posting speed limit signs less than 25 MPH in certain situations then engineering/designing the street for lower speeds is a good strategy. P25 "4.4 Collaborate with Community-based Organizations on Implementation Projects. Implement short-term, high- visibility projects in collaboration with community-based organizations that can be applied throughout the city." YES! Leveraging community based organizations and volunteers is a great way to reduce costs and give enthusiastic community members an outlet to enact change on our streets. Comments: I fully support the Tier based projects as they are currently categorized and do not recommend changing them. P141-142 I'm very happy to see quick-build projects supported by the plan. My only suggestion is to consider EVERY project as having potential to be a quick-build project. Due to the high cost of implementing the Tier 1 plan, it will be crucial to use quick build techniques as much as possible. I see no reason why quick build techniques cannot be used in at least some aspect of all projects. P23 "3.6 Wayfinding. Develop tools such as a web-based map or app to promote the use of the bicycle and pedestrian network and distribute them as part of a wayfinding strategy." P123 "6.5 Develop tools such as a web-based map or app to promote the use of the bicycle and pedestrian network and distribute them as part of a wayfinding strategy." Government isn't known for creating world class apps. Is this worth spending time and energy on or can we leverage the private sector to use already available free tools. Google maps, for example, is fantastic at wayfinding and is what most people are already likely to use. Let's focus on working with companies like Google to refine & improve their already world class wayfinding algorithms. P149 "Continue progress towards the City's Vision Zero goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and severe injuries, endeavoring towards a 75% reduction by 2030" I believe this should be a 100% reduction by 2030 since Vision Zero calls "to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries" P44 & P47 Why is 2017 the most recent Traffic Safety Report? I suggest using more recent data if possible. P150 7.3.2 "When evaluating effectiveness, quick- build projects should remain installed for enough time to allow for behavioral adjustments to new traffic control or facility features provided if no safety concerns or other unforeseen concerns arise. Results will be provided at the conclusion of the evaluation period with �ndings and future recommendations, depending on the project." This policy is vague with respect to a time frame to keep quick build projects installed. I suggest adding a specific minimum timeframe of 12 to 24 months so there is no ambiguity. P150 7.4.2 "The City shall consider developing a too/box of..." I suggest removing the word "consider" from this policy. Minor typos and other minor stuff: P18 "wlaking" mispelled P24 Missing space after period in 4.2b: "feasible.Discourage" P26 Change "years" to "year"? "Summarize biennially (every other years)" P106 Remove "and" from "and LTS3" in "almost all of Higuera Street is scored as and LTS 3". P41 The following statistic is not highlighted like the other ones are and should be because it's important: "31% of comments expressed desire for physically- separated bike facilities; and" �� 1 +55'%a#commonls Identifiod Int�rsoctlorrs that folt unsafa or whorQ � users hac�difficulty fVnding gaps in traff1c to cross majflr thoroughfares; u w 42°!o a#the comments cited c�eneral safety eoncems,wilh the majarity of � these lacalions YQcat�d al�ert�c�hic�h trafFic volurn�Is�pe�ci artsrial slreets; " �I�I�I�pI�IpgMryNgMW�plJli�flMMgRltllpyryltl7�Jipy�yl�ryilpy�gMgqlyw��Pil MIMI I�gi MgRItlNNflMNtlhMMNfl�MINryItl7�JipNM 7�NIpY i %:..,, ,�,�� / �31'�o-o�co�nments exprassed desire for pl�ysically- �'"' separat�d blC�e facilikies;anc� i �'� . mmiowi�numumwa�remve�mououououououououououonmrtimimimimimimimimimimimimimrtw�tmtnananananananananananananimu�unanu�r�u�uouat�ot�ot�ot�o�1 ';. *22%of comments expressed concerns woth G�igh rrve��r vehicle speeds,. �i�h� p,.��,,,��"�� 1'� �n Cd"'� � ° a �� nmenPs rrweratroned vf cc�rrrrnenPs<;ited ��"� ��a7�ab��n�ll ,�hE'n��:r�r. o cor �� '',I �tl.a�I�'�,,G'V'd:'�":�,p asam�iorconcern. ��N N 9 �^.'ku�"i. N as a barrier to 6ikin �I�II�� r t",NC1. 1 ,��j, O/CC7f7"rt97P,f1�5'lri�riPlDl"lfJC3� � l�i��lhart,�isull��V��7�'p^d �.ntl��i� Il.s�Ili�um,m��P��Ifum�IluV��.��:� Vu4:�w��,�+"r �ru.��lla�oa�'.II� ��a�!�,�rH.do�i�u��,;�_ as a barrder to b�krng. P92 Consider use a picture of the Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon on Foothill Blvd instead for "Pedestrian Signal Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon" � �1 1 � r p" � � �� u�� i � �r ' ; i� � ; �, � ; i ' , �` ' i/ % Va / , /,. �i� / � �j ' � i m I�I�i�� j��'; �„� �, ! "' � �'"l//, ��%' v / � � %ff, i 1��%/�'J% ' : �%1 j�, /� ,i %�I , / /� ; %�� , � � � � � ( N( � ��i ' � � �; � i, rr�, , r ,, , , ; � �i�; � � 1 '� ! � iUll1 ' l w� ��r �, �t ( % ' �yrj ^/!' �' +� f r � i ,lJ1J��'��%l� ,;��y�y�y��)��1`�1„ „ � ,�� kJ�O�i� ; i � ,N�„„ ,��`��f��%"� j°<';,,,. � �� ; ««��rr��r�or��rRHfr�r,r �� , � �� ,� � � �� P93 & P102 The picture of the Protected Intersection isn't very good. I cannot tell what is "protected" about it. Consider using something like this: `� i fH �� N �� '� ��'iio, „� ,�Vtp�� A i�� . � „�� , '��(�17�111ID�d .�,.%///9/�/ii�� . �, r�i „�a�hw��J�3� iiF io°� I� liii� � ...;�,rrrrrr . r fl�oVldl�N�4 M I i �� . iPWn,, �I � � .., l"��i��1 n 1 � �'��' ' ° o� , . �- , �� ., �� , ,, ; � � !7! 'i� ;" � rr � „ �' °� �� „�ip y{4{�;'� ,+ �, r r � �q�qC �jy � �� rvn��iV!!�fl � � �,� .��8��"c,, I� �� 'i" � � �� ,�: ��//r � ��V��1 � � tllzdl�v� � , �' " ` �� ii � � � ��^ �� ^ � �� i „ � Y� � lV�� + � �� „� �� f � � � , �� iG� l�p�ll i� a ��'�(U 9r�d, / rir� � � :,�,N �,,, ;. ' : ., f. 4 �� ,w� . , � � � , � ,,� , �,�, �� ,. ��, ��li; � i �� .. r��h. m �, ! ��,,:��. P102 Consider replacing the picture of the Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK), which is from another city, with one from Foothill Blvd. P104 & P126 These maps show the Foothill/Ferini crossing improvement as "Proposed" when it should be "Existing" since it has already been completed. P105 There is a missing section of sidewalk on the East side of North Chorro near the big "San Luis Obispo" sign/structure on Hyw 1 that is not shown in the map. „, �/////�%/II/� .. � ��wa�� '� �'��J;;,�WNm��,iiii iii��h�,� �;an�n�H��,��y I��;� ��°;��Ni�u�� II`��R��MW�ii��re��i�'�� °�°a��Il��k°°��a iur°��i�,�� r,�„ � ��ru�� io,,, m�q� � �%/ '�"�ti �Ja� gg� ryp�; ,,,y '��r Sr�.r ,��t” ,ryk �j��%i. ��'��p�"�,d��, r� T'r;. I�'M�'��!�%��!6iVi ,,,,,,,,, , . �� e � r �i �m� � D/ �� i ��f4�m�� „��F� r r„r,i^r'`'- /% '�,�" y i�' w� �w,,� " � � � y � In� i�Y �'M,��. . ��"� � � �`��fxN��u✓¢ /%/ �rIV� � ,� �l� �,,� ! `�� %% � f. � �, % ru� + � `. Ay � � , �� i 1 "�amn j// ' �,,;�' ��l��F�,� , �� P�� % , N� ��„ " � �/ aro, � �� 9 ��i � � � � � ' � ��ii, ��;�� iU� �� . �. � i� i//� �,�wm" i �� r,�m�. � t � �FW I �oiii w�„ "�o � �.��P,knr.'U�'mw�,W �c �� ' iw�ommmuuo � � � �" � � l��w�� 9 "��x�Hi " � f ��. ��W � �� '.r� � r�.�%� '�m�M �,r a�i � �. f�� J" � � � � !��nr i i////�%//��i ) � � �� !tlM"r��lr9 ,s .,�� i` �//��`� �l�l� �"a �ii �i��' ��19!� . u,�a �r ., n% -E t� �,. �+wr r�,ktt�'4 ^� �o �� /�� "Po� YN� kp'�u �r �' � (�� .,�w�(,-,`��i��/�/ 8��m�� re� � Sincerely, Jesse Englert San Luis Obispo