Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/30/2020 Item 2, Otto Wilbanks, Megan From:Garrett Otto < To:Advisory Bodies Subject:ATC Active Transportation Plan Draft Attachments:1PublicDraftActiveTranspor-Otto Comments.pdf; 4AppendixCDesignGuidelines - Otto Comments.pdf I want to thank the committee members and staff for the time drafting up this plan. I believe that the overall approach outlined will help make SLO one of the best places to bike and walk. I want to emphasize my full support for building out the list of Tier 1 projects by the ambitious 2030 goal. It will be important to focus on these Tier 1 corridors with hyper focus to achieve our mode shift goals, climate actions goal, vizion zero goal, and our new ATP goals. I think this list of Tier 1 projects and the method in which it was determined should not be changed. I have some comments on the content that can help enhance the plan. Many are simple typos or wording issues so I have attached pdfs with my comments directly on the plan to help convey the information directly on the appropriate page. I want to highlight some of the main big picture items that I feel could use some updates: Quick Builds - I have been pressing this one for a while now. I still think that the map of "potential quick build projects" is not fully inclusive of what can truly be achieved with quick build and rapid implementation techniques. I have been asking for a quick build policy, and though I think there are elements achieved in the plan, it still seems like this is not going far enough to really make sure these Tier 1 projects are built out in the timeline goal. Maybe building an overpass won't be a quick build, but certainly repurposing travel lanes on an lane arterial road to protected bike lanes using delineators, cones, barrels, and some paint could be considered a quick build. If there are "process barriers" that prevent staff from doing those as quick builds, then the policy still needs work to allow them to do it. At the very least I suggest removing the map from the plan as it seems more restrictive than anything else. Vision Zero - This section says "continues", but does not state anything about adjusting and improving. I bring this up because of recent national reckoning with implicit bias in policing. This 6th "E" has been removed from national Vision Zero organizers, and SLO should follow their lead. I want to expand on this more, but Alta has a report that goes into detail and you will find many of the Vizion Zero websites also explain this in better detail that I can do in an email. Lets also make sure to update Equity to Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI). Let's make sure our ATP isn't out of date before it's adopted. Traffic Safety Reporting - The categories for reporting collisions are from NHTSA, which I am sure are required categories to report federally. However, considering they are dated and victim blaming SLO should set its more appropriate categories to start collecting data with. Obviously we would still need to categorize the required federal categories according, but by having our own set of categories we can start to look closer at the true cause of traffic violence. I want to give this example of how the current categories are failing to understand the true cause of death/severe injury. Take jaywalking (a very dated term implying "idiot" or "rube"). If someone is crossing the street in a section of roadway with no protected intersection within a minute detour, is that the fault of the person walking or the lack of connectivity? I think reporting these traffic safety events needs a fresh look so we can have everyone looking at them start to see things from a new point of view. I appreciate your time on this and know this may be hard to fully review before your meetings. Thanks for your hard work and dedicated to this task. I may have further follow ups when I have more time. Sincerely, Garrett Otto 1 Active Transportation Plan Roll and stroll towards a safe, equitable, and sustainable community CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PUBLIC DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2020 This page intentionally left blank. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Vision & Goals 1 Acknowledgments CITY COUNCIL Heidi Harmon, Mayor Aaron Gomez, Vice Mayor Carlyn Christianson Andy Pease Erica Stewart PLANNING COMMISSION Hemalata Dandekar, Chair Robert Jorgensen, Vice Chair Michael Hopkins Steve Kahn Nicholas Quincey Michelle Shoresman Mike Wulkan ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Jonathan Roberts, Chair Lea Brooks, Vice Chair Thomas Arndt Donette Dunaway Timothy Jouet Briana Martenies Russell Mills CITY MANAGEMENT Derek Johnson, City Manager Shelly Stanwyck, Community Services Director Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manger CITY STAFF Mary Andrews Gamaliel Anguiano Tyler Cory Matt Crisp Adam Fukushima Matt Horn Chris Read Jennifer Rice Luke Schwartz Shawna Scott Bryan Wheeler Justin Wong and many others INTERNS Jack Balfour Tram Chau Sheridan Nansen Ivy Zhao PHOTOGRAPHY Jonathan Roberts CONSULTANTS TO THE CITY Alta Planning + Design Thank you to the many community members who contributed to the Active Transportation Plan. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan 2 Table of Contents 01 Introduction p. 6 02 Vision & Goals p. 16 03 Bicycling & Walking in San Luis Obispo Today p. 28 04 Community Engagement p. 60 05 Recommended Bicycle & Pedestrian Projects p. 80 06 Bicycle & Pedestrian Programs p. 110 07 Implementation p. 124 G Glossary of Terms p. 152 A Appendices p. 156 San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan 3 A Message from the City Manager Whether you rolled, strolled, bused, or drove here, welcome! You join us at a pivotal moment in our community’s history. In the year 2020, we experienced a global pandemic, economic downturn, the front edge impacts of climate change, a national racial justice reckoning, an ongoing housing crisis, and lingering concerns about affordability and accessibility. In the year 2020, we also saw the incredible strength of our community. We saw neighbors helping neighbors, small businesses finding ways to adapt, and the community coming together to create new ways to find joy in the place we love. At the City, we adopted important housing policy, the most ambitious local climate plan in the U.S., and a budget that reoriented our major goals to recovering from the economic impact of COVID-19. We also recommitted and doubled down on making sure our entire community has been heard and served. You might be asking, “what does this have to do with active transportation?”. The simple answer is, “everything!” The ability to move through our community safely, conveniently, sustainably and affordably is central to our vision for the future. Active transportation, along with transit, will unlock the ability to build more affordable housing without sprawl and traffic gridlock, will allow more foot traffic to pass by our local storefronts, and will provide access to healthy, affordable, and safe mobility options for the entire community, regardless of age, physical ability or economic position. This Active Transportation Plan provides a key foundation towards achieving our community’s most important objectives. For this reason, the City has committed to a community-driven process and has arrived at a plan that looks a lot different than our previous Bicycle Transportation Plan. In addition to important programs and projects, you will find the following key innovations in this document—the City’s first plan focused on both bicycling and walking: San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan 4 1. An emphasis on prioritizing and rapidly constructing the types of projects that provide the greatest potential to quickly increase the share of trips made by walking and biking—acting with the level of urgency required to meet our City’s ambitious climate action goals. 2. A focus on infrastructure design that physically minimizes conflicts between motor vehicles and active transportation users on high- traffic corridors, creating a system of low-stress routes for walking and bicycling that work for users of all abilities and comfort levels. 3. A cross-cutting emphasis on equity, sustainability and economic resilience, so that in everything we do, we are asking how the benefits are equitably planned and distributed and supportive of long-term sustainability and success of our community. From adopting one of the earliest bans on indoor smoking, to setting some of the most ambitious climate action goals in the country, San Luis Obispo has a well-documented history of leading by example on issues of sustainability, public health and quality of life. Through the actions, projects and programs identified in this plan, San Luis Obispo will continue to lead by example, striving to create one of the best active transportation environments in the country. The future is uncertain, but it is also full of opportunity. The Active Transportation Plan is one of the ways we ensure that we capitalize on those opportunities. See you around town! Derek Johnson, San Luis Obispo City Manager San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan 5 01 Introduction While the primary focus of this Plan is on walking and bicycling, “active transportation” refers to all human-powered modes of transportation, from walking and bicycling, to scootering, skateboarding, traveling by wheelchair and use other rolling mobility devices. Active transportation requires a balanced, equitable transportation system that provides community members the freedom to choose other modes of transportation without having to completely depend on the automobile. These active modes of transportation are not only fun, affordable, and environmentally friendly, they also support public health by incorporating physical activity into daily life. An Active Transportation Plan provides a blueprint for creating a safe, connected, and efficient citywide active transportation network. It lays out policies, funding strategies, supporting programs, infrastructure projects, and implementation priorities to improve active transportation options and access for all community members. What is an Active Transportation Plan? The City of San Luis Obispo has a legacy of promoting walking and biking, resulting in the City being a great place to walk and bike. The State of California established its Active Transportation Program by Senate Bill 99 (Chapter 359, Statutes of 2013) and Assembly Bill 101 (Chapter 354, Statutes of 2013) to encourage the increased use of active modes of transportation, such as walking and biking. The state Active Transportation Program consolidates existing federal and state transportation programs, including the Transportation Alternatives Program, Bicycle Transportation Account, and State Safe Routes to School, into a single program with a focus on making California a national leader in active transportation. The California Active Transportation Program provides the largest source of grant funding for bicycling and walking projects for California cities. The last allocated cycle (2018) designated $440 million dollars for projects statewide. Past iterations of this grant source have contributed over $10 million toward bicycling and walking projects in the city of San Luis Obispo including the Railroad Safety Trail and Safe Routes to School projects. Cities that have an Active Transportation Plan increase their chances for success in securing these highly competitive grant funds. THIS PLAN'S OBJECTIVES Safety, Health & Sustainability Access & Mode Shift Community-Based Collaboration & Equity San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan INTRODUCTION 8 Why is the City creating an Active Transportation Plan? The City of San Luis Obispo has a legacy of promoting active transportation, taking pride in retaining a human-scale city that is a great place to walk, bike, live and visit. While the City’s existing 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) and previous bicycle planning documents have helped guide many improvements to the citywide bicycle circulation system, national best practices in bicycle infrastructure planning and design have evolved considerably in recent years since adoption of the 2013 BTP. With a growing shift towards providing lower-stress facilities—notably, physically-protected bike lanes and intersection crossings—which make bicycling a more viable transportation option for a wider range of community members, the City’s plans and design strategies must also evolve. By updating and replacing the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan with this 2020 Active Transportation Plan, the City has created its first comprehensive document on both bicycle and pedestrian transportation circulation. The 2020 ATP expands the City’s programs, policies and design toolbox to incorporate current industry best practices to make active transportation an enjoyable transportation option, better connected to community destinations, and more accessible to a diverse range of San Luis Obispo community members, including residents, students, workers, and visitors of all ages and physical ability levels. To reflect a greater commitment to the needs of all non-motorized transportation users, the City’s Bicycle Transportation Committee was restructured into an Active Transportation Committee—a volunteer group of local residents that provides oversight and policy guidance on all matters related to pedestrian and bicycle transportation in the City of San Luis Obispo—in 2018. The Active Transportation Committee has served a critical role in guiding development of this Plan. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan IntroductIon 9 What will the Active Transportation Plan help accomplish? 1. Increase the number of trips completed by active transportation modes, supporting the City’s General Plan and Climate Action Plan Modal Split Objectives to reach 20 percent of citywide trips by bicycle and 18 percent by walking, carpool and other sustainable transportation options. 2. Provide a network of safe, efficient, and enjoyable facilities to support walking and bicycling. 3. Provide active transportation connections to community destinations such as employment centers, schools, grocery and shopping centers, senior facilities, recreation centers, and transit stops. 4. Reduce air pollution, asthma rates, and greenhouse gas emissions. 5. Ensure that disadvantaged communities are actively engaged in the planning process and help shape the projects. THE PLAN PROVIDES A PATHWAY TO IMPROVE OUR QUALITY OF LIFE THROUGH: The Built Environment: Evolving and diversifying the built environment to accommodate people traveling outside of cars safely, conveniently, sustainably and affordably. Public Health: Increasing opportunities for better public health outcomes through personal activity, increased social connections, and improved air quality. Housing: Increasing infill housing desirability through walkable downtowns, connected neighborhoods, reduced commute times, and reduced transportation cost. Climate Action: Reducing vehicle miles traveled though increasing active transportation options and reducing GHG emissions. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan INTRODUCTION 10 Policy Context The Active Transportation Plan implements the 2014 Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan while also responding to current community and City Council priorities focused on housing, climate action, sustainable transportation, downtown vitality, and economic recovery from the impacts of COVID-19. The Active Transportation Plan directly and indirectly supports a wide range of adopted City plans and policies, most notably: LAND USE (LU) AND CIRCULATION (CIRC) ELEMENTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN (2014) LU Goal #10 (Environment) – Support statewide and regional efforts to create more sustainable communities, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and develop transportation systems that support all modes of circulation. LU Goal #41 (City Form) – Provide a safe and pleasant place to walk and ride a bicycle, for recreation and other daily activities. LU Policy 2.2.3 (Neighborhood Traffic) – […] All neighborhood street and circulation improvements should favor pedestrians, bicyclists, and local traffic. […] CIRC Objective 1.6.1.2 (Transportation Goals) – Reduce people’s use of their cars by supporting and promoting alternatives such as walking, riding buses and bicycles, and using car pools. CIRC Objective 1.7.1 (Encourage Better Transportation Habits) - San Luis Obispo should […] increase the use of alternative forms of transportation and depend less on the single-occupant use of vehicles. This General Plan Policy includes reference to a table identifying the following mode split objectives: ŠMotor Vehicles: 50% ŠTransit: 12% ŠBicycles: 20% ŠWalking, Car Pools, and other Forms: 18% CIRC Objective 7.1.4 (Transportation Funding) - In order to increase support for non- automobile travel, the City shall strive to allocate transportation funding across various modes approximately proportional to the modal split objectives for 2035 […] SAN LUIS OBISPO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN FOR COMMUNITY RECOVERY (2020) A Council adopted goal of communitywide carbon neutrality by 2035, including a transportation related goal of achieving the City’s mode split objectives by 2030. This goal alone accounts for approximately 16 percent of proposed citywide greenhouse gas emissions reductions as identified in Figure 1. Figure 1. Climate Action Plan Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions, by Sector (MTCO2e in 2035)Reduction in Metric Tonsof CO2 Emissions in 2035120,100 Other sectors 34,920 Electric vehicles 29,250 Mode split 0 40,000 80,000 120,000 160,000 200,000 San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan IntroductIon 11 Foundation 2: Equity The City has a strong commitment to ensuring that the benefits of active transportation are equitably distributed throughout the community. Because of this, nearly every chapter of this plan includes a focused discussion of equity and inclusion. Additionally, consistent with a commitment made in the City’s Climate Action Plan, staff commits to evaluating every action it takes through an equity lens, including issues related to representation, distribution of benefits, and structural equity. From identifying existing inequity in our community (see Chapter 3), to planning equitable investment in infrastructure projects and programs (see Chapter 5 and 6), to ensuring equitable implementation of the recommendations of this plan (Chapter 7), the foundational principles of an equitable community are reflected throughout this document. Key Foundations of the Plan Three cross-cutting themes and foundations run throughout this Active Transportation Plan: Sustainability, Equity and Economic Resiliency Foundation 1: Sustainability and Climate Action In 2020, the City adopted one of the most ambitious climate action plans in the U.S., which includes a goal of carbon neutrality by 2035 and accelerated implementation of the City’s mode share objectives from 2035 to 2030. A typical bicycle plan might include a few goals or actions focused on climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and sustainability. As the reader, you may ask: Why this chapter does not include specific goals discussing sustainability? The answer is because the Active Transportation Plan is so central to the City’s overarching climate action and sustainability objectives, the entirety of this plan incorporates foundational themes of sustainability and climate action. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan INTRODUCTION 12 Foundation 3: Community Resilience and Economic Vitality The community and its economy are experiencing substantial impacts from COVID-19 and are increasingly exposed to unprecedented disruptions caused by a rapidly changing climate. This plan supports a thriving local economy that is resilient to these disruptions by increasing efficient access to local businesses, reducing the burden of household transportation costs, allowing for more sustainable land use patterns, and focusing city resources on more cost-effective infrastructure. This foundational commitment means ongoing innovation, flexibility, and collaboration to be sure that active transportation supports local businesses and neighborhoods. This foundational commitment also means incorporating findings from the City’s climate change vulnerability assessment (currently under development) as the Active Transportation Plan is implemented. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION IS A KEY INGREDIENT FOR A THRIVING AND RESILIENT ECONOMY San Luis Obispo consistently ranks as one of the least affordable areas in the country. Study after study shows that there are significant economic benefits to building a transportation system that provides safe, efficient, and affordable mobility options to all community members, particularly for communities that invest in quality bicycle, pedestrian and transit systems. By making transportation more affordable, we can help make San Luis Obispo a more affordable place to live. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan IntroductIon 13 02 Vision & Goals From high-level goals to detailed action items, Chapter 2 captures the vision and goals for San Luis Obispo’s Active Transportation Plan. Chapter 2 also includes performance measures to ensure that the City will make the ATP vision a reality. 03 Bicycling & Walking in San Luis Obispo Today An inventory of present-day bicycle and pedestrian conditions. 04 Community Engagement Provides a summary of the community outreach activities organized and facilitated by City staff as part of the ATP. Outreach activities focused on the barriers to walking and biking in the City and the types of active transportation infrastructure and policies that would support the City’s mode share goals. The Plan is organized as follows: San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan INTRODUCTION 14 05 Recommended Bicycle & Pedestrian Projects Identifies recommended bicycle and pedestrian projects that will enhance the biking and walking experience for San Luis Obispo residents. Each recommendation will reflect the City’s vision and goals by eliminating barriers, decreasing the number of collisions, and encouraging residents to bike and walk as a daily mode of transportation. 06 Bicycle & Pedestrian Programs Provides a description of bicycle and pedestrian education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluations programs that will be implemented as part of the ATP. 07 Implementation Details a practical roadmap for implementing the proposals within this plan including project details, cost estimates, and grant funding opportunities. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan IntroductIon 15 02 Vision & Goals VISION San Luis Obispo will be an active transportation- friendly city where people of all ages, incomes, backgrounds and ability levels have access to sustainable transportation options that are healthy, comfortable, convenient, and affordable. Active Transportation Goals and Actions The goals in this Chapter are organized into four categories: Build It, Safety, Accessibility, and Equity, and are further supported by priority actions and other important actions. The actions in this chapter include call outs to infrastructure projects and programs, which are described in greater detail in Chapter 5 (Recommended Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects) and Chapter 6 (Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs). Building the Core Bicycle and Pedestrian Network This Plan organizes proposed improvements to the citywide bicycle and pedestrian network into three tiers: ŠTier 1: The highest priority projects with the greatest potential to increase bicycle and pedestrian mode share. ŠTier 2: Moderate priority projects that play and important role in the future bicycle and pedestrian network, but with less potential than Tier 1 improvements to increase bicycling and walking. ŠTier 3: Lower priority projects that help complete the bicycling and wlaking entwork, but are not likely to generate measurable increases in bicycle and pedestrian trips. See Chapter 7 (Implementation) for more information on prioritization of the improvements identified in the Plan. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan VISION & GOALS 18 Goal 1: Build It The City has the physical infrastructure necessary to achieve this Plan’s goals. The City’s Active Transportation Plan prioritizes physical changes first and programs that support behavioral change (e.g., outreach and education programs) second. While traditional outreach and educational programs are still included (Chapter 6), best practices and leading research suggests that physical improvements are the most effective way to increase safety, accessibility, and lead to transformational mode share shifts. Priority Actions 1.1 Build Priority Infrastructure First. Complete the highest- priority (Tier 1) bicycle and pedestrian projects recommended in this Plan by 2030. Complete lower-priority (Tier 2 and 3) projects as opportunities arise based on funding, potential to combine with other capital projects, and as part of private-public partnerships. 1.2 Design for All Ages & Abilities. Guided by the bicycle facility selection tools provided in the Plan Design Guidelines (Appendix B), and the proposed future network illustrated in Chapter 5, develop low speed/ volume neighborhood greenways, physically-separated bikeways on higher-speed thoroughfares, and intersection crossings that prioritize pedestrian and bicycling safety for users of all comfort and ability levels. 1.3 Leverage Opportunities to Construct Infrastructure Š1.3a - Coordinate the implementation and maintenance of active transportation facilities in conjunction with larger capital improvement projects to deliver bicycling and pedestrian enhancements in a cost-effective manner while maintaining pavement and sidewalk systems in a good state of repair. Š1.3b - Continue to evaluate all streets during pavement resurfacing projects to determine if pedestrian or bicycling facilities can be provided and/or improved. While continuing to maintain sufficient pavement condition, look for opportunities to prioritize routes with Tier 1 and Tier 2 bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects when scheduling pavement management projects. 1.4 Install Priority Crossings. Install additional controlled bicycling and pedestrian crossings across major arterial and collector streets to connect neighborhoods to major destinations. 1.5 Quick Builds. Utilize quick-build strategies to rapidly implement priority bicycle and pedestrian improvements using lower-cost, interim designs until more costly permanent improvements can be funded. Where consistent with the City’s General Plan mobility goals, prioritize public safety and active transportation mobility over motor vehicle throughput and street parking when considering tradeoffs of transportation safety improvements. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Vision & Goals 19 1.6 Decrease Reliance on Single-Occupant Autos. With input from the City Council and community, prioritize mobility, connectivity, and comfort for active transportation users and transit services over motor vehicle throughput and street parking when considering tradeoffs of transportation improvement projects, particularly on high speed/volume arterial streets. 1.7 Create a Connected Community. Ensure that existing bikeway/ pedestrian access connections are retained and seek opportunities to create more when properties are developed or redeveloped. Other Important Actions 1.8 Maintenance. Continue to improve a maintenance program for pedestrian and bicycling facilities to provide continued safe and comfortable use of the network including procurement of a low- profile street/sidewalk sweeper to maintain pedestrian pathways and physically separated bikeways. Be resourceful with funding opportunities including community partnerships and volunteer programs to assist with bikeway/sidewalk sweeping and other minor maintenance activities. 1.9 Collaborate with Regional Partners. Cooperate with the County, State, San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, Cuesta College and Cal Poly in the planning and design of regional bicycle and pedestrian facilities (e.g. Bob Jones City to Sea Bike Trail, Chorro Valley Trail, Edna-Price Canyon Trail) to expand regional active transportation and recreation opportunities. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan VISION & GOALS 20 Goal 2: Safety Active transportation is safe. 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. The City’s Active Transportation Plan identifies globally-proven policies, programs, and physical improvements to make active transportation modes safer and more viable for all community members. Priority Actions 2.1 Vision Zero. Continue implementation of the City’s Vision Zero policies and traffic safety programs to develop a transportation system that will reduce, and ultimately eliminate, fatal and severe injury crashes within the City of San Luis Obispo. 2.2 Streetlights. Continue the implementation of the City’s new streetlight installation program, prioritizing new lighting installations at locations with higher pedestrian and bicycle activity or where known safety concerns exist. 2.3 Use Innovative Designs. Apply bicycling and pedestrian design policies and guidance as presented in this Plan, as well as applicable state and federal design guidelines, innovative guidance from organizations such as National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) and Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), and the Dutch CROW Manual. 2.4 Look for Opportunities to Reduce Traffic Speeds. Š2.4a - 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. Š2.4b - Within the legal framework of the California Vehicle Code, apply best practices for setting posted speed limits on collector and arterial streets that improve safety for all users, using guidelines such as Caltrans’ California Manual for Setting Speed Limits, and NACTO’s City Limits: Setting Safe Speed Limits on Urban Streets. Apply strategies and innovative best practices to reduce speeds on arterial and collector streets where collision patterns exist. 2.5 Safe Routes to School. Develop a focused Safe Routes to School Improvement Plan for all K-12 schools in San Luis Obispo to reduce safety and mobility barriers to walking and biking to school. 2.6. Construction Zones. Improve enforcement of City’s traffic control requirements around construction zones to minimize impacts to pedestrian and bicycle accessibility and safety during construction activities. Other Important Actions 2.7 Safety Education. Continue funding safety education programs that encourage safe behaviors for all roadway users 2.8 Community Health Partnerships. Partner with community health groups to address safety concerns as expressed by citizen input related to walking and biking. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Vision & Goals 21 Goal 3 – Accessibility Active transportation is easy. The City’s Active Transportation Plan prioritizes structural changes that make active transportation connected, convenient, and accessible. Outreach survey results indicated that for San Luis Obispo to replace more automobile trips with active transportation trips, there needs to be the same level of infrastructure to make active transportation desirable. Priority Actions 3.1 Bicycle Parking. Provide secure bicycle parking at neighborhood destinations like schools, medical centers, grocery stores, and government offices through a combination of city-funded installations in public spaces, and privately- funded installations as a requirement of new development and redevelopment of existing properties. 3.2 Improve Connections to Transit. Š3.2a - Design bikeways and pedestrian facilities that safely and efficiently facilitate first and last mile connections to transit as well as amenities at transit locations such as bike parking and bus kiosks. Explore opportunities to provide secure long-term bicycle parking at transit stops including cargo and electric bike charging to allow for more convenient multi-modal connections to transit. Š3.2b - Work with SLO Transit and the Regional Transit Authority to improve transit stations by providing more seating, shade and lighting to increase comfort for users. Explore options to expand onboard bicycle carrying capacity on SLO Transit vehicles. 3.3 Make the Pedestrian Experience Enjoyable and Interesting. Š3.3a - Work with local businesses to provide additional opportunities for sidewalk dining, parklets and other forms outdoor seating to encourage a vibrant, human-scale pedestrian environment. Š3.3b - Support streetscape enhancements, public art and other placemaking strategies that promote a more interesting, enjoyable walking experience. Incorporate urban design strategies into all transportation capital improvement projects where practical. Š3.3c - Incorporate landscaping, stormwater treatments and other “green street” infrastructure as part of active transportation projects where feasible. Expand the City’s urban forest, encouraging installation of new street trees to provide shade, physical separation from auto traffic, and a more inviting pedestrian realm. 3.4 Open Streets. Support open streets and pilot active transportation projects, such as creation of temporary pedestrianized, car-free streets to expand public space for visitors and community members. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan VISION & GOALS 22 3.5 Land Use and Zoning Code. Š3.5a - Support land use and community design policies that allow residents to live closer to places of employment, schools, and neighborhood retail services--such as grocery stores, drug stores and restaurants—to improve the convenience of active transportation modes for daily trips. Promote development strategies that create a “15-minute City”, where most residents can access their day- to-day destinations within a 15-minute walk, bike or transit trip. Š3.5b - Bike Parking in the Zoning Code. Continue to refine the City’s Zoning Code to ensure that free, safe, and secure bicycle parking is provided with new development projects to meet growing demand including cargo bikes and electric bike charging. Lead by Example Like many buisnesses in the community, the City operates a fleet and has employees who commute to work, go to meetings, and run errands throughout the day. Through its "Lead by Example" philosophy the City is constantly exploring how it can help employees use active transportation and transit more often and serve as an example to the rest of the community. Other Important Accessibility Actions 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. 3.7 Bikeshare and Micromobility. Implement a bikeshare program in partnership with Cal Poly to maximize convenient access to bicycling as a form of transportation. If supported by the City Council, explore additional micromobility transportation options to increase sustainable transportation choices in San Luis Obispo. Explore allowing expanded use for personally owned skateboards, scooters, and other personal mobility devices in the Municipal Code as well as increase education on what devices are permitted and where they are allowed to be used. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Vision & Goals 23 Goal 4 – Equity Active transportation is for everyone. The City’s Active Transportation Plan is for everyone and includes actions to make these modes more inclusive. These actions prioritize structural changes and programs that support behavioral change as well as outreach methods to engage more of the community. By improving access to lower-cost transportation options, such as walking, bicycling and transit, San Luis Obispo can be a more affordable and inclusive community. Priority Actions 4.1 Accommodate Diverse Mobility Needs. Š4.1a - Ensure that bikeway designs do not create additional barriers for people with varying mobility demands, including individuals using bicycles with trailers, recumbent bicycles or other devices adapted for those with diverse mobility needs. Š4.1b - Explore bikeshare opportunities such as trikes, cargo bikes, and recumbent bicycles for people with physical mobility challenges. 4.2 ADA Amenities. Š4.2a - Install or upgrade curb ramps, sidewalks, and traffic control devices to improve access for pedestrians with mobility challenges and visual impairments per current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards. Š4.2b - Provide ample crossing time at signalized crossings at or near major destinations that are heavily used by pedestrians. Provide additional clearance time at crossings frequented by seniors and users with mobility challenges. At crossings of high volume/speed collector and arterial streets, provide pedestrian refuge treatments where feasible.Discourage unnecessary roadway widening, which increases crossing distance for pedestrians. 4.3 Use Outreach Strategies That Are Innovative, Inclusive, and Collaborative. Š4.3a - Target outreach efforts to reach community members who are often unable to participate in traditional, evening townhall meetings. Strategies may include increased electronic/online outreach, pop- up workshops at popular community destinations, and less-formal, children-friendly community workshops where participants may feel more comfortable engaging with staff and other community members. Š4.3b - Follow inclusive public engagement practices for project- level planning efforts of active transportation projects. Š4.3c - Work with community-based organizations to host outreach events and interact with more people as part of future planning processes. Leverage existing relationships and cultivate new relationships with community-based organizations to distribute information and encourage public participation with planning efforts. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan VISION & GOALS 24 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. 4.5 Neighborhood Vitality and Livability. Incorporate opportunities to enhance neighborhood vitality and livability as part of active transportation projects, such as incorporating public art, traffic calming, landscaping and other elements. Encourage neighborhood residents to participate in selecting design elements that best fit the unique character of their neighborhood. 4.6 Build Projects for All to Use. Implement bicycle and pedestrian projects that address disparities in access to sustainable and low-cost transportation options in neighborhoods with higher concentrations of economically-disadvantaged or historically unrepresented populations. Other Important Equity Actions 4.7 Support Promotional Programs and Events. Support programs and events that promote a bicycle- and pedestrian- friendly San Luis Obispo, such as Bike to Work Day, Open Streets events, and the Bike Rodeo for school-age children. 4.8 Bikeshare and Mobility as a Service. Locate future bikeshare and other micromobility service stations/docks at popular transit stops and explore mobility as a service system to incentivize the seamless integration of transit, bikeshare and sustainable transportation services. 4.9 Addressing the Cost Barrier to Bikeshare and Transit. Evaluate the feasibility of low- or no-cost bikeshare and transit memberships to economically-disadvantaged individuals. 4.10 Promoting the Economic Benefits. Promote bicycling and walking as cost-effective ways to reduce transportation costs. Include educational information on the comprehensive costs to the community and individual of using different transportation modes. 4.11 Addressing the Cost Barrier to Maintenance and Bike Ownership. Continue working with partners on programs that promote low-cost bicycle maintenance. Explore opportunities to provide grants, discounts, or credits for low-income individuals towards the purchase of bicycles from local businesses, with particular focus on increasing access to cargo bicycles, which provide increased flexibility for transporting children, groceries and other goods. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Vision & Goals 25 How Do We Measure Progress? The following matrix summarizes the ways that the City will measure progress towards implementing the Active Transportation Plan. Staff will report on these performance measures every other year, with a summary report to be presented to the Active Transportation Committee and made available to elected officials and the general public on the City website. PERFORMANCE MEASURE BASELINE TRACKING MECHANISM 1 Increase the share of citywide commute trips made by bicycling to 20% and 12% by walking by 2030 Current Mode Share: ŠBicycle - 8.3% ŠWalk - 7.2% ŠDrive Alone - 67.7% Summarize biennially (every other years) based on data from U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (latest 5-year average), Citywide Household Transportation Survey 2 Consistent with the City's Climate Action Plan and General Plan Mode Share Objectives, decrease the share of total citywide trips made by single-occupant auto to 50% or less by 2030 Current Mode Share: ŠDrive Alone - 67.7% Summarize biennially (every other years) based on data from U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (latest 5-year average) 3 Achieve Platinum Level status as Bicycle Friendly Community by the League of American Bicyclists Gold Status League of American Bicyclists Bicycle Friendly Community Rankings (renewed every 4 years) 4 Continue progress towards the City's Vision Zero goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and severe injuries, endeavoring towards a 75% reduction by 2030 Three-Year Total (2015-2017): Š3 fatal collisions Š43 severe injury collisions City of San Luis Obispo Annual Traffic Safety Report 5 Complete installation of the Active Transportation Plan's Tier 1 bicycle and pedestrian network by 2030 6.5% of the ultimate Tier 1 network currently in place: Š0% of new low-stress bikeway mileage Š0% of new enhanced pedestrian/bicycle crossings Summarize at outset of each 2-year Capital Improvement Plan 6 Consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element policies, strive to allocate transportation funding across various transportation modes approximately proportional to the General Plan Modal Split Objectives Baseline to be set with FY2021-23 Financial Plan Summarize transportation expenditures as running 4-6-year average at outset of each 2-year Capital Improvement Plan 7 Double the mode share for all bicycle and pedestrian trips for public K-12 schools in the city Baseline to be set via school surveys in 2021 In collaboration with SLO Rideshare, conduct survey of local K-12 schools biennially (every other year) San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan VISION & GOALS 26 This page intentionally left blank. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Vision & Goals 27 03 Bicycling & Walking in San Luis Obispo Today Bicycling & Walking in San Luis Obispo Today San Luis Obispo residents is 26, much younger than the County (40) and State (37). Children and young adults under the age of 24 account for 48% of the city population, while 12% are aged 65 and over. Average household income is $49,600, roughly 25% below the County average, and roughly 32% of San Luis Obispo households own one or fewer automobiles. Land Use and Major Destinations Figure 2 displays the current land use designations and key destinations within San Luis Obispo. The City is primarily compromised of low and medium density residential and open space, with retail uses concentrated at the heart of the City’s downtown core and the corridors along Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna Road. Key destinations include the downtown core and Mission Plaza, Cal Poly, the Damon-Garcia Sports Fields, large retail centers along the Madonna and Los Osos Valley Road corridors, the San Luis Obispo Airport & adjacent business parks, hospitals, rail station, and numerous parks & open spaces, such as Bishop Peak and Laguna Lake Park. Local public K-12 schools within the City Limits include seven elementary schools, Laguna Middle School, and San Luis Obispo High School. In order to increase the share of trips made by active transportation modes in San Luis Obispo, it is important to first understand the current transportation system, land use planning, location of key destinations, and how people are currently using active transportation to move around the city. This chapter describes the active transportation landscape in San Luis Obispo, including the existing bicycling and pedestrian environment, primary barriers to walking and bicycling, and who is biking and walking now. Demographics The City of San Luis Obispo is home to approximately 47,000 residents, with roughly 8,000 additional people living on-campus at California Polytechnic University (Cal Poly), located just outside of the City Limits. With a jobs-to-housing ratio of 2.5:1, many San Luis Obispo workers commute into town from outside areas, increasing the City’s weekday population to nearly 56,000 persons. Most employed San Luis Obispo residents work within the City, with nearly 60% reporting a daily commute time of less than 15 minutes. Major employers within the city include Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo County, Tenet Healthcare and the City of San Luis Obispo. The median age of San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan BICYCLING & WALKING IN SAN LUIS OBISPO TODAY 30 Figure 2. Land Use Designations Who Bikes and Walks in San Luis Obispo? During the fall of 2019, the City of San Luis Obispo distributed a Citywide Household Transportation Survey to residents in order to learn more about their behaviors and perceptions of bicycling and walking around their communities. Postcards were distributed to a randomly generated list of 4,500 residents, inviting them to participate in the survey. A total of 709 residents completed the survey (16% response rate), providing a statistically valid sample. The survey results offer invaluable insight into the perceptions of walking and biking in San Luis Obispo. The Citywide Transportation survey shows that 16% of residents reported using a bicycle for most trips, while 11% reported that they walk for most trips. Comparatively, U.S Census Data (2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates) tells us that approximately 8% of San Luis Obispo residents bike to work regularly and 7% walk to work regularly. People often over-estimate how often they use sustainable transportation modes when asked to give their own estimates, so the actual mode share rates are likely somewhere in between the Citywide Survey and Census figures. 0 25%50%75%100% Other Motorcycle Ride hailing (Uber, Lyft, etc.) Bus Carpool/Vanpool I work/study from home Bicycle Walk Drive alone 5+4 3 2 1 0 Number of Days a Week % of Residents MODE EXISTING1 2035 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES2 Drive Alone 67.7%50% Bike 8.3%20% Carpool 7.8%18% Walk 7.2%18% Other 6.3%18% Transit 2.8%12% 1 U.S. Census Beueau; 2017 American Community Survey Journey to Work 5-year Estimates 2 City of San Luis Obispo 2035 General Plan Circulation Element (2014) San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan BICYCLING & WALKING IN SAN LUIS OBISPO TODAY 32 What do residents say about biking? Š49% of residents noted that they ride a bike for work and school trips at least once per week. ŠThe majority of residents (83%) own a bicycle. ŠThe vast majority of residents (90%) felt they were in good enough health to ride a bicycle. Š60% of residents say there are not enough bike lanes, while 65% say they would bike more regularly if there were more off-street trails and physically-protected bike lanes. What do residents say about walking? Š50% of residents walk for work and school trips at least once per week. Š45% of residents don’t feel safe walking at night vs. 6% who don’t feel safe walking during the daytime. ŠThe vast majority of residents (96%) felt they were in good enough health to walk a reasonable distance. Š78% of residents think the sidewalks are in good condition. Types of Bicyclists in San Luis Obispo Surveys show that the perception of risk with using stressful or unsafe facilities is often the most significant barrier to bicycling for most people. Even those interested in cycling will often choose to drive if the available facilities don’t meet their comfort level. In order to develop a bicycling environment that will encourage more people to ride, it is important to first understand the existing level of interest, ability and comfort of bicycling within the community. While there are many diverse types of cyclists, including people who have no other means of transportation, for the purposes of bicycle system planning, the population can generally be classified into four types of transportation bicyclists. Types of Bicyclists in San Luis Obispo 19% Strong + Fearless Willing to ride a bicycle on any roadway regardless of traffic conditions. Comfortable taking the lane and riding in a vehicular manner on major streets without designated bicycle facilities. 38% Enthusiastic + Confident Bicyclists who are comfortable sharing the roadway with automotive traffic in some instances, but prefer to ride in their own designated bike lane or off-street facility. 22% Interested, but Concerned Infrequent bicyclists with some inclination towards bicycling more regularly if they felt safer on the roadways. Not very comfortable sharing the road with cars, or riding on major streets, even with a bike lane. Prefer separated pathways or low-traffic neighborhood streets. 21% No Way No How Residents who simply are not interested in bicycling for reasons of topography, inability, or simply complete and utter lack of interest. Unlikely to adopt bicycling in any way. Based on responses to the Citywide Transportation Survey, San Luis Obispo residents were categorized into one of these four rider types: As shown above, 19% of residents will bike in practically any conditions and 21% are not interested in riding at all. If increasing bicycle mode share is the goal, the City should strive to provide facilities that meet the comfort level of the remaining 60% of the population. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Bicycling & Walking in San luiS OBiSpO TOday 33 Existing Bicycle Network Existing bikeways in San Luis Obispo can provide a base from which the City can propose a low stress bikeway network. It is important to note that some facilities promote both bicycle and pedestrian safety. Bicycle Facility Mileage by Type The City of San Luis Obispo’s current bicycle network includes approximately 75 miles of designated paths, lanes, and routes. There are approximately 11 miles of shared-use pathways, 38 miles of bicycle lanes, 25 miles of bicycle routes, and a half mile of neighborhood greenway. See the descriptions below to understand the definition of each bicycle facility type, as these terms will be used throughout this plan. Figure 3 shows the existing bicycle facilities throughout San Luis Obispo, as well as areas immediately outside of the city boundary. Shared-Use Path (Class I)Bicycle Lane (Class II) Bicycle Route (Class III)Neighborhood Greenway 25 miles BICYCLE ROUTES 11 miles SHARED-USE PATHWAYS 38 miles BICYCLE LANES �⁄₂ mile NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 75-mile Bike Network Protected Bikeway (Class IV) Coming Soon Note: The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) uses the following naming convention for bicycle facility classifications: Class I Bikeway (Shared- Use Path), Class II Bikeway (Bike Lanes), Class III Bikeway (Bike Route), Class IV Bikeway (Cycle Track/Protected Bike Lane). Since this naming convention can often be confusing for the general public, the more intuitive terms listed above are used throughout this plan. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan BICyCLING & WaLkING IN SaN LUIS OBISPO TOday 34 Figure 3. Existing Bicycle Facilities Bicycle Parking The City of San Luis Obispo has many bicycle parking locations, both within the public right-of-way with racks installed along sidewalks and within on-street parking lanes, and on private property at entrances to office buildings, retail centers, and multifamily housing developments. The City understands the importance of providing a secure place to store your bicycle at key destinations and understands that bike parking is an important part of making a bike trip feasible. Residents have expressed support for bicycle parking through the City’s Racks with Plaques Donation Program, a program in which a donor purchases a bike rack for the City and a dedication plaque is personalized with a message from the donor. Figure 4 shows where bicycle parking is currently located throughout the city. The majority of bicycle parking is in the central part of downtown. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan BICYCLING & WALKING IN SAN LUIS OBISPO TODAY 36 Figure 4. Existing Bicycle Parking Existing Pedestrian Facilities The City of San Luis Obispo’s pedestrian infrastructure includes sidewalks and paseos, shared-use paths, curb ramps, crosswalks, median refuges, and hiking trails. The City has a robust sidewalk network but there are still gaps. In Chapter 5 we highlight those gaps to ensure we can complete our sidewalk network. Pedestrian Signal Bulb-Out High-Visibility Crosswalk Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Refuge Island Curb Ramp Sidewalks & Paseos San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan BICYCLING & WALKING IN SAN LUIS OBISPO TODAY 38 Other Bicycle & Pedestrian Design Elements Other infrastructure and design elements that make up the existing pedestrian and bicycle environment within San Luis Obispo include pedestrian and bicycle signals, grade-separated crossings (bridges and tunnels), flashing beacons, street lighting and wayfinding signage. Providing intersection improvements that promote bicycle and pedestrian safety can encourage residents to bike and walk more frequently. Bike + Pedestrian Bridge Bike Signal Green Bike Lane Markings Bike Box Pedestrian-Scale Street Lights Wayfinding/Guide Signage San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Bicycling & Walking in San luiS OBiSpO TOday 39 Why are People Not Biking More Today? Residents who participated in the Citywide Transportation Survey were asked, “Why is it difficult to bike in town more often?” Heavy traffic, bicycle network gaps, and aggressive drivers were the top concerns about biking today in San Luis Obispo. 0%25%50%75%100% I don't want to wear a helmet I am not in good health to bike I don't have a bike There are no showers or lockers at my destination It takes too long There isn't enough secure bike parking Biking isn't safe for my children Bike lanes/paths are poorly maintained (debris, faded striping, potholes) I can't carry all my stuff The streets are too dark at night There aren't enough bicycle lanes Drivers are speeding or are too aggressive Gaps in the bicycle network make it difficult to travel safely I don't liketo bike in heavy traffic 66% 62% 60% 53% 43% 40% 35% 34% 29% 21% 18% 11% 11% IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO BIKE IN TOWN MORE OFTEN BECAUSE... 77% of respondents are concerned about bicycling in heavy vehicular traffic San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan BICYCLING & WALKING IN SAN LUIS OBISPO TODAY 40 What Other Barriers do Residents in San Luis Obispo Face When Bicycling? As part of the ATP public outreach process, an Interactive Online Mapping tool was provided to community members to give them the opportunity to highlight locations that they felt created significant barriers to walking or bicycling, such as intersections and roadway segments they felt unsafe riding along. There were a total of 64 comments that referenced barriers to biking, with the following key themes: Š55% of comments identified intersections that felt unsafe or where users had difficulty finding gaps in traffic to cross major thoroughfares; Š42% of the comments cited general safety concerns, with the majority of these locations located along high traffic volume/speed arterial streets; Š31% of comments expressed desire for physically- separated bike facilities; and Š22% of comments expressed concerns with high motor vehicle speeds.55% of comments mentioned difficult intersections as a barrier to biking. 42% of comments cited safety as a major concern. 22% of comments mentioned vehicle speeding as a barrier to biking. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Bicycling & Walking in San luiS OBiSpO TOday 41 Why are People Not Walking More Today? Residents who took the Citywide Transportation Survey were asked, “Why is it difficult to walk in town more often?” Drivers not paying attention, safety, and time were the top concerns about walking today in San Luis Obispo. 0%25%50%75%100% I am not in good health to walk I don't feel safe walking during the day Sidewalks are too narrow Sidewalks are inpoor condition There aren't enough safe crossings There are no sidewalks during some parts of my trip It takes too long I don't feel safe walking at night Drivers don't watch out for me 47% 40% 35% 28% 22% 17% 6% 5% IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO WALK IN TOWN MORE OFTEN BECAUSE... 52% of respondents are concerned about drivers not paying attention when people are walking San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan BICYCLING & WALKING IN SAN LUIS OBISPO TODAY 42 What other barriers do residents in San Luis Obispo face when walking? There was a total of 44 comments provided in the Online Mapping Tool that referenced barriers to walking. Lack of safe crossings, traffic speeds, and lack of sidewalks were the top walking barriers noted on the interactive online mapping tool. Š50% of comments cited lack of crosswalks and the need for new or improved crossings; Š20% of comments noted concerns with high vehicle speeds; Š20% of comments comments cited lack of sidewalks/sidewalk construction; Š18% of comments identified lack of curb ramps as a major barrier; and Š16% of comments comments expressed a desire for better/more street lighting.. 50% of comments mentioned the lack of crosswalks as being a barrier to walking. 20% of comments cited safety & vehicle speeding as major concerns. 16% of comments mentioned wanting improved lighting for pedestrians. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Bicycling & Walking in San luiS OBiSpO TOday 43 Prioritizing Safety Using Data The City of San Luis Obispo takes pride in its commitment to improving safety for all road users. Through its award-winning Traffic Safety Program, the City has employed a data- driven process to systematically reduce traffic collisions, with a focus on collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians, who are more likely to be seriously injured or killed in a crash. As reported City’s 2017 Traffic Safety Report, citywide traffic collisions have been reduced by 60% and injury collisions have decreased by 35% since inception of the Traffic Safety Program in 2002, with bicycle collisions down 47% from peak levels in 2009 and pedestrian collisions down 15-21% from a peak in 2004. While the number of pedestrian collision are down from their peak, there has been a recent rise in pedestrian collisions in 2016 and 2017. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan BICYCLING & WALKING IN SAN LUIS OBISPO TODAY 44 Vision Zero Vision Zero is a multi-national traffic safety initiative with a straightforward message: No loss of life is acceptable. At its core, Vision Zero seeks the elimination of deaths and serious injuries from our roadways. By focusing on not only reducing overall traffic collisions, but preventing severe collisions, particularly to vulnerable users such as pedestrians, bicyclists and people with disabilities, communities can achieve real live benefits and save lives. The City of San Luis Obispo formally adopted its Vision Zero policy in 2016 to eliminate traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries by 2030. Through the data-driven analysis performed in the annual Traffic Safety Report, regular collaboration between City Public Works and Police Departments to identify priorities for focused traffic safety enforcement and ongoing community education and outreach campaigns, the City continually strives to improve the safety and efficiency of transportation facilities for all modes and users. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Bicycling & Walking in San luiS OBiSpO TOday 45 Where are Most of the Collisions Happening Today? Overall, there have been 145 bicycle-involved collisions and 81 pedestrian-involved collisions from 2015-2017 on city streets. One of those bicycle collisions was fatal and 29 caused severe injuries. One of those pedestrian collisions was fatal and 24 caused severe injuries. Bicycle collisions have primarily occurred along high speed, major arterial streets, such as Santa Rosa Street, California Boulevard, South Higuera Street and Foothill Boulevard. However, most of the pedestrian collisions have primarily occurred within the downtown region and Foothill Boulevard where there is higher pedestrian crossing volumes combined with higher automobile speed and volume. Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the locations of all bicycle and pedestrian involved collisions. 86% CAR 6% PEDESTRIAN 24% CAR 8% BICYCLE 501 Total Collisions 47% BICYCLE 29% PEDESTRIAN 17 Severe Injury or Fatal Collisions 2017 Collisions by Type San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan BICYCLING & WALKING IN SAN LUIS OBISPO TODAY 46 Figure 5. Bicycle Involved Collisions 2015–2017 Figure 6. Pedestrian Involved Collisions 2013–2018 Most Common Bike Crash Types in San Luis Obispo Figure 7 summarizes bicycle-involved collisions by primary collision factor. The majority of collisions were caused by motorists making an improper turning movement, with 26% resulting from unsafe right- turns. The majority of these right-turn collisions occurred on streets with curbside unprotected bike lanes with no enhanced crossing treatments, such as dedicated bike signals, green pavement markings, or protected corners, indicating value in exploring intersection improvement strategies that reduce conflicts between right-turns and cyclists. Most Common Pedestrian Crash Types in San Luis Obispo Figure 8 breaks down pedestrian-involved collisions by type. The majority of the collisions were caused by a party failing to yield proper right-of-way, with 32% involving motor vehicle drivers failing to yield to pedestrians when making left turns, particularly at signalized intersections with permitted left turn movements. This suggests that improvements could be explored to reduce conflicts between left-turns and pedestrians, such as eliminating permitted left turn signal phases, providing pedestrian lead crossing intervals, or addition of high-visibility crosswalk markings. Figure 7. Figure 8. PEDESTRIAN COLLISION TYPE %# Motorist Left-Turn 32%10 Pedestrian Failed to Yield 16%5 Jaywalking 13%4 Scooter/Skateboarder in Roadway 13%4 Motorist Failed to Yield 13%4 Pedestrian Crossing Against Signal 6%2 Motorist Right-Turn 6%2 Total 31 BICYCLIST COLLISION TYPE %# Motorist Right-Turn 26%10 Motorist Left-Turn 15%6 Cyclist Lost Control 10%4 Motorist Failed to Yield 8%3 Wrong-Way Cyclist 8%3 Cyclist No Light 5%2 Motorist Failed to Drive at Safe Distance 5%2 Cyclist Failed to Stop 5%2 Cyclist Under the Influence 5%2 Cyclist Lane Change 5%2 Motorist Under the Influence 3%1 Cyclist Failed to Yield 3%1 Motorist Overtaking or Sideswipe 3%1 Total 39 San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Bicycling & Walking in San luiS OBiSpO TOday 49 Level of Traffic Stress As mentioned earlier in this section, the perception of a stressful or unsafe journey is often the greatest barrier to bicycling for most San Luis Obispo residents. For this reason, it is important to understand how stressful different routes and roadway conditions are likely to be perceived by the average rider. In order to increase bicycle ridership, the routes that provide access to the most prominent destinations need to feel safe for all cyclists, not just the strong and fearless. Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) is an objective, data-driven analysis system used for this vary purpose—to indicate how comfortable or stressful a given roadway segment or crossing is for a typical bicyclist. Levels of traffic stress quantifies perceived stress using a ranking system from 1 to 4, with LTS 1 representing a very low stress experience comfortable for all users, such as a physically-separated shared-use path, while LTS 4 represents a very stressful experience suitable for only the most experienced riders, such as a high speed/ volume arterial street with no dedicated bike facilities. Level of traffic stress analysis calculations utilize roadway and bikeway characteristics, speed and volume data to assign an LTS ranking to a given facility. With roughly two thirds of San Luis Obispo residents indicating that they would travel by bicycle more frequently if they had access to more low-stress facilities, such as shared-use paths and physically protected bike lanes, understanding the level of traffic stress of the existing bicycle network is critical in order to guide improvements that are needed to achieve the City’s mode share goals. Existing Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress in San Luis Obispo Level of traffic stress scores were mapped to illustrate the low-stress connections and gaps throughout San Luis Obispo. Figure 9 shows the LTS results of the major roadways and collector roadways within San Luis Obispo. Shared-use paths and roadways located in the downtown core, where most streets are narrow with lower vehicle speeds and traffic is distributed more evenly throughout the historic street grid, generally provide lower-stress travel for bicycling as compared to the higher-speed multi-lane arterial streets leading out from the center of the city. Even when striped bike lanes are provided, multi-lane roadways with high traffic speeds are often uncomfortable for all but the most experienced riders. These high-stress roadways, which are often the only direct routes to key destinations within the city, effectively create barriers for bicycling among neighborhoods. Examples of these high-stress roadways include: Foothill Boulevard, Madonna Road, Los Osos Valley Road, and Broad Street. Neighborhood greenways and bike routes with low traffic volumes and speeds, shared-use paths and protected bike laness—facilities that physically separate cyclists from motor vehicles—generally provide a low- stress environment needed to serve cyclists of all ages and ability levels. • Low Stress, with attention required • Indicates traffic stress that most adults will tolerate LTS 2 • More stressful than Level 2 • Requires attention & suitable for adults with confidence to bicycle • Low Stress • Suitable for all ages & abilities, including children LTS 1 LTS 4LTS 3 • Most stressful • Suitable only for the most experienced San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan BICYCLING & WALKING IN SAN LUIS OBISPO TODAY 50 Figure 9. Level of Traffic Stress Low-Stress Connectivity Islands Analysis Figure 10 analyzes the connectivity of existing low-stress areas of the city based on the Level of Traffic Stress Analysis mentioned in the previous section. This exercise helps highlight the barriers that high-speed roadways, freeways, and railroad tracks create between neighborhoods. A low-stress connection requires both segments and intersections to accommodate low-stress travel. For example, if a corridor is considered a stressful roadway, enhanced crossings may be needed to provide a comfortable crossing experience for cyclists traveling between neighborhoods. Elements that promote low- stress connectivity between areas of the city could include: ŠSignalized Intersection ŠHigh-Visibility Crosswalks with flashing beacons ŠLow-speed roadways, bridges or tunnels bypassing high-speed streets The complete connections are displayed in the same color and create “low stress islands”. When the color of a collection of roadways changes, or the color is broken, this indicates that a high-stress roadway is creating a barrier for someone trying to cross. This could include a lack of signalized crossings at the intersection. Colors do not correspond to a level of traffic stress but rather that each different color represents a part of the City where it is more stressful to cross from one island to the next. Although the downtown area does include some stressful roadways based on the LTS analysis, signalized crossings provide opportunities for bicycling comfortably across stressful corridors and limit out-of-direction travel. These crossings make the majority of the downtown area more connected. For neighborhoods along high-speed arterial streets like Foothill Boulevard and south Broad Streets, where few signalized crossings exist, low-stress bicycle travel is not possible. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan BICYCLING & WALKING IN SAN LUIS OBISPO TODAY 52 Figure 10. Connectivity Equity Review Equity is an important part of any successful public planning process and is a key tenet on which this Plan is founded. To understand equity in the community of San Luis Obispo it is important to understand how it is defined and how community demographics look when viewed through an equity lens. This information helps us create an active transportation network that serves all of San Luis Obispo, regardless of background or economic status. Defining Equity The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) provides a regional definition for identifying disadvantaged communities within the County by examining the socio-economic indicators that define underserved populations, including: ŠMedian Household Income ŠMinority Status ŠFree or reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch Program ŠPopulation of persons aged 65 and up ŠHousing Affordability ŠEducational Attainment Language Proficiency ŠHouseholds with no vehicles available ŠAccess to regular local transit service ŠSidewalk completeness ŠProximity to a grocery store The above variables were analyzed for the San Luis Obispo County region at the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) level, and areas were evaluated relative to state and county averages. Points were assigned accordingly for each variable, and a composite score was derived for each zone in the region. The top 20th percentile of zones were deemed to have met SLOCOG’s regional definition of disadvantaged communities. Figure 12 highlights areas of San Luis Obispo that meet the regional definition of a disadvantaged community. California Senate Bill (SB) 535 and Assembly Bill (AB) 1550, which prioritize disadvantaged and low-income communities in California for increased investment from proceeds from the State’s Greenhouse Gas Cap-and-Trade program, provide another method for defining inequity within our communities. Under SB 535, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) has developed a screening criterion for defining disadvantaged communities, which considers factors such as environmental pollution (drinking water quality, air quality, pesticide use, etc.), rates of public health issues (asthma, cardiovascular disease, obesity), and socioeconomic factors (educational attainment, poverty, unemployment, housing burdened low-income households). No census tracts within the City of San Luis Obispo currently meet the SB 535 definition of disadvantaged communities. Under AB 1550, Cal EPA also provides a specific definition for low-income communities-based prevalence of census tracts with household at or below 80% of the statewide median household income, where household income is at or below the threshold designated as low-income by the Department of Housing and Community Development’s list of State income limits. Figure 11 shows the areas of San Luis Obispo that meet the AB 1550 definition of low-income communities. In addition, Figure 13 shows the median household income by census tract in San Luis Obispo. As shown in the map, the highest concentration of low-income households is generally located in the northern part of the city near Cal Poly, which is largely driven by concentrations of college students. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan BICYCLING & WALKING IN SAN LUIS OBISPO TODAY 54 Housing and Transportation Costs in San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo County has consistently been ranked as one of the least affordable places to live in the United States, coming in at #5 on USA Today’s 2019 list of least affordable housing markets. The annual income required to buy a house in San Luis Obispo County is about $158,000—more than three times the annual income of an average household in the City of San Luis Obispo. Transportation can represent a significant portion household expenses, with the average California resident spending roughly 10% of their income on transportation-related expenses, and the cost of owning and maintaining a car ranging from $5,000-$12,000 annually. Comparatively, studies show the annual cost of using a bicycle or transit as a primary mode of travel ranges from $300- $500 per year. It is important to also note that driving a motor vehicle is simply not an option for some community members, including students, seniors, unsheltered persons and those with medical conditions. For reference, Figure 14 shows the percentage of people without access to a vehicle by San Luis Obispo neighborhood. All things considered, improving access to safe, efficient, and low-cost transportation options, like walking, biking and transit, not only makes San Luis Obispo a more healthy, sustainable city, but a more affordable and inclusive city as well. Equity and Inclusivity in Active Transportation Planning Within the framework of this Plan, equity means that your identity as a San Luis Obispo resident has no detrimental effect on the distribution of public resources, access to information, ability to have your voice heard in local planning efforts, or access to affordable, efficient and safe transportation options. By implementing the projects and programs of this Plan, San Luis Obispo will have greater potential to be a more diverse, affordable, and inclusive community. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Bicycling & Walking in San luiS OBiSpO TOday 55 Figure 11. Disadvantaged Communities Figure 12. Disadvantaged Communities Figure 13. Median Income Figure 14. Vehicle Access 04 Community Engagement In October 2019 San Luis Obispo City staff held community outreach events for the “Roll and Stroll” Active Transportation Plan (ATP). The public engagement strategy consisted of online, public workshop, and less formal pop-up outreach activities to maximize feedback opportunities and to reflect the diverse voices of the San Luis Obispo community. Overview The purpose of the engagement effort was to obtain community input on: ŠVision for the ATP ŠTypes of active transportation infrastructure and policies to support the City’s mode share goals ŠBarriers to walking and bicycling in the City ŠWhat type of bicyclist they considered themselves ŠThe diverse types of active transportation users in our community Recommendations focused on: ŠTypes of bicycle facilities needed ŠTypes of pedestrian facilities needed ŠDesired locations for pedestrian crossing improvements and curb ramps ŠDesired routes to prioritize first for investment ŠPolicies/Programs the public support San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 62 Role of the Active Transportation Committee The City of San Luis Obispo has a long history of involving its citizens in the business of city government. The Active Transportation Committee (ATC) is an advisory body serving the City Council and is a way for citizens to participate in the governing of their community by providing policy and oversight recommendations on issues regarding bicycle and pedestrian transportation. Originally established in 1991 as the Bicycle Advisory Committee, in 2018 the City Council expanded the committee’s purview to include both bicycle and pedestrian transportation. Consisting of seven members appointed by the City Council, the ATC has played an important role in providing citizen input to the Active Transportation Plan. In regular meetings spanning over 2 years, the committee has provided careful input on the Plan’s policies, projects, and prioritization. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Community EngagEmEnt 63 Project Timeline JanuaRy—SEPtEmBER 2019 Jan 2019 FEB 2018 FEB maR aPR may Jun JuL aug SEP oCt noV DEC Existing Conditions, Needs Assessment, & Initial Development of the Plan with the Active Transportation Committee Project Kick-Off SEPtEmBER—DECEmBER 2019FEBRuaRy 2018 Public Engagement oCt 12 Neighborhood Pop-up at Lucy’s Coffee Co. oCt 13 Neighborhood Pop-up at Lincoln Deli oCt 17 Event Booth at Cal Poly Union and Farmers Market oCt 19 Neighborhood Pop-up at Nautical Bean-Los Osos Valley Road oCt 20 Neighborhood Pop-up at Vons oCt 24 Open House Workshop at Library Web map Launched Web Survey Launched San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 64 Jan 2020 FEB maR aPR may Jun JuL aug SEP oCt noV DEC Jan 2021 FEB noVEmBER 2020 Release Draft Plan and Present to Active Transportation Committee & Planning Commission FEBRuaRy 2021 Prepare Final Plan and Present to City Council San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Community EngagEmEnt 65 Face-to-Face Activities Neighborhood Pop-ups A series of lunch time events on weekends at local coffee shops, eating, or shopping locations distributed throughout the city provided an opportunity for informal participation. Residents were able to highlight areas that needed improvement by placing dots on City Map Boards. Community members were also able to share their vision for a more walkable and bikeable San Luis Obispo through a Post- it exercise. Neighborhood pop-up events allow community members who often are not able to participate in formal, weeknight public hearings, to provide their input in a casual, convenient location. Open House Workshop The workshop was held at the City/County library during the evening of Thursday, October 24. The event featured learning stations where residents could learn about the ATP, activity boards to provide input through Post-its and dots exercises, selfie stations for photos, kids coloring book stations, and the opportunity to participate in the online survey on laptops provided by the city. Event Booths City Staff hosted booths at the Downtown Farmers Market and during lunch time at the Cal Poly University Union on Thursday, October 17. WHAT WE HEARD ŠImprove Bike Infrastructure ŠMore Protected Bike Lanes ŠMore Street Lights ŠImplement a Quick Build Policy ŠProtected Intersections ŠConnectivity San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 66 San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Community EngagEmEnt 67 SAN LUIS OBISPO Cal Poly Campus 1 2 5 3 4 7 6 EVENT LOCATIONS (2019): 1 Neighborhood Pop-up at Lucy’s Coffee Co. (Saturday 10/12) 2 Neighborhood Pop-up at Lincoln Deli (Sunday 10/13) 3 Event booth at Cal Poly Union (10/17) 4 Event booth at the Downtown Farmers Market (10/17) 5 Neighborhood Pop-up at Nautical Bean-Los Osos Valley Road (Saturday 10/19) 6 Neighborhood Pop-up at Vons (Sunday 10/20) 7 Open House Workshop at the library (10/24) San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 68 San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Community EngagEmEnt 69 Online Activities Project Website The Project website provided San Luis Obispo residents with updates on the ATP, access to documents, and opportunities to provide input at www.slobikewalk.org. Online Active Transportation Survey The survey provided information on existing travel behavior and active transportation barriers. The surveys were conducted in parallel with other public outreach events. A randomly generated list of city residents received postcards asking for participation in the survey, to create a statistically valid sample. A separate version of the survey was available for citywide participation online. The survey was also available via telephone interview or hard copy.  Interactive Online Mapping Tool The Interactive Online Mapping Tool provided the community an opportunity to provide feedback on the Roll and Stroll San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan. The online mapping tool allowed community members to highlight locations of desired intersection crossings as well as sites for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements. Users were given the option to use a point-marker to highlight a specific location on the map or a line segment to highlight a section of road or sidewalk that needs improvement. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 70 All Comment Analysis All total there were 74-point markers that were inputted into the interactive online mapping tool: Š42 entries for bicycling; and Š32 entries for walking. A total of 37-line segments were added to the online map: Š22 segments referencing barriers to bicycling; Š12 segments referencing barriers to walking; and ŠThree (3) segments referencing both barriers to bicycling and walking. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Community EngagEmEnt 71 Bicycle Comments There were 64 comments referencing barriers to biking. The most common barriers were the following: Walking Comments A total of 44 comments were submitted that highlighted the barriers to walking in San Luis Obispo, the most common barriers were the following: 55% of comments mentioned difficult intersections as a barrier to biking. 42% of comments cited safety as a major concern. 22% of comments mentioned vehicle speeding as a barrier to biking. 50% of comments mentioned the lack of crosswalks as being a barrier to walking. 20% of comments cited safety & vehicle speeding as major concerns. 16% of comments mentioned wanting improved lighting for pedestrians. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 72 Difficult Intersections Higuera Street and Madonna Road is a difficult intersection for biking as it was mentioned in 10 comments, which focused on the need for a bike lane, increased safety, improved crossings, and the construction of a curb and median. Broad Street between South Street and Orcutt Road was mentioned in 9 comments as a barrier to both biking and walking. Concerns focused on the need for a protected bike lane, difficulty crossing the street, lack of signalized crossings, high traffic volumes and speeding. Sydney Street and Johnson Avenue intersection was mentioned in 5 comments, focusing on the need for a more comfortable school crossing, improved lighting, and the reduction of vehicle speed. Higuera Street and Marsh Street intersection was mentioned in 5 comments, focusing on the need for a protected bike lane, increased safety, and the reduction of vehicle speed. Broad is too dangerous to cross without traveling to the only two cross walks at South and Orcutt. – INTERACTIVE MAPPING TOOL COMMENT I like the idea of shared transportation, but for me it is more about safety of biking. I own a bike, but I have never ridden it in SLO because I don't feel safe doing so. – HOUSEHOLD TRANSPORTATION SURVEY RESPONSE People drive fast and you cannot see them coming. And there is no stop sign to make them pause. Feels dangerous even when I drive. – INTERACTIVE MAPPING TOOL COMMENT San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Community EngagEmEnt 73 Community Input Barriers to Bicycling Š66% concerned with distracted driving and vehicular speeding Š63% concerned with drivers speeding or being too aggressive Š60% addressed the need for protected bike lanes ŠOther important concerns for bicycling with children and riding at night 0%25%50%75%100% I don't want to wear a helmet I am not in good health to bike I don't have a bike There are no showers or lockers at my destination It takes too long There isn't enough secure bike parking Biking isn't safe for my children Bike lanes/paths are poorly maintained (debris, faded striping, potholes) I can't carry all my stuff The streets are too dark at night There aren't enough bicycle lanes Drivers are speeding or are too aggressive Gaps in the bicycle network make it difficult to travel safely I don't liketo bike in heavy traffic 66% 62% 60% 53% 43% 40% 35% 34% 29% 21% 18% 11% 11% IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO BIKE IN TOWN MORE OFTEN BECAUSE... 77% of respondents are concerned about bicycling in heavy vehicular traffic San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 74 Barriers to Walking ŠGaps in sidewalk infrastructure, wider and better maintained sidewalks ŠDestinations too far to reach on foot ŠLack of adequate crossings at major intersections ŠBroad Street ŠS. Higuera ŠLack of street lighting especially around Cal Poly University 0%25%50%75%100% I am not in good health to walk I don't feel safe walking during the day Sidewalks are too narrow Sidewalks are inpoor condition There aren't enough safe crossings There are no sidewalks during some parts of my trip It takes too long I don't feel safe walking at night Drivers don't watch out for me 47% 40% 35% 28% 22% 17% 6% 5% IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO WALK IN TOWN MORE OFTEN BECAUSE... 52% of respondents are concerned about drivers not paying attention when people are walking San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Community EngagEmEnt 75 Types of Infrastructure and Policies Desired by the Community ŠProtected bike lanes on major arterials are the most desired types of bicycle infrastructure ŠBroad, South Higuera, Tank Farm Road, Madonna, Foothill, Santa Rosa, and Los Osos Valley Road ŠCrossing of major streets for both pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure ŠS. Higuera, Broad Street, Tank Farm, Los Osos Valley Road, Madonna, Santa Rosa, and Foothill Blvd ŠCurb ramps and completing sidewalk gaps around schools and downtown ŠStreetlights around Cal Poly University and downtown area ŠQuick build policy introducing projects quickly with temporary materials and pilot installations ŠEnforcement and lowering speeds ŠMotorist, pedestrian, and bicycle education San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 76 People Profiles To better understand the community and to personalize bicycling and walking in San Luis Obispo; we asked residents to tell us about the challenges they face walking and biking for transportation, the types of improvements that would make them feel more comfortable doing it more often and what they enjoyed most about walking and biking in San Luis Obispo. The following profiles provide just a small sample of the many unique users who use the City's active transportation system. Name: Andy Richardson Lives in: French Park "SLO is a beautiful and progressive area where outdoor activities are the norm." Name: Melanie Mills Lives in: Sinsheimer "People smile, ring their bells, and say “hi” to each other much more often when they are riding bikes and walking." San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Community EngagEmEnt 77 Name: Michael Huggins Lives near: Cal Poly "I can get anywhere quickly, but streets are too wide and have too many cars." Name: Jamie Woolf Lives in: Sinsheimer "I like walking here because there are lots of quiet routes away from traffic to enjoy a nice day." Name: Zach Noyes Lives in: Railroad District "Every morning I bike about 20 minutes to Cal Poly’s campus. It’s a great way to wake up for 8am classes!" Name: Allan Cooper Lives in: Downtown SLO "I enjoy the canopy of trees, the views of the surrounding hills, views of the creek and the peace and quiet along the creek walk and within the paseos." San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 78 Name: Jack Wanner Lives in: Downtown SLO "I just like the joy and freedom of pointing my handlebars wherever I want to go, and my own two feet getting me there." Name: Rob Moore Lives in: Laguna Lake "[I enjoy] being outside in the beautiful scenery, seeing my neighbors, being part of the solution to combat climate change and a vehicle reliant infrastructure." Name: Nicki Butler Lives near: Cal Poly "SLO has such beautiful weather so I love enjoying the sunshine while making my way to school or downtown." Name: Wesley Bisheff Lives in: Anholm "When walking, I get to communicate with other people. You never run into any friends while you're driving, and that makes it a lot more boring." San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Community EngagEmEnt 79 05 Recommended Bicycle & Pedestrian Projects The Bicycle and Pedestrian Network This chapter introduces the different types of bicycle and pedestrian projects as well as supporting amenities that the City of San Luis Obispo will build. This chapter also includes the overall strategy in deciding where and what kind of facilities should be recommended based on input from the community. WHAT WE HEARD WHAT WE'VE PROPOSED Bicycling and walking are uncomfortable and stressful due to heavy traffic and because cars drive too fast. Make it Comfortable ŠDesign for speeds as low as 15-20 mph on residential and local streets and construct physically-separated bikeways and pedestrian pathways on higher-speed thoroughfares. Explore a City Council Resolution authorizing speed limits as low as 15 mph in designated school zones per the California Vehicle Code. Apply strategies and innovative best practices to reduce speeds on arterial and collector streets where collision patterns exist. ŠContinue implementation of the City’s Vision Zero policies and traffic safety programs to develop a transportation system that will reduce fatal and severe crashes around San Luis Obispo. Bikeways are only useful if they are connected. Bicycle and pedestrian gaps as short as crossing an intersection or as long as several miles can keep people from biking and walking more often. Make it Connected ŠBuild low-stress bicycle and pedestrian facilities that provide access to local destinations in every neighborhood in San Luis Obispo. ŠInstall additional controlled crossings across major arterial and collector streets to connect neighborhoods to major destinations. Utilize best-practice designs to improve bicycle and pedestrian crossing safety and connectivity. Biking and walking at night creates safety concerns for residents who wish to travel during evening times. Make it Visible ŠContinue the implementation of the City’s new streetlight installation program, prioritizing new lighting installations at locations where known bicycle and pedestrian safety concerns exist. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan RECOMMENDED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS 82 How will Bicycle and Pedestrian Recommendations Achieve our Goals? Progress Update Since Last Plan The City of San Luis Obispo has made progress in developing a more bicycle and pedestrian friendly city since adoption of the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan. A few accomplishments include: ŠRecognition as the top City for Bikes in 2020 by People for Bikes and a Bicycle Friendly Community (BFC) designation at the Gold Level by the League of American Bicyclists ŠApproval of the Anholm Neighborhood Greenway Plan and Safe Routes to School Plan for Bishop Peak and Pacheco Elementary Schools including the City’s first protected bike lanes and Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon ŠOver 30 parklets and a new buffered bike lane installed in the downtown as part of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic response ŠGroundbreaking of a critical section of the Railroad Safety Trail from Pepper Street across Hwy 101 to Taft Street Goal 1: Build It Bicycle and pedestrian project recommendations should improve connectivity, efficiency, and comfort of the bicycle and pedestrian transportation system, focusing improvements along corridors and at crossing locations that offer the greatest potential to increase active transportation mode share. Goal 2: Safety Bicycle and pedestrian recommendations should support the City’s ongoing Traffic Safety Program and Vision Zero initiatives, addressing the most critical safety issues by prioritizing improvements at high-injury corridors and intersections. Goal 3: Accessibility The Plan guides development of an active transportation environment that provides access and mobility options for users of all ages and physical ability levels, including those with physical disabilities and unique mobility challenges. Recommendations should also empower residents to live a more active lifestyle. Goal 4: Equity Bicycling and pedestrian recommendations address disparities in access to sustainable and low-cost transportation options in neighborhoods with higher concentrations of economically disadvantaged or historically underrepresented populations. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Recommended Bicycle & PedestRian PRojects 83 Developing the Proposed Network What steps did the City take to develop the proposed bike and pedestrian improvements that support a comfortable, connected, and safe network? Public Input Demand for new and improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities were recorded through neighborhood pop-ups, event booths, and workshops. Additional information was recorded through online input maps and surveys. Roadways and areas that were mentioned across different outreach methods were examined for inclusion in the proposed bikeway network. Local Destination Connectivity The project team identified bicycle and pedestrian improvements to better connect users to parks, community centers, senior centers, the downtown area, employment destinations, local schools and universities. Gap Closure and Ridership Projections The project team looked at where new facilities were needed to close the gap in the existing network. This could include intersection improvements to connect a bikeway or pedestrian pathway or connecting two longer corridors together. The project team also utilized the City’s Travel Demand Forecasting Model to review citywide origin- destination data to identify corridors with the highest potential to serve increased bicycle ridership. Collision History The project team reviewed collision history and improvement recommendations from the past several publications of the City’s annual Traffic Safety Report, which includes data-driven evaluation of high collision intersections and segments throughout San Luis Obispo. Roadway segments and intersections with collision trends involving bicyclists and pedestrians were targeted for improvements to address these safety concerns. Upgrading Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities The project team looked at which existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities could be upgraded to provide an even more comfortable connection for users. For pedestrian facilities, this included looking at areas that could benefit from additional crossing improvements and sidewalk amenities. For bicycle facility types, it involved looking at the speed and vehicular volume of a particular corridor. Following guidance from the FWHA and NACTO, corridors with higher speeds and vehicular volumes require more separation from traffic in order to facility bicycling comfort for all ages and abilities. See Figure 15 for a graph of how speed and volume influence the selection of bikeway types. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan RECOMMENDED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS 84 Downtown Concept Plan Downtown is a vital and diverse mixed-use district where people work, live, shop, dine, and enjoy entertainment. Downtown is the heart of San Luis Obispo. In 2017 the City Council adopted the Downtown Concept Plan. The Active Transportation Plan recommends implementation of focused elements from the Downtown Concept Plan, which includes protected bike lanes, a series of pedestrian paseos, shared streets known as woonerfs, crossing improvements, sidewalk widening, and overarching strategies for downtown streetscape enhancements. Connectivity to Transit An important part of increasing bicycling and walking is providing a seamless connection to transit services. The network was developed with connections to transit centers and transit stops in mind in order to provide first and last mile connectivity between transit and active transportation options as well as related amenities such as bus kiosks, bike parking, mobility as a service, and bikeshare. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Recommended Bicycle & PedestRian PRojects 85 Figure 15. All Ages and Abilities Bikeway Selection Matrix Facility Type 10k VolumeVEHICLES PER DAY9k 8k 7k 6k 5k 4k 3k 2k 1k 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Speed MILES PER HOUR Separated Bikeway or Shared-Use Path Bicycle Lane (Buffer Preferred) Shared Street or Bike Route Neighborhood Greenway Streets with low traffic volumes and speeds, signated and designed to e priority to bicycle travel. Bicycle Route with Sharrow Markings Provides for shared use with motor vehicle traffic. Treatments include signs and pavement markings. Provides low speed nd low volume bikeway without parking removal nforms motorist hat bicyclist may be present ess maintenance osts than a raditional bike lane +Informs motorist that bicyclist may be present +Low maintenance costs Possible diverters an be inconvenience o residents Does not provide protection May not provide eparate space for bicyclist at times Routes aren’t lways the most fficient for users –Does not provide protection or separated space for bicyclist –Likely won’t encourage riders of less skill or confidence –Not appropriate for higher-speed roadways All Ages and Abilities Bikeway Selection Matrix San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan RECOMMENDED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS 86 Project Strategies In the beginning of this chapter, three strategies were introduced based on what was heard from the community in order to make the proposed bike and pedestrian network more comfortable, connected, and visible. Make it Connected The proposed network of improvements closes gaps in the existing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and provides convenient crossing opportunities where significant barriers, such as high-traffic roadways, railroad tracks, or creeks, currently exist. This will help residents reach their destinations across San Luis Obispo. The strategy to make San Luis Obispo connected will look to add bike and pedestrian facilities where there are existing gaps and focus on connecting neighborhoods to major destinations like downtown, schools, retail locations, parks, and senior centers. Make it Visible Another barrier to bicycling and walking, as gathered in the public outreach, was travelling at night. Many residents feel unsafe riding or walking around their community where there is poor lighting. The proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvements will continue implementation of the City’s New Streetlight Program, installing new streetlighting throughout the city to ensure that residents feel seen and safe while traveling at night. Make it Comfortable The majority of Citywide Household Travel Survey respondents said that the main barriers to walking and biking in their community are speeding and aggressive driving and drivers are not yielding to pedestrians. The most-desired pedestrian improvements included improving crossings at busy intersections and maintaining a well-connected network of sidewalks. The most-desired bicycle improvements were more physically protected/separated bikeways. The proposed projects identified in this chapter address these requests by providing a cross-town network of protected bike lanes, multi-use trails, and sidewalks, as well as enhanced crossings along busy thoroughfares. These improvements should provide low-stress routes that allow for families and the “interested but concerned” demographic (described in Chapter 3) to reach their destinations by walking or biking. To do that, low-stress bikeways and pedestrian improvements were designated wherever possible, to provide cyclists and pedestrians with more protection from moving vehicles. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Recommended Bicycle & PedestRian PRojects 87 Bicycling and Shared-Use Facility Types Different types of bikeways are better suited for different roadways, based on considerations such as how fast and how frequently motor vehicles use the road, the roadway width, and other types of transportation using the space. The following bikeways and bike amenities are part of the City of San Luis Obispo’s toolbox. It is important to note that some bicycling facilities noted in the toolbox promote both bicycle and pedestrian use like the Shared Use Path and Neighborhood Greenway. Shared-Use Path A completely separated right- of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with few intersections with motor vehicle traffics. Shared-Use Paths are most helpful on routes with continuous right-of-way and few conflicting intersections or driveways, such as parallel to a railroad corridor or creek. Where parallel to a street, shared-use paths are helpful along streets with high traffic volume, and/or with a posted speed limit greater than 35 mph. Bicycle Lane A striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street. Bike Lanes are most helpful on streets with average daily motor vehicle traffic greater than 3,000 vehicles per day and a posted speed of 30 mph or less. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan RECOMMENDED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS 88 Bicycle Route Provides for shared use with motor vehicle traffic. Treatments include signs and pavement markings Bicycle Routes are most helpful on street with low daily traffic and with a posted speed of 25 mph or less. Neighborhood Greenway Streets with low traffic volumes and speeds, designated and designed to give priority to both bicycle and pedestrian travel Neighborhood Greenways are most helpful on streets with low traffic, typically in a neighborhood, and with a posted speed less than 25 mph. Neighborhood Greenways generally function best when traffic speeds remain between 15-20 mph, with maximum traffic volumes of 3,000 vehicles per day, and ideally less than 1,500 vehicles per day. Advisory Bike Lane An Advisory Bike Lane defines a preferred space for bicyclists and motorists to operate on narrow streets that would otherwise be a shared roadway environment. Roads with advisory bike lanes accommodate low to moderate volumes of two-way motor vehicle traffic and provide a prioritized space for bicyclists with little or no widening of the paved roadway surface. Most appropriate on streets with low to moderate volumes and moderate speed motor vehicles and roadways in built-up areas with constrained connections. Protected Bike Lane An on-street bikeway that is separated from traffic by a vertical barrier, such as a curb, median, or bollards. Also called a “cycle track” or “separated bikeway”. May be one- or two-way. Protected Bike Lanes are most helpful on streets with high traffic volume, regular truck traffic, high parking turnover, or with a posted speed limit greater than 30 mph. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Recommended Bicycle & PedestRian PRojects 89 Bikeway Amenities BIKE PARKING ŠIncludes curbside and sidewalk racks, corrals, bike lockers or bike stations ŠRacks provide short-term dedicated parking outdoors ŠLockers provide long-term secure parking at high demand locations ŠStations provide long-term indoor parking typically near transit and can be staffed or self-serve BICYCLE-FRIENDLY INTERSECTIONS ŠIntersections designed to provide additional separation, comfort, and safety for people biking and walking ŠMay include bike boxes, signal priority, curb extensions, or islands to separate bicyclists from turning motorists ŠIdeal for locations with conflicts between people driving, walking, and biking San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan RECOMMENDED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS 90 BIKE SHARE ŠSelf-serve bike pickup, either at designated stations or dockless ŠIdeal for short point-to-point trips and connections to and from transit stations ŠProvides access to bikes for peole who may not own a personal bicycle or not have storage space for a bike GREEN BIKE LANE THROUGH INTERSECTIONS ŠProvides additional comfort for bicyclists ŠCreates bicycle visibility for drivers ŠIdeal for locations with conflicts between people driving, walking, and biking BIKE SIGNALS ŠBike signals can create even more separation between bicyclists and vehicles ŠAllows for better intersection movements for all users San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Recommended Bicycle & PedestRian PRojects 91 Pedestrian Facility Types PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL & PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON PEDESTRIAN SCRAMBLE BULB-OUT HIGH-VISIBILITY CROSSWALK RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON REFUGE ISLAND CURB RAMPSIDEWALKS & PASEOS Different types of crossing improvements can greatly enhance the experience of walking throughout the City. It is important to note that some of the facilities listed below in the toolbox promote both pedestrian and bicycle safety. The crossing improvements below are part of the City’s toolbox. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan RECOMMENDED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS 92 BIKE + PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PROTECTED INTERSECTION A protected intersection uses a variety of design elements to maximize comfort for bicycling and walking within the intersection and promote a high rate of motorists yielding as well as reduce the crossing distance for pedestrians. The design maintains a physical separation within the intersection to define the turning paths of motor vehicles, slow vehicle turning speed, and offer a comfortable place for people bicycling to wait at a red signal. SHARED STREET / WOONERF A roadway where pedestrians are prioritized but still allows for slow automobiles. It minimizes the segregation of pedestrians and vehicles in its design. This is done by removing features such as curbs, road surface markings, traffic signs, and traffic lights. A Shared Street/ Woonerf is designed to feel car- free in appearance, with unique paving patterns that diverge from vehicular streets and that encourage outdoor seating, public events, and festivals. Cars are not prohibited but are not encouraged. Other Bicycle & Pedestrian Facility Types Additional bicycle and pedestrian improvements can provide even more comfort for both bicycling and walking. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Recommended Bicycle & PedestRian PRojects 93 Citywide Bicycle Recommendations The City of San Luis Obispo is proposing almost 100 miles worth of upgraded and new bikeways. There are approximately 31 miles of proposed shared-use pathways, 13 miles of proposed bicycle lanes, 0.4 miles of proposed bicycle routes, 25 miles of proposed protected bike lanes, and 10 miles of neighborhood greenways. Figure 17 breaks down the bike network today, the proposed new bikeways, and the complete network by facility type. Figure 18 as previously presented in Chapter 3, illustrates the existing bike network, while Figure 18 through Figure 22 illustrate the proposed bicycle facilities within the City of San Luis Obispo as well as areas immediately outside of the city boundary. Feasibility of Improvement Recommendations This Plan is a programmatic planning document, providing an ambitious high-level blueprint to guide future bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout San Luis Obispo. Each of the projects recommended in this Plan will require more detailed project-level analysis, community engagement, and engineering study, which may reveal constructability constraints, neighborhood incompatibility concerns, or other challenges that ultimately make it infeasible or undesireable to implement specific projects as originally intended. As the City proceeds with more detailed project-level planning, some projects identified in this plan may require refinement or postponement. Protected Bike Lane Neighborhood Greenway Bicycle Route Bicycle Lane Shared-Use Path Existing Proposed 11 miles existing 31 miles proposed 37 miles existing 13 miles proposed 26 miles existing 0.4 miles proposed 0.5 miles existing 10 miles proposed 0 miles existing 25 miles proposed 42 MILES 50 MILES 26.4 MILES 10.5 MILES 25 MILES Figure 16. Complete Bicycle Network San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan RECOMMENDED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS 94 Figure 17. Proposed Bicycle Network Figure 18. Existing & Proposed Bicycle Facilities Figure 19. Existing & Proposed Bicycle Facilities - North Figure 20. Existing & Proposed Bicycle Facilities - Central Figure 21. Existing & Proposed Bicycle Facilities - Southeast Figure 22. Existing & Proposed Bicycle Facilities - Southwest Citywide Crossing Improvements for Walking and Bicycling The City of San Luis Obispo is proposing a multitude of walking and bicycling infrastructure improvements, with a primary focus on the facilities most desired by the community to improve comfort levels: improving crossings at high-traffic intersections and where significant barriers exist, installing new sidewalks where gaps currently exist, repairing and maintaining existing sidewalks, bicycle signals, bike boxes and other improvements. These recommendations provide a safe and enjoyable experience for bicycling and walking across busy intersections in order to reach destinations. Figure 23 shows the locations proposed for priority crossing improvements—many of which benefit both walking and bicycling. Specific projects will be determined based on project-level analysis considering factors such as street width, crossing demand, traffic volumes and speeds. Crossing improvement locations have also been categorized into major and minor to show the scale of proposed improvements. On one hand, some locations may only need minor crossing improvements such as adding a high-visibility crosswalk marking or green bike lane marking. On the other hand, some locations may require major improvements to improve comfort levels such as a bicycle traffic signal, median refuge island, or protected intersection. See page 102 for examples of major and minor crossing improvements. Figure 24 below shows existing sidewalks within San Luis Obispo, as well as locations where gaps in the sidewalk network currently exist. The City is proposing to install new sidewalks where gaps currently exist, repair and maintain existing sidewalks, and continue to upgrade pedestrian facilities per current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, which includes constructing accessible curb ramps, removing sidewalk pinch points and obstructions, and correcting overly-steep grades where feasible. See Chapter 7 (Implementation) for details on how the City will prioritize installation of pedestrian infrastructure throughout San Luis Obispo. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Recommended Bicycle & PedestRian PRojects 101 Major Crossing Improvements PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL ROUNDABOUTPROTECTED INTERSECTION BICYCLE TRAFFIC SIGNAL REFUGE ISLAND PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON (HAWK) San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan RECOMMENDED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS 102 Minor Crossing Improvements Grade-Separated Pedestrian & Bicycle Crossing BIKE BOX + TWO-STAGE LEFT TURN BOX NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CIRCLE BIKE/PEDESTRIAN UNDERCROSSING/TUNNEL GREEN BIKE LANE MARKINGS BIKE/PEDESTRIAN BRIDGEBULB-OUT HIGH-VISIBILITY CROSSWALK RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON (RRFB) San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Recommended Bicycle & PedestRian PRojects 103 Figure 23. Proposed Crossing Improvements Figure 24. Existing & Missing Sidewalks Proposed Bikeway Level of Traffic Stress Back in Chapter 3, a street’s Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) was introduced in order to better understand the needs of the different types of bicyclists in San Luis Obispo. The level of traffic stress scores were mapped to reflect the existing low stress connections and gaps throughout San Luis Obispo. Figure 25 returns to this methodology to map a future in which the proposed bicycle network for San Luis Obispo has been implemented. This map illustrates the bikeway level of traffic stress after each project has been implemented. The results of this analysis demonstrate the benefit for low-stress connectivity associated with completion of the proposed bicycle network. Proposed Bikeway Level of Traffic Stress Findings The project recommendations support a complete, connected low-stress bicycle network for San Luis Obispo. The addition of protected bike lanes, particularly along roadways in the central and southern areas of the City, support more comfortable travel that connects to new or existing shared- use paths, other low stress routes, and destinations across the city. When compared to the existing LTS scores, more than 25 miles of roadway are improved from high stress (LTS 3 or LTS 4) to low stress (LTS 1 or LTS 2). In fact, nearly 30 miles of roadways in the proposed network will score as LTS 1 as compared to fewer than 3 miles in the existing conditions network. Over 10% of the City’s roadways will be updated to be LTS 1. As one example, in the existing LTS scores, almost all of Higuera Street is scored as and LTS 3 and LTS 4. The proposed network will improve Higuera Street to a low stress roadway scoring at LTS 1. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan RECOMMENDED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS 106 Figure 25. Proposed Bikeway LTS Supporting Infrastructure In order to ensure an enjoyable trip from beginning to end, supporting infrastructure is needed at intersections to make crossing easier, wayfinding signs along the way to help reach your destination, and secure parking once you reach your destination to store your bicycle. For more information on how these project recommendations will be built, see Chapter 7 on Implementation and the Design Appendix (Appendix B). Intersection Enhancements A bicycle and pedestrian network is not complete without looking at how people cross challenging intersections and reduce conflicts between people driving, walking, and biking. New treatments can be added to retrofit intersections to better serve bicycling and walking moving across or through busy intersections. The City proposes to improve crossings at the priority locations shown in Figure 23 on page 104, and incorporate pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly design enhancements at other crossings throughout the city as opportunities allow. Street Lighting Street lighting provides illumination for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians traveling at night. The City maintains and installs a variety of night lighting types along transportation facilities, including standard street lights along public roadways, decorative pedestrian-scale street lighting within the downtown core, and path lighting designed specifically for bicycle and pedestrian travel along shared-use pathways. While current City Engineering Standards call for installation of these various types of street lighting at specific intervals to provide a continuous level of illumination along each type of facility, some streets in San Luis Obispo were built many years ago—some more than a century ago—and include infrequent street lighting compared to current City Standards. This plan recommends that the City continue to install new street lighting per current City Standards, particularly along routes with high pedestrian and bicycle activity, to increase visibility to drivers, increase pedestrian comfort and perceived sense of safety, and help to create an inviting and vibrant streetscape for those walking and biking throughout the city. See Chapter 7 (Implementation) for details on how the City will prioritize installation of new streetlighting throughout San Luis Obispo. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan RECOMMENDED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS 108 Bike Parking Knowing you have a secure place to store your bike at your destination is an important part of making a bike trip feasible. The City has many bike parking facilities but more are needed, especially to accommodate cargo and other large bicycles. The City will continue to require installation of long-term and short-term bike parking as part of new development/ redevelopment projects, and as City-initiated installations within the public right-of-way where demand warrants additional bike parking capacity. Streetscape Amenities Sidewalk amenities like benches, shade structures, parklets, water fountains, public art, street trees and other landscaping can contribute to a more comfortable, inviting, and human-scale community. These elements can greatly activate the City’s sidewalks at popular destinations. The City’s Community Design Guidelines provide guidance for city planners and engineers for incorporating streetscape amenities into public improvement projects. See Appendix B (Design Guidelines) of this plan for additional policies and design strategies on streetscape enhancements to support vibrant, inviting and interesting active transportation environments. Wayfinding Providing wayfinding signs for bicyclists and pedestrians that directs them to nearby destinations on the most efficient, least stressful routes is an important element to any bicycle and pedestrian network. The City supports effective wayfinding for bicyclists and pedestrians, specifically along neighborhood greenway routes. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Recommended Bicycle & PedestRian PRojects 109 06 Bicycle & Pedestrian Programs Programs help support walking and bicycling by sharing information, providing education on rules of the road, promoting safe travel behaviors for all street users, and creating a vibrant active transportation culture. Communities that have high rates of walking and bicycling consistently use a “6Es” approach, which include Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Engineering, Equity and Evaluation with all Es working together. This chapter focuses on the “Es” other than Engineering. While programs are less costly than infrastructure improvements, they can be labor intensive and must be ongoing in order to be effective. Education Providing safety education for people walking, riding bicycles, and driving, as well as education about the environmental health, and financial benefits of active transportation, and the facilities available in the community. Encouragement Promoting bicycling and walking as fun and efficient modes of transportation and recreation. Enforcement Enforcing laws and good behavior for people walking, biking, and driving. Engineering Building the physical infrastructure that supports safe and comfortable active transportation mobility. Evaluation Monitoring the success of the City’s efforts by conducting surveys, reviewing relevant data, and traffic volumes by mode. Equity Ensuring that community members from all backgrounds, income levels and ranges of physical ability--particularly those from historically disadvantaged or underrepresented communities— have an equal seat at the table during project planning, budget-setting, design, and implementation of active transportation improvements and programs. All community members should have equitable access and opportunity to walk, bike and travel throughout their community in a safe, efficient and cost-effective way. E E E E E E San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PROGRAMS 112 How will Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs Achieve our Goals? Build It Active Transportation bicycle and pedestrian programs should complement network improvements that increase comfort levels and encourage physical activity for residents. Programs should educate users on new types of infrastructure, as well as how to legally, and safely navigate the City roadways. Safety Bicycle and pedestrian programs should both support safe bicycling and walking behaviors and address unsafe driving behaviors Accessibility Bicycle and pedestrian programs should expand the reach of the bicycle network with information and support facilities that make biking and walking the preferred travel option for more trips. Equity Bicycle and pedestrian programs should be rooted in best practices and community needs, build and maintain trust in the City and encourage meaningful participation within the community. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Bicycle & Pedestrian Programs 113 Existing Programs Annual Bicycle Rodeo  The annual bike rodeo for elementary school-aged children is led by the City of San Luis Obispo’s Parks and Recreation, Police, and Public Works Departments in collaboration with County Public Health, SLO Rideshare, local schools, non-profit groups, and local businesses. The Bike Rodeo promotes bicycle safety and defensive riding. Bike tune-ups are also available, and helmets are checked for a proper fit. Annual Bike Rodeo THE 6Es Education Encouragement Enforcement Engineering Evaluation Equity E E E E E E E E E San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PROGRAMS 114 Bike Light “Pop-Up” Checkpoint The City of San Luis Obispo’s Public Works Department and Police Department conduct a bike light checkpoint in the fall when the sun sets earlier in the day. Before giving bicyclists violations, the City offers bike lights and education to commuters, stressing the importance of being seen at night while riding. Pedestrian Halloween Safety Campaign In the weeks leading up to Halloween, the City of San Luis Obispo launches a media campaign to remind drivers to watch out for pedestrians. Additionally, as part of the City’s Vision Zero Initiative to eliminate all traffic related fatalities and severe injuries, the City distributes thousands of reflective “Trick or Treat” bags to local schools, which promote pedestrian safety and visibility. Racks with Plaques Donation Program  To help meet the demand for short-term bicycle parking, the City of San Luis Obispo, with the assistance of a local bike rack designer, developed the Rack with Plaques donation program; where a donor purchases a bike rack for the City and a dedication plaque is personalized with a message from the donor. The location of the bicycle rack is agreed upon by the donor and the city. In addition to the cost of the bicycle rack and dedication plaque, the donor pays for the associated installation and maintenance costs. Racks with Plaques Donation Program E E EEE San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Bicycle & Pedestrian Programs 115 Bicycle Education Workshops The City of San Luis Obispo works with Bike SLO County to provide bicycling education workshops and pop-ups to provide information and skills on defensive riding, rules of the road, and tips on how to commute and shop by bike comfortably. Workshops are taught by certified instructors and are presented at community centers, businesses, and educational institutions including Cal Poly and Cuesta College. Kidical Mass  The City of San Luis Obispo works with Bike SLO County to provide bicycling safety education to families through an event called Kidical Mass. At Kidical Mass, children and parents participate in group rides with a fun atmosphere including themed costumes. The rides are an opportunity to learn important bicycling safety skills, increase the visibility of families on bicycles and encourage more families to ride. Kidical Mass THE 6Es Education Encouragement Enforcement Engineering Evaluation Equity E E E E E E EE EE San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PROGRAMS 116 Bike Kitchen  Bike SLO County’s Bike Kitchen provides a maintenance education space to teach people how to repair and maintain bicycles. The Bike Kitchen has the space, tools and guidance for both small and large repairs empowering individuals to make their own repairs. The Bike Kitchen is a great resource for those who cannot afford to have their bike repaired at a shop and also promotes skills of personal empowerment. RideWell Program In partnership with SLO County Public Health, Bike SLO County’s Bike Kitchen staff and volunteers refurbish gently used bikes and provide them at no cost to disadvantaged children, families, and people with mobility related challenges. Ride Well participants also receive a free bike helmet, lights, a lock, and a bicycling safety education course. Fall Prevention for Seniors Led by San Luis Obispo County Public Health, this program works to promote fall preventing behaviors among the senior population including a fall prevention class series that supports behavior change related to fall risk factors. The classes increase participant knowledge of fall risk factors, develop their skills in following an exercise program, and promote participant self-efficacy. This program encourages activity and helps prevent pedestrian injuries. SLO Bicycle Kitchen E E EE E EE E E San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Bicycle & Pedestrian Programs 117 Back ‘N’ Forth Club The Back ‘N’ Forth Club is a free program from SLO Regional Rideshare that assists commuters and employers in SLO County through education and empowerment tools that alleviate traffic congestion, helps commuters save money on gas and makes it easier to get to work. The program helps residents make smart alternative commute choices including carpool, vanpool, bus, bike, and walking. Rideshare Week Led by SLO Regional Rideshare, the City is a partner in Rideshare Week to promote trying a mode of transportation other than the single occupancy vehicle and includes incentives, discounts, prizes, and promotions to bike, walk, carpool, and take the bus. SLO Tweed Ride Bike Month  Each May features activities and events all throughout the month promoting bicycling with a strong grassroots focus. Events range from Bike to School Day to the bike fashion show, SLO Tweed Ride, Pizza Ride and other high camaraderie events. The centerpiece event is Bike to Work Day, led by SLO Regional Rideshare with the City as an active partner. This event fosters friendly competition among businesses as well as incentives and prizes to encourage people to try bicycle commuting for the first time. E E EE E E THE 6Es Education Encouragement Enforcement Engineering Evaluation Equity E E E E E E San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PROGRAMS 118 National Walk and Bike to School Days  Nearly every school in the City has some kind of participation for this event usually consisting of a group walk or walking school bus with prizes for those who participate as well as tips on how to bike and walk to school safely. Bicycle/Skateboard Ticket Diversion Program For those who qualify, individuals who receive a ticket for bicycle and skateboard violations may take a diversion class led by the Cal Poly University Police Dept. The class provides an incentive to learn about legal bicycle and skateboard riding as well as reducing the cost burdens on those for whom a ticket may be a heavy financial burden. Transit Driver Education SLO Transit drivers receive education about common conflict points to be aware of when encountering bicycles and pedestrians on the roadway. National Walk to School Day E E EE E San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Bicycle & Pedestrian Programs 119 Recommended Programs Safe Routes to School Program Safe Routes to School is a national program dedicated to promoting walking, biking, and taking transit to get to school. The City should support existing regional Safe Routes to School programs to further advance their goals. A Safe Routes to School Program offers many opportunities including: ŠTeaching students the rules of the road, so they are more prepared to navigate their community using active transportation. ŠEncouraging active modes of getting to school. ŠDecreasing the prevalence of child obesity though increased physical activity ŠReducing traffic congestion around schools. In addition, this program provides an opportunity to dovetail planning efforts to bring a Safe Routes to School Plan to each K-12 school in the City. E EE EE THE 6Es Education Encouragement Enforcement Engineering Evaluation Equity E E E E E E E EE EE Safe Routes for Seniors A program providing active opportunities for seniors could foster healthy aging and longer years of independent living. A Safe Routes for Senior program will provide tools and services to help seniors find ways to meet their transportation needs through trips that primarily including walking and transit. The program includes group walks geared towards seniors that encourage social bonding. The program can also include key awareness topics such as education for drivers to pay attention to senior pedestrians and street improvements such as an increased crossing times in areas with a high number of seniors walking. Feedback received from the program can inform future infrastructure improvements that can further address needs of seniors. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PROGRAMS 120 Parklet Program  As part of the COVID-19 response, the City launched a pilot program known as Open SLO, which installed over 30 parklets in the downtown area as well as across the city. Parklets act as an extension of the sidewalk over an on-street parking space that serves as a small public park or seating area. Parklets help activate more pedestrian spaces and create areas for people gather or relax in a space that is open and accessible to all. Mobility as a Service Consistent with the Climate Action Plan, this program would explore options for establishing (or leveraging an existing) an online platform where users are able to access information about each type of mobility offered in the City. The platform, known as a Mobility as a Service (MAAS) would include specific access locations and routes on an interactive map, and a centralized payment hub for transit, ridesharing, ride hailing services like Lyft or Uber, or bikeshare. In addition to lowering barriers of entry to transit, the forthcoming bicycle share program, and other emerging mobility options, a centralized platform would also allow the City to incorporate equity considerations such as providing no cost or reduced cost access for income qualified residents. Similarly, a centralized platform could be used to support alternative mobility options for employees or residents in a new development as a condition of development approval or could be used by hotels and downtown businesses to help visitors access alternative forms of transportation. E E E E E E Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Campaign Bicycling and pedestrian safety campaigns encourage all road users to abide by local laws and to be courteous to other users. These campaigns can be targeted at just one or multiple user types. To maximize the effectiveness of these public awareness campaigns, stakeholder groups can be utilized to help define the safety campaign goals to ensure that local concerns and issues are addressed. These stakeholder groups can become champions of the message, and usually include local experts, law enforcement officers, business owners, civic leaders, school districts and community volunteers. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Bicycle & Pedestrian Programs 121 Open Streets Events Open Streets events, often known as Ciclavia in other communities, temporarily close streets to vehicular traffic allowing people to use the streets for activities like walking, biking, skating, and other social and physical activities. These events are great for bringing the community together and promoting active transportation and public health. Open Streets events can also serve as a tool to engage with the public about how their roadways can better serve their needs. The City should look to partnerships with community groups to organize Open Streets type events and activities. Demonstration Projects Demonstration Projects provide an opportunity to temporarily implement new infrastructure ideas such as traffic circles, separated bicycle facilities, slow streets, parklets or pedestrian refugee islands. This can provide an opportunity for the city to directly engage with residents and local business and get their feedback on new ideas. Demonstration projects can be done in live traffic or in conjunction with a street closure event like an Open Streets event. Demonstration projects can vary in types of materials and duration installed. Bike Share and Other Micromobility Programs The City is currently partnering with Cal Poly University to bring a bikeshare program to our community. The program will provide more transportation options to get to campus and other destinations as well as furnish first and last mile connections to transit. In addition, the program may provide discounted mobility options for low income residents and help offset high costs of living. Depending on future funding and community support, other forms of micromobility such as scooters may be a possibility in the future. THE 6Es Education Encouragement Enforcement Engineering Evaluation Equity E E E E E E E E E E EE San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PROGRAMS 122 Recommended Program Policies 6.1 Maintain funding for a full-time active transportation manager as well as sufficient support staff to manage capital projects, seek grant funding, review development projects, ensure consistency with active transportation policies, and coordinate City-sponsored active transportation promotion and education activities. 6.2 Continue to sponsor and provide funding for active transportation promotion and education as well as safe behaviors for all modes that make bicycling and walking challenging. 6.3 The City shall work with the San Luis Coastal Unified School District to create and support Safe Routes to School Plans and programs for all schools in San Luis Obispo. 6.4 Work with partners on programs that reduce transportation costs and provide active transportation education and opportunities to underserved populations. 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. Coordinate with online map and navigation companies where feasible to ensure that bicycle and pedestrian navigation services accurately route users to low- stress bicycle and pedestrian routes within the city. 6.6 Enforce traffic laws regarding active transportation rights and responsibilities while also emphasizing that facility design efforts may be more effective in making bicycling and walking more safe and attractive. 6.7 The City should continue providing incentives for employees to commute to work by walking and bicycling and encourage local businesses to do the same. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Bicycle & Pedestrian Programs 123 07 Implementation Implementing the Active Transportation Plan This chapter outlines the City’s strategy to invest in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects. While pedestrian and bicycle projects are generally much less costly compared to projects that expand motor vehicle capacity, such as widening and extending multi-lane roadways and bridges, all infrastructure improvements involve significant costs. Given that this Plan identifies over 240 projects, and acknowledging that there are limited financial resources to spread between all city infrastructure projects, it is imperative that the bicycle and pedestrian projects identified in this Plan are prioritized based on their greatest potential to increase bicycling and walking safety, access and connectivity. Therefore, the bicycle and pedestrian recommendations identified in Chapter 5 were evaluated against a set of criteria and scored. Project Prioritization: Tier One, Two, and Three Projects The following criteria were used to prioritize the proposed bicycle and pedestrian projects: ŠRidership/Usage Potential ŠSafety/Collisions ŠEquity – Ability to improve access for Disadvantaged and Low-Income Communities ŠCommunity Input ŠExisting Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) ŠProximity to Key Destinations ŠSchools (K-12 and Cal Poly) ŠParks and Open Space ŠRetail and Employment Centers ŠDowntown ŠSenior Housing & Supportive Facilities San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan I MPLEMENTATION 126 The projects have been categorized into the following categories: Tier 1: The highest-priority projects with the greatest potential to increase the number of people bicycling and walking. The City will actively pursue funding for these projects first. Tier 2: Moderate-priority projects that play an important role in the future bicycle and pedestrian network, but with less potential than Tier 1 projects to increase bicycling and walking. These projects will be pursued as funding opportunities arise, but not at the expense of delaying Tier 1 projects. Tier 3: Lower-priority projects that help complete the bicycling and walking network, but are not likely to generate measurable increases in bicycle and pedestrian trips. These projects will be funded primarily through grants and where required as a condition of approval for new development projects. corridors was selected. These priority Tier 1 corridors, which are shown in Figure 26, have potential to serve roughly 70% of citywide trips, at least for a majority of the trip length. The remaining Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects, which are shown in Figure 27, certainly improve bicycle and pedestrian circulation, but to a lesser extent than the Tier 1 network. It should be noted that Figure 26 and Figure 27 also highlight bikeway projects that represent good candidates for potential quick- build installation—see the “Implementation Strategies” section later in this chapter for additional details on quick-build projects. The table beginning on page 130 summarizes the Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects. A more detailed project list can be found in Appendix A. It is important to note that while the Plan does identify the vast majority of potential active transportation projects envisioned for the City of San Luis Obispo, it certainly will not identify all of the useful pedestrian and bicycle improvements that may ultimately be recommended as part of future transportation and land use/development planning efforts. Both projects included in this Plan and potential new project recommendations not originally considered in this Plan will still need to go through a project-level planning process, including focused community engagement, more detailed engineering review and feasibility analysis, and in some cases, multi-agency coordination. The prioritization tiers in this chapter are intended to serve as general guidelines; however, ultimate implementation priorities may change as a result of a variety of factors including funding opportunities or integration with other planning efforts, pavement projects, or development. Individual bikeway and pedestrian projects were reviewed, evaluated, and prioritized by City staff and the City’s Active Transportation Committee based on the prioritization criteria listed above, and organized into one of three tiers, ranking projects from highest-priority (Tier 1) to lowest-priority (Tier 3). In selecting the Tier 1 network, staff and the Active Transportation Committee focused on creating a cross-town network of interconnected routes that present the greatest potential to generate increased bicycle and pedestrian mode share and reduce existing collision trends. Using data extracted from the City’s Travel Demand Forecasting Model, various route combinations were evaluated until a refined network of nine priority San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Implementat I on 127 Figure 26. Tier 1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Figure 27. Tier 2 and 3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects CORRIDOR USER PROJECT COMPONENTS MILES Anholm Neighborhood Greenway Bike/Ped ŠNeighborhood Greenway ŠProtected Bike Lane ŠShared-Use Path ŠCrossing Improvement (Minor) 1.83 Broad Street/Santa Barbara Corridor Bike/Ped ŠCrossing Improvement (Major) ŠProtected Bike Lane ŠCrossing Improvement (Minor) 2.74 Foothill Blvd Bike/Ped ŠProtected Bike Lane ŠCrossing Improvement (Major) ŠCrossing Improvement (Major) ŠCrossing Improvement (Major) ŠCrossing Improvement (Major) ŠGrade-Separated Crossing 1.28 Higuera Street Bike/Ped ŠProtected Bike Lane ŠCrossing Improvement (Minor) ŠCrossing Improvement (Major) 3.82 Tier 1 Projects A more detailed project list can be found in Appendix A. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan I MPLEMENTATION 130 Tier 1 Projects (cont.) CORRIDOR USER PROJECT COMPONENTS MILES Marsh Street Bike/Ped ŠShared-Use Path ŠProtected Bike Lane ŠCrossing Improvement (Major) ŠCrossing Improvement (Minor) 1.43 Los Osos Valley Road Bike/Ped ŠProtected Bike Lane ŠShared-Use Path ŠCrossing Improvement (Major) ŠCrossing Improvement (Minor) ŠGrade-Separated Crossing 2.63 Madonna Road Bike/Ped ŠShared-Use Path ŠProtected Bike Lane ŠCrossing Improvement (Major) ŠCrossing Improvement (Major) 1.02 Oceanaire Neighborhood Greenway Bike/Ped ŠShared-Use Path ŠNeighborhood Greenway ŠProtected Bike Lane ŠCrossing Improvement (Major) ŠCrossing Improvement (Major) 1.39 San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Implementat I on 131 CORRIDOR USER PROJECT COMPONENTS MILES South Street Bike/Ped ŠProtected Bike Lane ŠCrossing Improvement (Major) ŠCrossing Improvement (Minor) 0.78 Mill Street Bike/Ped ŠNeighborhood Greenway 0.45 Morro Street Bike/Ped ŠNeighborhood Greenway 0.27 Railroad Safety Trail Bike/Ped ŠProtected Bike Lane ŠShared-Use Path ŠGrade-Separated Crossing ŠCrossing Improvement (Major) ŠCrossing Improvement (Major) 1.09 Prado/Dalidio Bike/Ped ŠProtected Bike Lane ŠBike Lane ŠShared-Use Path ŠCrossing Improvement (Major) 4.45 Tank Farm Road Bike/Ped ŠProtected Bike Lane ŠShared-Use Path ŠCrossing Improvement (Minor) ŠCrossing Improvement (Major) 2.73 Tier 1 Projects (cont.) San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan I MPLEMENTATION 132 Tier 2 Projects A more detailed project list can be found in Appendix A. CORRIDOR USER PROJECT COMPONENT MILES Broad Street Bike/Ped ŠBike Lane ŠCrossing Improvement (Minor) 0.3 Nipomo Neighborhood Greenway Bike/Ped ŠNeighborhood Greenway 0.83 Orcutt Road Bike ŠProtected Bike Lane 0.81 Grand Avenue Bike/Ped ŠProtected Bike Lane ŠCrossing Improvement (Minor) 0.54 Johnson Avenue Bike/Ped ŠProtected Bike Lane ŠIntersection Improvement (Major) 2.13 Monterey Street Bike/Ped ŠProtected Bike Lane ŠCrossing Improvement (Major) ŠCrossing Improvement (Minor) 0.79 Chorro Street Bike ŠBike Lane 0.25 Laurel Lane Bike ŠProtected Bike Lane 0.54 Industrial Way Bike ŠBike Lane 0.39 San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Implementat I on 133 CORRIDOR USER PROJECT COMPONENT MILES Santa Rosa Street Ped ŠCrossing Improvement (Major)N/A Cerro Romauldo Neighborhood Greenway Bike/Ped ŠNeighborhood Greenway 0.81 Highland Drive Bike ŠBike Lane 0.2 Buena Vista Street Bike/Ped ŠProtected Bike Lane 0.13 Toro Neighborhood Greenway Bike/Ped ŠNeighborhood Greenway 0.69 Elks Lane Bike Lane Bike ŠBike Lane 0.12 Bob Jones Trail (Octagon Barn to LOVR) Bike/Ped ŠShared-Use Path 0.19 Islay Street Bike/Ped ŠNeighborhood Greenway 0.59 Tier 2 Projects (cont.) San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan I MPLEMENTATION 134 Prioritizing Pedestrian Improvements In addition to the shared-use paths and crossing improvement projects identified as part of the Tier 1-3 networks, the City will also actively pursue opportunities to construct other pedestrian-specific improvements, such as sidewalk repairs and construction of new sidewalks, upgrades to curb ramps to bring them up to current ADA standards, and installation of additional street lighting. As shown previously in Chapter 5, approximately 27 miles of new sidewalk would need to be constructed to fill in all the existing sidewalk gaps throughout the city. In addition, the City has thousands of intersection corners that would need to be reconstructed to meet current ADA standards, and several hundred new street lights would need to be installed for each street and off- street path to meet the City’s current Engineering Standards. Many of these improvements will ultimately be installed as a requirement of future land use development/redevelopment projects, while others will be installed as City-initiated capital improvement projects. In lieu of mapping every location where the City would construct these facilities, this Plan outlines methodology for prioritizing City-initiated installation of sidewalk, curb ramp and streetlight projects. New City-initiated installations of sidewalk repairs or new sidewalk construction, curb ramp upgrades, and installation of street lighting would be installed as funding resources allow, and generally prioritized based on the following factors: ŠExisting site conditions present a public safety concern based on community input, field investigations and/or based on data presented in the City’s Traffic Safety Reports. ŠFacility is located along one of the Tier 1, 2 or 3 routes identified in the maps shown previously in this chapter. ŠFacility is located in an area with high pedestrian demand, particularly with higher concentration of seniors, children, or users with mobility challenges. Figure 28 below highlights the areas within the city that would currently meet these criteria, including locations within 500 feet of schools, parks, senior living facilities, and the downtown commercial district. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Implementat I on 135 Figure 28. Prioritized Pedestrian Improvements Community Collaboration Communities work best when residents, workers, community groups and institutions are engaged and working together for the good of all. San Luis Obispo is no exception. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to engaging the local community as individual bicycle and pedestrian projects move from high-level concepts, to more detailed designs, and eventually built infrastructure. The City has published a Public Engagement and Noticing Manual (PEN Manual), which establishes the general process and tools used by staff to conduct an effective and inclusive public outreach effort. Consistent with the City’s PEN Manual, depending on the project, various tools and outreach methods are utilized to identify and engage with groups and individuals having a stake in the project, including traditional in-person town hall style forums, and notices in local newspapers, as well as more innovative and informal outreach strategies, such as online engagement tools, social media posts, and casual family-friendly pop-up workshops during weekends, lunch hours, farmer’s markets, and other times and locations that may work better for community members who typically are not able or comfortable attending traditional weeknight town hall type meetings. Equity Principles Planning and implementing this Plan through an “Equity Lens” is critical in pursuing the kind of transformational mode shift envisioned in the Active Transportation Plan. Community engagement that effectively considers equity in its implementation through diverse stakeholder consultation leads to a more balanced distribution of burdens and benefits, increases transparency and accountability to stakeholders, and begins to address some of the core challenges in achieving significant increases in bicycling and walking for all, especially for our City’s most vulnerable populations. In implementing the Active Transportation Plan, the City of San Luis Obispo is committed to the following actions across four areas of equity: Procedural equity – Implementation strategies for the Plan will be informed by a cognizance of diverse stakeholders from community organizations, individuals, and academia to ensure equity considerations are fully integrated into how the ATP is implemented. Distributional equity – Upon assessing all feasible options for a project, the City will identify solutions that distribute financial benefits and burdens equitably across stakeholders while prioritizing those that are low-cost, high-impact. Structural equity – The City will maintain transparency through regular reporting to the public and the Active Transportation Committee on program progress throughout implementation, including feedback from those participating in the program. Transgenerational equity – The City will focus on utilizing strategies that effectively increase bicycling and walking that have benefit across generations. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Implementat I on 137 Costs Planning level, construction cost estimates for each project are provided in Appendix B (Project Costs). Since this a planning level assessment, project unknowns exist, and therefore a high- and low-cost range is provided. The broad range of potential costs is appropriate given the level of uncertainty in the design at this point in the planning process. The following table provides greater detail on some of the associated costs estimates: FACILITY TYPE PER COST ESTIMATE (LOW)COST ESTIMATE (HIGH) Shared Use Path Mile $787,500 $3,900,000 Bicycle Lane Mile $100,000 $406,350 Bicycle Route Mile $24,150 $36,750 Protected Bike Lane Mile $326,550 $2,000,000 Neighborhood Greenway Mile $304,500 $1,071,000 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Each $20,000 $63,000 Pedestrian Refuge Island Each $10,500 $52,500 Protected Intersection Each $787,500 $1,575,000 Roundabout Each $1,500,000 $3,500,000 Grade-Separated Ped/Bike Crossing (Bridge or Tunnel) Each $750,000 $5,000,000 High Visibility Crosswalk Each $2,625 $5,250 ADA Curb Ramps Each $10,000 $20,000 Sidewalk Construction Square Foot $20 $75 Streetlights Each $500 $20,000 Curb Extensions Each $15,750 $131,250 Pedestrian/Bike Signals Each $5,250 $525,000 San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan I MPLEMENTATION 138 The low and high range of potential costs associated with buildout of the full Tier 1, 2 and 3 bike and pedestrian networks are summarized in the table below. The annualized maintenance cost of each type of infrastructure project varies based on the improvement type, design life, and whether these assets are maintained by City maintenance staff, or by outside contractors. For planning purposes, the annualized maintenance costs for the types of projects contemplated in this Plan can be estimated as follows: Š5–10% of the total installation cost for standard bike lanes and other minor signing and striping elements that have a typical design life of 8-12 years Š1–4% of the total installation cost for traffic signals, streetlights, asphalt shared-use paths, and other facilities that have a useful life of roughly 25-30 years Š0.5–1% of the total installation cost for concrete sidewalks and curb ramps, grade-separated crossings, roundabouts and other infrastructure types that have a useful life of 50 years or more PRIORITY LEVEL COST ESTIMATE (LOW)COST ESTIMATE (HIGH) Tier 1 Projects $16,841,761.00 $195,377,730.50 Tier 2 Projects $3,119,215.50 $27,532,964.00 Tier 3 Projects $30,888,243.50 $181,431,176.00 Figure 29. Total ATP Build-Out Cost Estimate Table San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Implementat I on 139 Implementation Strategies The City of San Luis Obispo will continue to build a strong, connected active transportation network using a variety of implementation strategies. The Plan will be built over a number of years depending on funding and staffing resources, focusing first on the Tier 1 projects that have the highest potential to increase walking and biking. Throughout the implementation process, staff will continue to work with critical partners and the community to gather input. Implementation of the Plan will be incremental but is guided by established policy to continue to prioritize funding toward meeting the City’s goals for increasing bicycling and walking. On the following pages are a number of implementation strategies that the City will use to build the active transportation network. Building the Network by Tiers A number of these projects in Tier 1 will require additional study due to their complexity and the need for focused outreach. While the tier structure provides a path forward and a long-term guide, SLO will remain flexible and innovative to ensure that the City implements the plan quickly and takes advantage of opportunities when they arise. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan I MPLEMENTATION 140 Quick-Build Projects As implementation of the active transportation network begins, the City will be smart, innovative, and take advantage of opportunities to efficiently deliver projects. Quick-build projects are semi-permanent improvements that can be designed and implemented quickly, often utilizing lower-cost interim materials, such as flex posts, curb stops or paint, in lieu of more costly permanent materials. Examples of quick- build active transportation projects include: ŠBike routes and neighborhood greenways that require only striping, signage, and low-cost traffic calming measures ŠBike lanes that require striping only ŠProtected bike lanes that can be installed using striping and low-cost materials, like flex posts, and do not require significant reconfiguration of the roadway ŠShort sidewalk gap closures that provide better connectivity ŠPainted corner bulbouts ŠCrossing improvements to join pathway/ trail segments that require only lower- cost materials, such as high-visibility crosswalk markings and signage Quick-build installations also provide the flexibility to test and refine designs before committing to more substantial infrastructure investments. As shown previously in Figure 26 and Figure 27, several potential quick-build project candidates have been identified within the Tier 1 and 2 networks based on having minimal challenges and positive community support. The City will continue to review the projects recommended in this Plan to determine which ones can be accelerated to be constructed rapidly as “quick-build” installations. In some cases, quick-build projects are implemented by repurposing motor vehicle lanes where excess capacity exists, or by removing on- street parking. When implementing quick-build projects that require reconfiguring roadway lanes or on-street parking configurations, installations should remain installed for enough time to allow for behavioral adjustments to new traffic control or facility features and for the City to incorporate minor design refinements, assuming no safety issues or other unforeseen concerns arise. CASE STUDY In August of 2020, the City of San Luis Obispo converted one of the three motor vehicle lanes of downtown Higuera Street into a buffered bike lane with two-stage turn boxes, as part of Open SLO, the City’s pilot program to expand the use of public spaces (with parklets and bike/ped spaces) during the COVID-19 pandemic response. The project was installed with paint, took only weeks to plan and install, and cost a mere $15k. By doing this, the City is able to test the effectiveness of the bike lane before installing more permanent materials which would cost more than $150k. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Implementat I on 141 Figure 30. Quick-Build Projects Neighborhood Traffic Management Program  The City should update the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program to provide more flexibility for rapid deployment of lower-cost improvements where supported by individual neighborhoods. The City shall develop a toolbox of pre-approved, low cost, temporary residential traffic calming designs/elements that can be installed rapidly, such as traffic circles, painted intersections, mid-road flex posts, chicanes, medians and roadway planters that can be installed by the city or by local residents, businesses or community groups with the City’s oversight and approval. The intent is to increase the comfort level for walking, running, biking, playing, and socializing especially for our youngest and most vulnerable residents. Pre-approved design and potential for community-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. Leveraged Projects Often times, the costs associated with individual active transportation projects can be reduced significantly by incorporating them into larger infrastructure projects, particularly roadway resurfacing projects. These projects require coordination and planning and focus on leveraging on-going or planned projects to build active transportation projects with an economy of scale. Examples of these opportunities include: ŠStriping bike lanes in conjunction with roadway resurfacing projects. ŠInstalling higher-visibility crosswalk markings and signage to improve visibility following roadway resurfacing. ŠCoordinating and combining projects to leverage economies of scale for sidewalk and curb ramp improvement projects. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Implementat I on 143 Projects with New Development An additional opportunity is to ensure that the City works with developers to pay for or implement active transportation projects that are necessary for their new developments. The City has been successful in doing this through the construction of new projects by a developer or through the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program, which collects a fair share fee from development throughout the city to help fund significant roadway, bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects. These opportunities create a “win-win” scenario for the community and the developer as it provides a necessary treatment to improve the community while providing transportation options for the residents, workers and visitors of the development and potentially reduces vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gases. Pilot Projects  “Pilot” or “Demonstration” Projects are a way to test the impacts of changes to the transportation network by temporarily constructing improvements using removable materials, that can be adjusted or removed entirely as experience is gained. These projects enable the City to study the real-world efficacy of such changes, often at a relatively modest cost. Utilizing before and after data, project prioritization can be monitored to understand benefits and tradeoffs, with the goal of adjusting the final design before committing to a more expensive permanent capital project. Short-term demonstration projects, sometimes called tactical urbanism or temporary installations, are installed for short periods of time in order to quickly evaluate a project and to gather feedback from the public. These projects usually use cones, temporary marking tape, moveable planters, and other non-permanent materials that can be easily be installed, modified, and removed, as needed. Longer-term pilot projects may be intended to eventually become permanent. This allows for extensive data collection and public input, especially for potentially contentious projects. Materials could range from temporary to more durable materials like paint and bolted in features. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan I MPLEMENTATION 144 Funding Strategies The City of SLO provides significant funding to bicycle and pedestrian projects. Consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan Circulation Element, Policy 7.1.4, the City will continue to strive to allocate transportation funding across various transportation modes approximately proportional to the City’s modal split objectives, spending roughly 20% of all transportation funds on bicycling projects, 12% on transit, and 18% on walking, car pools, and other forms of transportation besides single occupancy motor vehicle use. As presented in Chapter 2 (Vision and Goals), this Plan establishes the ambitious goal of implementing all Tier 1 projects by 2030. This objective echoes the ambitious goals established in the City’s Climate Action Plan, which call for the City to implement active transportation and transit projects and programs as necessary to achieve the City’s mode split targets by 2030. As shown previously in Figure 29 on page 139, the funding commitments needed to complete all Tier 1 projects in this timeframe ($16,841,761– $195,377,730.50 total) are significant. While some projects are good candidates for quick- build installation, which reduces the initial cost of implementation, as a whole the Tier 1 project obligations likely far exceed the City’s local funding capacity over the next decade. Thus, the City would need to leverage as many outside funding opportunities as feasible in order to support delivery of these projects within a 10-year timeframe. There are a variety of outside funding sources that exist to supplement local funding for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects, programs, and studies, which are summarized below. To provide some perspective, to fully construct the Tier 1 bicycle and pedestrian network by the end of 2030, the City would need to average completion of the following infrastructure improvements annually: Š0.63 miles of shared-use pathways per year Š1.7 miles of protected bike lanes per year Š0.37 miles of bike routes and neighborhood greenways per year Š5.1 priority crossing improvements per year San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Implementat I on 145 SLOCOG SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL CAPITAL GRANT PROGRAM This small grant program is administered by SLOCOG which allows cities within its jurisdiction to apply for funds to implement Safe Routes to School infrastructure to support walking and biking. REGIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM These state funds administered by SLOCOG provide dollars on a wide variety of projects including bicycle and pedestrian projects, local roads, and transit. ROAD MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION ACCOUNT (RMRA SB-1) Funds made available by this program can be used to satisfy match requirements of a state or federal program, or for projects that include, road maintenance and rehabilitation, safety projects, railroad grade separations, traffic control devices, and complete streets components. THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) The TDA provides two major sources of funding for public transportation: The Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit Assistance (STA). LTF is distributed to the region by the State and allocated by SLOCOG to each of the seven cities. Local Grants San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan I MPLEMENTATION 146 State and Federal Grants State and federal competitive grants provide another opportunity to support the study, design and construction of large bikeway projects and programs. CALIFORNIA’S ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (ATP) Funds infrastructure and programmatic projects that support the program goals of shifting trips to walking and biking, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and improving public health. CALTRANS SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING GRANT This grant is available to communities for planning, study, and design work to identify and evaluate projects, including conducting outreach or implementing pilot projects. CALTRANS HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP) Funds projects on any publicly owned road or active transportation facility, including bicycle and pedestrian improvements. COMMUNITY BLOCK DEVELOPMENT GRANT Awarded by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and provide funds for projects and programs that benefit low- and moderate-income households, businesses and community-based organizations and can be used for certain pedestrian improvements through a subrecipient. URBAN GREENING PROGRAM The program funds the development of green infrastructure projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FUNDS Developer fees will also contribute to the construction of bicycle and pedestrian projects. The City shall require that development contribute its share toward the cost of active transportation facilities and programs. Following adoption of the Active Transportation Plan, the City shall update the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Program to include the highest- priority bicycling and pedestrian projects included in the plan. The City shall explore available funding options beyond local funds to expedite implementation of the highest priority active transportation projects, including state and federal grant programs, development impact fees, public/private partnerships and debt financing for high-cost projects that offer significant benefits to pedestrian and bicycle safety and mobility. As part of the update of the Parking and Access Management Plan, the City should evaluate the potential opportunities to leverage revenues from parking fees to fund active transportation improvements that can help reduce parking demand within the downtown and throughout the city. As part of the City’s two-year financial planning process, the Active Transportation Committee shall provide recommendations for prioritization of funding for active transportation projects. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Implementat I on 147 Maintenance The City of San Luis Obispo maintains its street infrastructure in an effort to keep bicycle and pedestrian facilities comfortable and free of hazards. This includes making sure traffic control devices, streetlights, signs, and pavement surfaces are in good working order. Facilities with cracked pavement, vegetation, broken glass and other debris are a hazard and a barrier to walking and biking. The City has a number of systems in place to ensure proactive maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the City’s right of way. ŠStreet, bicycling, and pedestrian facility maintenance issues can be reported to the Public Works department for response. The City’s Streets Maintenance Crew and Traffic Signal/Streetlight Technicians receive these requests daily, and actively address reported issues, including replacing street signs, sealing cracks in pavement and sidewalks, sweeping bike lanes and sidewalks of debris, and correcting malfunctions with traffic signal and street light equipment. ŠThe City Public Works Department maintains a regular Pavement Management Program, which establishes a schedule for sealing and repairing roadways throughout the city. The pavement management program provides an opportunity to both maintain existing facilities in a good state of repair, and upgrade bicycling and pedestrian facilities where feasible. The addition of protected bike lanes to the bicycling network creates new challenges with keeping bike lanes free and clear of debris. The City’s Streets Maintenance Crew currently sweeps roadways throughout the city; however, the full-sized street sweeper used by the City is too large to maintain most protected bikeways. Further, in some installations, landscaped planters are used to provide physical separation between cyclists and motor vehicles—in these instances, landscaping will also need to be watered and maintained. Strategies to address the maintenance of protected bike lanes include: ŠExploring the purchase and use of a sweeper designed for narrow facilities such as protected bike lanes. ŠPartnering with neighborhoods, volunteers, and community groups to coordinate volunteer groups to maintain landscaping and/or sweep debris from bike lanes. ŠUsing contractors to provide the work when it makes fiscal sense. This plan also proposes strategies to incorporate maintenance concerns as part of the planning and design process, and to collaborate across different departments at the City of San Luis Obispo: ŠIncorporate maintenance needs into the design and planning of bicycling and pedestrian facilities to ensure proper maintenance after construction. ŠIdentify, regularly update, and request funding for annual maintenance costs for bicycling and pedestrian facilities to ensure adequate funding levels for routine maintenance are available. ŠInclude other operational issues such as parking, traffic enforcement, and traffic operations addressed during the design of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan I MPLEMENTATION 148 Monitoring and Evaluation Ongoing monitoring and evaluation are critical in achieving the goals of this Plan. As introduced in Chapter 2 regarding the Goals and Actions, the following matrix summarizes the ways the City will measure progress towards implementing the Active Transportation Plan. Staff will report on these performance measures every other year, with a summary report to be presented to the Active Transportation Committee and made available to elected officials and the general public on the City website. PERFORMANCE MEASURE BASELINE TRACKING MECHANISM 1 Increase the share of citywide commute trips made by bicycling to 20% and 12% by walking by 2030 Current Mode Share: ŠBicycle - 8.3% ŠWalk - 7.2% ŠDrive Alone - 67.7% Summarize biennially (every other years) based on data from U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (latest 5-year average) 2 Consistent with the City's Climate Action Plan and General Plan Mode Share Objectives, decrease the share of total citywide trips made by single-occupant auto to 50% or less by 2030 Current Mode Share: ŠDrive Alone - 67.7% Summarize biennially (every other years) based on data from U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (latest 5-year average) 3 Achieve Platinum Level status as Bicycle Friendly Community by the League of American Bicyclists Gold Status League of American Bicyclists Bicycle Friendly Community Rankings (renewed every 4 years) 4 Continue progress towards the City's Vision Zero goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and severe injuries, endeavoring towards a 75% reduction by 2030 Three-Year Total (2015-2017): Š3 fatal collisions Š43 severe injury collisions City of San Luis Obispo Annual Traffic Safety Report 5 Complete installation of the Active Transportation Plan's Tier 1 bicycle and pedestrian network by 2030 6.5% of the ultimate Tier 1 network currently in place: Š0% of low-stress bikeway mileage Š0% of enhanced pedestrian/bicycle crossings Summarize at outset of each 2-year Capital Improvement Plan 6 Consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element policies, strive to allocate transportation funding across various transportation modes approximately proportional to the General Plan Modal Split Objectives Baseline to be set with FY2021-23 Financial Plan Summarize transportation expenditures as running 4-6-year average at outset of each 2-year Capital Improvement Plan 7 Double the mode share for all bicycle and pedestrian trips for public K-12 schools in the city Baseline to be set via school surveys in 2021 In collaboration with SLO Rideshare, conduct survey of local K-12 schools biennially (every other year) San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Implementat I on 149 Summary of Implementation Policies 7.1 Build Priority Infrastructure First. Complete the highest-priority (Tier 1) bicycle and pedestrian projects recommended in this Plan by 2030. Complete lower-priority (Tier 2 and 3) projects as opportunities arise based on funding, potential to combine with other capital projects, and as part of private-public partnerships. 7.2 Equity. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to provide community engagement as bicycle and pedestrian projects move from ideas into designs and eventually built infrastructure. The City engagement process will use a number of tools to ensure outreach is inclusive based on a set of equity principles. 7.3 Quick-Build. As implementation of the active transportation network begins, the City will be strategic, innovative, and opportunistic to efficiently deliver projects. Š7.3.1 The City shall review the project list to determine which ones can be accelerated to be implemented rapidly. These “quick-build” projects are typically inexpensive “low-hanging fruit” projects that achieve a more connected network. Š7.3.2 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 findings and future recommendations, depending on the project. 7.4 Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. Š7.4.1 The City shall update the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program to provide additional flexibility for community-driven traffic calming projects and for more rapid deployment of temporary quick-build treatments to address traffic safety concerns related to high vehicle speeds and/or unsafe driving patterns. Š7.4.2 The City shall consider developing a toolbox of pre-approved, low cost, temporary residential traffic calming designs/elements that can be installed rapidly, such as traffic circles, painted intersections, mid-road flex posts, chicanes, medians and roadway planters that can be installed by the City or by local residents, businesses or community groups with the City’s oversight and approval. 7.5 Projects of Opportunity. The City shall look for opportunities to incorporate active transportation projects with larger infrastructure projects in order to maximize expenditures and gain economy of scale. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan I MPLEMENTATION 150 7.6 Projects with New Development. The City shall require that development contribute its share toward the cost of active transportation facilities and programs. 7.7 Pilot or Demonstration Projects. The City shall look for opportunities to test the impacts of changes to the transportation network by temporarily constructing improvements using removable materials, that can be adjusted or removed entirely as experience is gained. 7.8 Opportunities for Curb Ramps, Street Lighting, and Other Pedestrian Amenities. In addition to the pedestrian projects included as part of Tiers 1-3, the City will actively pursue opportunities to construct pedestrian-specific improvements such as curb ramps and street lighting in the downtown, areas around schools, parks, and senior living facilities. 7.9 Spending According to Mode Share Goals. In accordance with the General Plan mode share budget goals, the City shall endeavor to allocate transportation funding consistent with adopted mode share targets, including 20% of all transportation funds on bicycle projects, 12% on transit, and 18% on walking, car pools, and other forms of transportation. 7.9 Fund the Tier 1 Network. The City shall endeavor to secure and earmark sufficient funds to implement Tier 1 projects by 2030 as called for in this Plan’s Objectives. 7.10 Development Contribution. The City shall require that development contribute its share toward the cost of active transportation facilities and programs. 7.11 Traffic Impact Fee Program. Following adoption of the Active Transportation Plan, the City shall update the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Program to include the highest-priority bicycle and pedestrian projects included in the plan. 7.12 Explore Funding Options Beyond Local Funds. The City shall explore available funding options beyond local funds to expedite highest priority active transportation projects, including state and federal grant programs, development impact fees, public/private partnerships and debt financing for high-cost projects that offer significant benefits to pedestrian and bicycle safety and mobility. 7.13 Maintenance Š7.13.1 The City should incorporate maintenance needs into the design and planning of bicycle and pedestrian facilities to ensure proper maintenance after construction. Š7.13.2 The City should identify and regularly update annual maintenance costs for bicycle and pedestrian facilities to ensure adequate funding levels for routine maintenance costs. Š7.13.3 The City should include other operational issues such as parking, traffic enforcement, and traffic operations during the design of bicycle and pedestrian facilities to ensure the proper operation and maintenance. 7.14 Monitoring. As shown in the performance measures table in this Chapter, the City will measure progress towards implementing the Active Transportation Plan using seven factors. Staff will report on these performance measures every other year, with a summary report to be presented to the Active Transportation Committee and made available to elected officials and the general public on the City website. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Implementat I on 151 G Glossary of Terms San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan GLOSSARY OF TERMS 152 ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act): Sets forth guidelines to make transportation infrastructure accessible to people of all abilities. ADT (Average Daily Traffic): The volume of traffic passing a certain point of a road or highway, in both directions in a single day. Arterial Streets: Streets designed to provide a high capacity of mobility and generally serve longer vehicle trips to, from, and within urban areas. Active Transportation Committee: Provides oversight and policy direction on matters related to bicycle and pedestrian transportation in San Luis Obispo and its relationship to bicycling outside the City. Bicycle Central (or Station): Is a consolidated sheltered storage area for employee bicycles, integrated into the design of job sites, and may be combined with showers and bicycle repair and support facilities. Bicycle Friendly Community: A community that provides accommodation for cycling with policies and practices which encourage people to bike for transportation and recreation. Bicycle-only Signal: A traffic signal head for regulating bicycle movement at intersections, providing a phase where only bicycles may proceed. Bike Box: A designated area at the front of a traffic lane at a signalized intersection that places the bicyclist ahead of queuing motor vehicle traffic during the red signal phase. Bike Kitchen: A do-it-yourself bicycle maintenance and repair facility, usually run by volunteers of a non-profit organization. Facilities often offer classes in maintenance, supply tools, and may sell or trade used parts. Bike Valet: A bicycle parking service, usually set up for large events, offering convenient and secure bicycle parking at locations where a large number of bicyclists are expected. Bikeways: A general term that includes bike lanes, paths, and designated streets or routes that provide for bicycle travel. BIKEWAY FACILITY TYPES Bike Lane: Provides a striped lane for one- way bicycle travel on a street or highway. Bike Lane (Buffered): A buffered bike lane is an on-street bike lane that has a painted buffer either between the bike lane and parked cars, between the bike lane and the standard motor vehicle lane, or both. Typically, the buffer will be striped with diagonal lines and serves to keep bicyclists from riding in the “door zone” and/or to add separation between bicyclists and motor vehicle traffic. Bike Route: A bike route provides connectivity within the overall bicycle transportation system, by filling in gaps between other identified bicycling facilities. Bike routes are generally designated on lower volume streets where motorists and bicyclists share the lane. Protected Bike Lane (also known as cycle track): A bikeway for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation beyond striping required between the separated bikeway and the through vehicular traffic. The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking. Shared Use Path: Provides a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflow by motorists minimized. CA MUTCD (California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices): A compilation of standards for traffic control devices. Channelization: The use of pavement markings, raised islands, or other suitable means, to regulate and separate intersection turning movements from through movements, for the safe and orderly conduct of motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Glossary of Terms 153 Collector Roads: Are designed to connect traffic from small local roads to arterial streets, while providing a balance between mobility and land access within residential, commercial, and industrial areas. Colored Pavement: Color applied to pavement to alert motorists to the presence of bicyclists or pedestrians in known high conflict zones. Commercial Core: Includes the Downtown Commercial Zoning District (CD) in downtown San Luis Obispo. (See “Downtown Area”.) Complete Streets: (Also known as livable streets) are roadways designed and operated to enable safe access and travel for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and public transportation users of all ages and abilities. Curb Extension: Curb extensions, also known as bulbouts, minimize pedestrian exposure during crossing by shortening crossing distance and giving pedestrians a better chance to see and be seen before committing to crossing. Door Zone: The lateral space next to on- street parallel parked cars within which car doors may open into the roadway and pose a potential risk to adjacent bicycles. Downtown Area: The City of San Luis Obispo’s “General Plan, Land Use Element” defines an area that includes the commercial core and surrounding neighborhoods, as the “Downtown Planning Area”. (See Figure 4 of that plan.) Facilities (For Bicycling and Walking): Are any physical feature that serves the needs of bicycling and walking, including bike lanes and paths, bicycle racks and lockers, sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, signs, pavement markings and symbols, places to post information, lighting, and traffic controls. Grade Separated Crossing: Provides continuity of a facility over or under a roadway, railroad, or creek. Intersection: An area where two or more pathways or roadways join together. Kidical Mass: A fun bike ride for kids and families stressing legal and safe riding habits, with a dual educational goal of not only teaching kids how to ride safely but to let the overall community know that “kids are traffic too”. Leading Bicycle Interval: When the bicycle signal at an intersection changes before the motor vehicle signal, allowing the bicyclist to enter the intersection before motor vehicles. This can make a bicyclist more visible when crossing an intersection. Leading Pedestrian Interval: When the pedestrian signal at an intersection changes before the motor vehicle signal, allowing the pedestrian to enter the crosswalk before the light turns green. This typically makes a pedestrian more visible when crossing an intersection. Level of Traffic Stress: A method of measuring the quality of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure based on the perceived level of stress of its users. Long-Term Bike Parking: Bicycle parking meant to accommodate employees, students, residents, commuters, and others expected to park on a regular basis for more than four hours. This parking is to be provided in a secure, weather-protected manner and location. Long-term parking type will be a bicycle locker, a locked room with standard racks and access limited to bicyclists only, or standard racks in a monitored location. Loop Detector: A type of vehicle detection system for triggering traffic signals that uses an induction “loop” buried in the street pavement. Major City Goals: Represent the City’s priorities for the two-year financial plan. Median Refuge Island: A small section of pavement or sidewalk where pedestrians or bicyclists can stop before finishing crossing a road. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan GLOSSARY OF TERMS 154 Neighborhood Greenways: A shared roadway (bicycles and motor vehicles share the space without marked bike lanes) where the through movement for bicycling and walking are given priority over motor vehicle travel on a local street. Neighborhood Greenways are designated on low speed, low volume local streets that usually parallel higher traffic streets and may use treatments to address cut through vehicle traffic and vehicle speed. NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials): An association of 86 major North American cities and transit agencies formed to exchange transportation ideas, insights, and practices and cooperatively approach national transportation issues. Parklet: public seating platforms that convert curbside parking spaces into vibrant community spaces. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB): A traffic control device, also known as a HAWK (High Intensity Activated Crosswalk) used to stop road traffic and allow pedestrians and bicyclists to cross safely. They are often used to improve crossings of major streets in locations where conditions do not warrant installation of a full traffic signal. For pedestrians and bicyclists, a PHB provides a similar crossing experience to a conventional traffic signal, with less disruption to vehicle traffic flows on the major street. Pedestrian Scramble Intersection: A pedestrian crossing phase where all motor vehicle traffic is stopped at an intersection for pedestrians to cross in any direction. Planning Areas: Lands surrounding or within San Luis Obispo where the City has adopted, or intends to adopt, a specific plan, district plan, enhancement plan, area plan, route plan, or alignment plan to guide its use. Prevailing Speed: The speed at which 85 percent of motorists are traveling at or below the posted speed limit. This is used according to State law to set posted speed limits that can be legally enforced. Protected Intersection: An intersection which maintains a physical separation within the intersection to define the turning paths of motor vehicles, slow vehicle turning speed, and offer a comfortable place for people bicycling to wait at a red signal Quickbuild: A strategy used to build pedestrian and bicycle facility projects quickly often with temporary materials in order to test the effectiveness of the facility before completion with more permanent and costly materials. Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB): An enhanced crosswalk with pedestrian-actuated rapid flashing beacons that warn oncoming traffic of pedestrians in the crosswalk. They are typically used to improve safety at uncontrolled, marked crosswalks. Roundabout: A circular intersections designed to eliminate left turns by requiring traffic to exit to the right of the circle. Roundabouts are installed to reduce vehicular speeds; improve safety at intersections through eliminating angle collisions. Shared-Lane Markings: (Also known as Sharrows.) Pavement legends used to assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in narrow lanes or lanes with on-street parking, to remind motorists to expect to share the roadway with bicyclists, to encourage safe passing of bicyclists, to help guide bicyclist to ride outside the parked car “door zone” and to reduce the incidence of wrong-way bicycling. Short-Term Bike Parking: Is parking provided to accommodate visitors and customers, who are parking for less than four hours. Bicycle racks meeting City standards satisfy this need. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Glossary of Terms 155 A Appendices Appendix A: Project List Appendix B: Project Costs Appendix C: Design Guidelines San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan APPENDICES 156 Design Guidelines Appendix C 2 SLO Design GuidelinesTable of Contents Section I CONTEXT ..........................................................3 Guidance Basis .............................................................4 Design Needs of Pedestrians ...................................6 Design Needs of Bicyclists .......................................10 Section 2 DESIGN POLICIES ............................................12 Operations and Maintenance ..................................13 Construction Sequencing and Work Zone Safety ...............................................13 Designing Intersections for Walking and Bicycling .........................................14 Pedestrian Facilities ..................................................15 Bicycle Facilities .........................................................17 Mixed Use Facilities ...................................................22 Section 3 PEDESTRIAN DESIGN TOOLBOX .......................27 Marked Crosswalks ...................................................28 Raised Pedestrian Crossings ..................................30 Sidewalk Zones & Widths .........................................32 Curb Ramps ................................................................34 Curb Extensions (Bulbouts) .....................................36 Median Refuge Islands .............................................37 Pedestrian Signalization Improvements ...............38 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) .....40 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) ............................41 All Way Crossing ........................................................42 Section 4 BICYCLE DESIGN TOOLBOX ..............................43 Lane Reconfigurations and Road Diets .................44 Shared Lane Markings ..............................................46 Bicycle Lanes ..............................................................48 Buffered Bicycle Lanes .............................................50 Protected Bike Lanes ................................................52 Protected Bike Lane (Two-Way) ..............................54 Advisory Bike Lanes ..................................................56 Bend-In .........................................................................57 Separated Bicycle Signal Phase..............................59 Separated Bikeway Barriers .....................................61 Protected Bike Lanes at Driveways and Minor Streets ..................................63 Protected Bike Lanes at Transit Stops ...................65 Bicycle Box ..................................................................67 Colored Pavement Treatment .................................69 Section 5 MIXED USE DESIGN TOOLBOX .........................71 Shared Use Path ........................................................72 Shared Street ..............................................................74 Neighborhood Greenways ......................................76 Protected Intersection ..............................................78 Roundabout ................................................................80 3 SLO Design GuidelinesContext Section I Context Context 4 SLO Design GuidelinesThe sections that follow serve as an inventory of pedestrian and bicycle design policies and treatments and provides guidelines for their development. These treatments and design guidelines are important because they represent the tools for creating a pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly, accessible community. The guidelines are not, Guidance Basis Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (2015) is the latest national guidance on the planning and design of separated bike lane facilities released by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The resource documents best practices as demonstrated around the U.S., and offers ideas on future areas of research, evaluation and design flexibility. The National Association of City Transportation Officials’ (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2012) and Urban Street Design Guide (2013) are collections of nationally recognized street design standards, and offers guidance on the current state of the practice designs. NATIONAL GUIDANCE however, a comprehensive list nor a substitute for a more thorough evaluation by a professional engineer prior to implementation of facility improvements or a replacement for the City’s Engineering Standards, Zoning Regulations or other standards. The following guidelines are referred to in this Facilities Design Guide. DECEMBER 2016 Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks The Federal Highway Administration’s Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks Report (2016) offers resources and ideas to help small towns and rural communities support safe, accessible, comfortable, and active travel for people of all ages and abilities. It connects existing guidance to rural practice and includes examples of peer communities. Additional Guidance •AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (FORTHCOMING 2020) •AASHTO. Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (2004) •Alta White Paper on Advisory Bike Lanes and Protected Intersections •MASSDOT Guide on Protected Intersections •Access Board's ADA Standards 5 SLO Design GuidelinesContext The Caltrans Memo: Design Flexibility in Multimodal Design (2014) encourages flexibility in highway design. The memo stated that “Publications such as the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) “Urban Street Design Guide” and “Urban Bikeway Design Guide,” ... are resources that Caltrans and local entities can reference when ma king planning and design decisions on the State highway system and local streets and roads.” The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) (2014) is an amended version of the FHWA MUTCD 2009 edition modified for use in California. While standards presented in the CA MUTCD substantially conform to the FHWA MUTCD, the state of California follows local practices, laws and requirements with regards to signing, striping and other traffic control devices. The California Highway Design Manual (HDM) (Updated 2015) establishes uniform policies and procedures to carry out highway design functions for the California Department of Transportation. Complete Intersections: A Guide to Reconstructing Intersections and Interchanges for Bicyclists and Pedestrians (2010) is a reference guide presents information and concepts related to improving conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians at major intersections and interchanges. The guide can be used to inform minor signage and striping changes to intersections, as well as major changes and designs for new intersections. CALIFORNIA GUIDANCE Main Street, California: A Guide for Improving Community and Transportation Vitality (2013) reflects California’s current manuals and policies that improve multimodal access, livability and sustainability within the transportation system. The guide recognizes the overlapping and sometimes competing needs of main streets. Additional Guidance •City Engineering Standards •Zoning Regulations •Downtown Concept Plan •Specific Plans •Advocacy Guidance including the California Bicycle Coalition •Caltrans DIB 82-06 “Pedestrian Accessibility Guidelines for Highway Projects” Context 6 SLO Design GuidelinesDesign Needs of Pedestrians The CA MUTCD recommends a normal walking speed of 3.5 ft per second when calculating the pedestrian clearance interval at traffic signals. The walking speed can drop to 3 ft per second for areas with older populations and persons with mobility impairments. While the type and degree of mobility impairment varies greatly across the population, the transportation system should accommodate these users to the greatest reasonable extent. TYPES OF PEDESTRIANS Pedestrians have a variety of characteristics and the transportation network should accommodate a variety of needs, abilities, and possible impairments. Age is one major factor that affects pedestrians’ physical characteristics, walking speed, and environmental perception. Children have low eye height and walk at slower speeds than adults. They also perceive the environment differently at various stages of their cognitive development. Older adults walk more slowly and may require assistive devices for walking stability, sight, and hearing. DISABLED PEDESTRIAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The table below summarizes common physical and cognitive impairments, how they affect personal mobility, and recommendations for improved pedestrian-friendly design. The designer should consider all types of disabilities when making design decisions. In addition, while specific design is necessary for disabled pedestrians, they are also beneficial amenities for other types of pedestrians as well. Impairment Effect on Mobility Design Solution Physical Impairment Necessitating Wheelchair and Scooter Use Difficulty propelling over uneven or soft surfaces. Firm, stable surfaces and structures, including ramps or beveled edges. Cross-slopes cause wheelchairs to veer downhill or tip sideways. Cross-slopes of less than two percent. Require wider path of travel.Sufficient width and maneuvering space. Physical Impairment Necessitating Walking Aid Use Difficulty negotiating steep grades and cross slopes; decreased stability and tripping hazard. Cross-slopes of less than two percent. Smooth, non-slippery travel surface. Slower walking speed and reduced endurance; reduced ability to react. Longer pedestrian signal cycles, shorter crossing distances, median refuges, and street furniture. Hearing Impairment Less able to detect oncoming hazards at locations with limited sight lines (e.g. driveways, angled intersections, channelized right turn lanes) and complex intersections. Longer pedestrian signal cycles, clear sight distances, highly visible pedestrian signals and markings. Vision Impairment Limited perception of path ahead and obstacles; reliance on memory; reliance on non-visual indicators (e.g. sound and texture). Accessible text (larger print and raised text), accessible pedestrian signals (APS), guide strips and detectable warning surfaces, safety barriers, and lighting. Cognitive Impairment Varies greatly. Can affect ability to perceive, recognize, understand, interpret, and respond to information. Signs with pictures, universal symbols, and colors, rather than text. Disabled Pedestrian Design Considerations 7 SLO Design GuidelinesContext Pedestrian Characteristics by Age Source: AASHTO. Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, Exhibit 2-1. 2004. Age Characteristics 0-4 Learning to walk Requires constant adult supervision Developing peripheral vision and depth perception 5-8 Increasing independence, but still requires supervision Poor depth perception 9-13 Susceptible to “darting out” in roadways Insufficient judgment Sense of invulnerability 14-18 Improved awareness of traffic environment Insufficient judgment 19-40 Active, aware of traffic environment 41-65 Slowing of reflexes 65+Difficulty crossing street Vision loss Difficulty hearing vehicles approaching from behindWalking 2’ 6” (0.75 m) Minimum Accessible Width* 3’ (0.9 m) Preferred Operating Space 5’ (1.5 m) Eye Level 4’ 6” - 5’ 10” (1.3 m - 1.7 m) Shoulders 1’ 10” (0.5 m) *At point of contact Context 8 SLO Design GuidelinesDESIGN NEEDS OF RUNNERS Running is an important recreation and fitness activity commonly performed on shared use paths. Many runners prefer softer surfaces (such as rubber, bare earth or crushed rock) to reduce impact. Runners can change their speed and direction frequently. If high volumes are expected, controlled interaction or separation of different types of users should be considered. Preferred Operating Space 5’ (1.5 m) Shoulders 1’ 10” (0.5 m) Sweep Width 4.3’ (1.3 m) Runner Dimensions DESIGN NEEDS OF STROLLERS Strollers are wheeled devices pushed by pedestrians to transport babies or small children. Stroller models vary greatly in their design and capacity. Some strollers are designed to accommodate a single child, others can carry 3 or more. Design needs of strollers depend on the wheel size, geometry and ability of the adult who is pushing the stroller. Strollers commonly have small pivoting front wheels for easy maneuverability, but these wheels may limit their use on unpaved surfaces or rough pavement. Curb ramps are valuable to these users. Lateral overturning is one main safety concern for stroller users. Physical Length 5’ (1.5 m) Sweep Width 3’ 6” (1.5 m) Stroller Dimensions 9 SLO Design GuidelinesContext DESIGN NEEDS OF WHEELCHAIR USERS As the American population ages, the age demographics in communities may also shift, and the number of people using mobility assistive devices (such as manual wheelchairs, powered wheelchairs) will increase. Manual wheelchairs are self-propelled devices. Users propel themselves using push rims attached to the rear wheels. Braking is done through resisting wheel movement with the hands or arm. Alternatively, a second individual can control the wheelchair using handles attached to the back of the chair. Power wheelchairs use battery power to move the wheelchair. The size and weight of power wheelchairs limit their ability to negotiate obstacles without a ramp. Various control units are available that enable users to control the wheelchair movement, based on their ability (e.g., joystick control, breath controlled, etc). Maneuvering around a turn requires additional space for wheelchair devices. Providing adequate space for 180 degree turns at appropriate locations is an important element of accessible design. Wheelchair User Design Considerations Effect on Mobility Design Solution Difficulty propelling over uneven or soft surfaces.Firm, stable surfaces and structures, including ramps or beveled edges. Cross-slopes cause wheelchairs to veer downhill.Cross-slopes of less than two percent. Require wider path of travel.Sufficient width and maneuvering space. Minimum Operating Width 3’ (0.9 m) Minimum Width of Accessway* 4’ (1.2 m) Minimum Operating Width 3’ (0.9 m) Minimum to Make a 180 Degree Turn 5’ (1.5 m) Minimum to Make a 180 Degree Turn 5’ (1.5 m) Physical Width 2’6” (0.75 m) Physical Width 2’2” (0.7 m) Armrest 2’5” (0.75 m) Handle 2’9” (0.9 m) Eye Height 3’8” (1.1 m) Wheelchair User Dimensions *Provide 5’ x 5’ passing zone every 200’ if travel way is at minimum width Context 10SLO Design GuidelinesDesign Needs of Bicyclists The facility designer must have an understanding of how bicyclists operate and how their bicycle influences that operation. Bicyclists, by nature, are much more affected by poor facility design, construction and maintenance practices than motor vehicle drivers. By understanding the unique characteristics and needs of bicyclists, a facility designer can provide quality facilities and minimize user risk. The following details outline the typical physical parameters to consider when designing for bicyclists of different sizes, ages, and ability levels—these dimensions should not be interpreted as formal design specifications. Bicycle Rider - Typical Dimensions Operating Envelope 8’ 4” Eye Level 5’ Handlebar Height 3’8” Minimum Operating Width 5’ Minimum Operating Width 4’ Physical Operating Width 2’6” BICYCLE AS A DESIGN VEHICLE Similar to motor vehicles, bicyclists and their bicycles exist in a variety of sizes and configurations. These variations occur in the types of vehicle (such as a conventional bicycle, a recumbent bicycle or a tricycle), and behavioral characteristics (such as the comfort level of the bicyclist). The design of a bikeway should consider reasonably expected bicycle types on the facility and utilize the appropriate dimensions. The Bicycle Rider figure illustrates the operating space and physical dimensions of a typical adult bicyclist, which are the basis for typical facility design. Bicyclists require clear space to operate within a facility. This is why the minimum operating width is greater than the physical dimensions of the bicyclist. Generally, bicyclists prefer a minimum operating width of five feet. In addition to the design dimensions of a typical bicycle, there are many other commonly used pedal- driven cycles and accessories to consider when planning and designing bicycle facilities. The most common types include tandem bicycles, recumbent bicycles, and trailer accessories. Extra care should be given to account for wider tracking of these larger bicycle types. A rapidly emerging bicycle type is the electric assist bicycle, which can increase the distance covered by bike and can help accommodate the “interested but concerned” bicyclist type. However, electric assist bicycles have the capability to travel at higher speeds than fully human-powered bicycles, which the designer should take into consideration especially regarding bikeway curves and widths. 11SLO Design GuidelinesContext * Typical speed for causal riders per AASHTO 2013. BICYCLE TYPE FEATURE TYPICAL SPEED Upright Adult Bicyclist Paved level surfacing 8-12 mph* Crossing Intersections 10 mph Downhill 30 mph Uphill 5 -12 mph Recumbent Bicyclist Paved level surfacing 18 mph Electric Assist Bicycle Paved level surface 15-25 mph Bicycle as Design Vehicle - Design Speed Expectations Design Policies 12SLO Design GuidelinesSection 2 Design Policies 13SLO Design GuidelinesDesign Policies Operations and Maintenance 2.1 The City shall identify opportunities to include improvements to bicycle and pedestrian facilities as prescribed by this Plan during other regular maintenance activities, such as roadway sealing and utility repair/replacement projects. Potential improvements that may be incorporated into other maintenance projects include, but are not limited to, upgrading older drainage inlets and intersection corner ramps to current City Standards, if funding is available to support this added work. 2.2 Sidewalks, shared-use paths and protected bike lanes should be swept regularly to clear debris and litter. 2.3 During scheduled and budgeted street resurfacing and maintenance work, the City should exhaust all reasonable efforts to maintain a pavement surface along designated bikeways that is smooth and free of potholes, cracks or other hazards. As funding and staffing resources allow, the City should endeavor to meet the following surface tolerances with installation of new bikeway facilities and following maintenance projects, such as roadway resurfacing and resealing. Construction Sequencing and Work Zone Safety 3.1 During the construction of new or upgraded intersections, roundabouts and roadways, the City shall strive to phase construction activities to minimize impacts to pedestrian and bicycling connectivity during construction where feasible, such as opening a road or intersection to motor vehicle traffic with incomplete sidewalks or lack of adequate connections for bicycling and walking for extended periods of time. The City may require installation of temporary bicycling or pedestrian pathways during construction to maintain connectivity until permanent facilities are completed. 3.2 Traffic control plans prepared for work within the public right of-way shall address bicycling and walking access needs during construction. Signage should warn bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists in advance of any location where the bicycle lane or sidewalk is closed and identify alternative routes where available. 3.3 Where sidewalk closures are required for several weeks or more, or where there are no controlled pedestrian crossing opportunities (i.e. a signaled or stop-controlled crossing) within one block, temporary pedestrian pathways should be provided per City Engineering Standards to maintain pedestrian access during construction activities. 3.4 Where construction activities require closure of a bicycle lane on streets with speeds of 35 mph or more, a minimum four-foot wide temporary bicycle lane shall be maintained using traffic delineators or safety barricades. Where it is infeasible to maintain width for a temporary bicycle lane, construction traffic control plans shall be designed to reduce motor vehicle speeds to 25 mph or less through the work zone and appropriate signs shall be provided to convey that bicyclists may share the travel lane.(1) Groove—A narrow slot in the surface that could catch a bicycle wheel (2) Step—A ridge in the pavement, such as that which may exist between the pavement and a concrete gutter or manhole cover, or two pavement blankets. Direction of Travel Grooves1 Steps2 Parallel to travel No more than 1/2" wide No more than 3/8” high Perpendicular to travel --No more than 1/2" high Design Policies 14SLO Design Guidelines3.5 All reasonable efforts shall be taken to avoid placing traffic control signage within the bike lane or sidewalk where a clear width of at least four feet cannot be maintained. Alternate solutions may include installing signs on temporary sign posts during construction activities. 3.6 Bikeways and pedestrian facilities shall be inspected regularly before, during and after construction activities to identify damage caused by construction activities that may present concerns for active transportation users, such as increased road/sidewalk debris, cracks or potholes. Consistent with City Engineering Standards, the City should hold contractors responsible for repairing damage to public infrastructure caused by construction activities. Where possible, the City should also strive to include repairs to preexisting damaged roadway and sidewalk areas as part of planned construction activities. Designing Intersections for Walking and Bicycling ROUNDABOUTS 4.1 Consistent with the policies identified in the General Plan Circulation Element, roundabouts shall be the preferred intersection control device over signalized intersections. Where practicable, roundabouts or neighborhood traffic circles shall be provided where all-way stop control would otherwise be considered. 4.2 Where multi-lane roundabouts are proposed, additional crossing enhancements should be considered to improve the pedestrian crossing experience consistent with guidance from the U.S. Access Board, which may include consideration for pedestrian signals, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons or grade-separated crossings. 4.3 Where roundabouts are installed, A) curb ramps should be designed using best practices for bike and pedestrian safety and convenience and B) separated facilities for bicycle and pedestrian travel should be provided in the roundabout design if high-volume bike lanes or protected bike lanes lead into the roundabout. 4.4 Roundabouts should be designed such that a bicycle can either traverse through it using either a separated shared-use path/protected bike lane or by sharing the roadway. PROTECTED INTERSECTIONS 4.5 Where new signalized intersections are proposed or where existing signalized intersections are proposed for significant reconstruction, bicycle protected intersection design elements shall be incorporated. 4.6 Where protected intersections are infeasible, other bikeway intersection crossing treatments shall be prioritized at intersections to improve bicyclist safety and connectivity, including bike boxes, dedicated bicycle signal phases, and colored pavement. PEDESTRIAN CROSSING TREATMENTS 4.7 Intersection designs should include elements that reduce pedestrian crossing exposure and minimize conflicts with higher-speed motor vehicle movements. Potential intersection design elements include, but are not limited to, curb extensions (“bulbouts”), median refuges, ADA-compliant curb ramps, reduced corner radii and mountable corner truck aprons, hi-visibility crosswalk markings, and hardened centerlines. 4.8 Uncontrolled pedestrian crossings should include enhancements to improve pedestrian visibility and crossing safety consistent with applicable engineering standards and best practices for quality pedestrian infrastructure design. Potential crossing elements include addition of hi-visibility warning signage and pavement markings, median refuges, in-pavement yield signs, and active crossing devices such as Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, Pedestrian Traffic Signals, and beacon systems, such as Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons. 4.9 Signalized intersections should provide pedestrian crossings at all legs, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer for safety reasons. Signalized crossings shall include countdown signal heads accessible pedestrian signal (APS) push buttons and other features consistent with current ADA Standards. 15SLO Design GuidelinesDesign Policies 4.10 Where practicable, all City-operated traffic signals should include Lead Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) to provide a head-start for pedestrians to begin cross an intersection. BICYCLE CHANNELIZATION AT RIGHT TURN LANES 4.11 On streets with speeds under 30 mph with striped bike lanes, bicycle channelization should be provided to the left of dedicated right-turn only lanes, where they exist. 4.12 On streets with speeds of 30 mph or greater with striped bike lanes, or where protected bicycle lanes are provided, bike channelization should generally be avoided at right-turn lanes. Instead, alternative treatments such as protected intersections (setback crossings) or dedicated bike signal phases should be implemented to facilitate more comfortable intersection crossings for riders of all ages and ability levels. The City shall encourage Caltrans and the County to apply a similar strategy for intersection improvements proposed within the vicinity of the City, but not under City jurisdiction. FREEWAY CROSSINGS AND INTERCHANGES 4.13 The City shall work with Caltrans to encourage and advocate that freeway overcrossing/ undercrossing and interchange projects incorporate the needs of bicycling and walking as part of the project design, avoiding conflict points where cyclists and pedestrians must cross the path concurrent with high speed/volume motor vehicle movements. TRAFFIC SIGNAL DESIGN FOR BICYCLING 4.14 Traffic signal timings shall provide sufficient minimum green time for an average cyclist to enter and clear the intersection. 4.15 New or modified traffic signals shall include detection for bicycles at all approaches accessed by cyclists, with video detection being the preferred system. If in-pavement loop detection is used, pavement legends shall be applied to the road surface and maintained to identify the optimum location for bicyclists to position their bikes to trigger a signal change. Push button actuation may be used, when appropriate, to avoid accidental detection by motor vehicles where cyclists approach an intersection from a shared-use path or curbside protected bike lane. 4.16 When used, push button for bicycles should be accessible so that bicyclists do not have to dismount or deviate from the bikeway to actuate a signal or flashing beacon system. 4.17 Bicycle signals should be considered where engineering judgement indicates that bicycle movements should be separated from motor vehicle or pedestrian movements with a dedicated signal phase. Pedestrian Facilities MARKED CROSSWALKS 5.1 Marked crosswalks should provide a direct alignment between curb ramps at either end of the crossing. 5.2 Where marked crosswalks are installed, high- visibility ladder style crosswalk markings should be applied at all uncontrolled crossings and at signalized crossings with high crossing demand, such as intersections within the Downtown Core. Pavers, stamped concrete, or other decorative treatments may be used at marked crosswalks within the Downtown Core in lieu of high-visibility ladder style markings. 5.3 To reinforce yielding to pedestrians and reduce vehicle incursion into the crosswalk, consider using an advanced stop bar in advance of the crosswalk and advance yield markings ahead of uncontrolled crosswalks. SIDEWALK ZONES AND WIDTHS 5.4 Sidewalks shall be designed and installed per City Engineering Standards, with sidewalk widths determined as follows: 5.4.1 For new sidewalk installations, minimum widths should generally be based on pedestrian demand and level of service, with a target of LOS B and minimum of LOS C. Design Policies 16SLO Design Guidelines5.4.2 Sidewalk widths for commercial development outside the downtown may be required up to seven (7) feet detached, 12 feet integral. 5.4.3 Within the downtown planning area, new sidewalks should have a minimum of eight (8) feet clear width, with a total width of 12 to 20 feet to provide space for street trees, lighting, benches and other street furniture, public art installations, outdoor cafes and pedestrian traffic. Depending on the location, ultimate sidewalk widths may be limited by limited by factors such as emergency response needs, presence of street parking, utility conflicts and other physical constraints. 5.4.4 Exceptions to minimum required sidewalk widths may be granted when the required sidewalk width is not consistent with neighborhood character and existing topography, street design, and density. Unless otherwise stated above, the standard minimum sidewalk width is five (5) for detached and six (6) feet when placed integral with curb and gutter. CURB RAMPS 5.5 Curb ramps must be installed at all intersections and midblock locations where pedestrian crossings are allowed, as mandated by federal legislation. Curb ramps shall be installed per City Engineering Standards with construction of new intersections, reconstruction of existing intersections, as part of other qualifying roadway improvements or alterations, and with significant redevelopment of adjacent properties. 5.6 Where feasible, separate directional curb ramps for each crosswalk at an intersection should be provided rather than having a single ramp radial at a corner for both crosswalks CURB EXTENSIONS (BULBOUTS) 5.7 Curb extensions shall be designed per City Engineering Standards, with minimum radii that accommodate City street sweepers. 5.8 Curb extensions should be designed so they do not create conflicts with bicycle circulation or stormwater drainage. STREET LIGHTING 5.9 Street lighting shall be provided at all intersections and along public streets consistent with City Engineering Standards. 5.10 Solar street lighting options should be considered where practicable. 5.11 Pedestrian-scale pedestrian lighting should be considered in commercial districts, such as the Downtown Core, and within other neighborhoods along routes with high pedestrian activity. CREATE AN ENJOYABLE WALK 5.12 Where feasible, sidewalks should be buffered from the roadway by street trees, landscaped parkways, or other features that physically separate the pedestrian space from motor vehicle traffic. 5.13 The City should encourage urban design strategies that create an interesting, enjoyable walking environment and unique neighborhood character. Strategies include, but are not limited to, installing public art installations, painted bulbouts and other street murals, installing wayfinding signage pointing pedestrian to popular destinations, promoting outdoor cafes and pedestrian-oriented architectural elements along building frontages. PARKLETS Parklets are defined as public seating platforms that convert curbside parking spaces into vibrant community spaces. Parklets are often the product of a partnership between the city and local businesses, residents, or neighborhood associations. Most parklets have a distinctive design that incorporates seating, greenery, and/ 17SLO Design GuidelinesDesign Policies or bike racks and accommodate unmet demand for public space on thriving neighborhood retail streets or commercial areas. 5.14 If supported by the City Council, the City should create a formal parklet program to facilitate and encourage the development of parklets at appropriate locations to the satisfaction of the City Public Works and Community Development Departments. 5.15 The decision to install parklets shall consider the speed of the roadway and its impact on the safety of individuals using the parklet space. Parklets shall not be approved on roadways with vehicle speeds (posted speeds or measured 85th percentile speeds) that exceed 30 mph. 5.16 Parklets shall include appropriate barriers to prevent pedestrians from encroaching into the adjacent vehicular traveled way. 5.17 Parklet designs must be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act and should use a slip resistant surface. Parklets should have a flush transition at the sidewalk and curb to permit easy access and avoid tripping hazards. 5.18 Parklets shall not inhibit storm water drainage or block any utility access at drainage inlets, utility boxes, valves, or fire hydrants. 5.19 Parklets and bicycle racks shall not be placed so that either facility comes into conflict with another. However, opportunities should be explored to combine parklets with adjacent bike corrals, where possible. 5.20 Parking stops or other physical buffers shall be used to separate parklets from adjacent parking stalls. In addition, vertical separation, such as flex posts with retroreflective tape, shall be used along the edges of parklets to increase visibility and delineation between the parklet and adjacent vehicular travel lanes. 5.21 Parklet surfaces, barriers and other design elements shall not be physically bolted or anchored to the street or sidewalk without prior approval from the City Public Works Department. Bicycle Facilities BICYCLE ROUTES (CLASS III BIKEWAYS) 6.1 Bike routes shall only be designated on streets with prevailing speeds of ≤25 mph. Where existing speeds exceed these levels, traffic calming measures should be incorporated. 6.2 Advisory bike lanes may be considered as an alternative to bike routes or neighborhood greenways on streets where there is insufficient width to install standard Class II or IV bikeways. BICYCLE RAMPS 6.3 Bike ramps should have a minimum width of 6 feet with flared transitions instead of vertical curbs where feasible. Bike ramp entry and exit angles shall be forgiving with angles of 30 degrees or less measured from the approach alignment. Entry angles shall be less than 15 degrees on downhill approaches where cyclists are likely to enter ramps at higher speeds. Where ramps exceed 6.5 feet, additional design considerations may be needed to minimize automobile encroachment. 6.4 Bike ramps should not include truncated domes that may be confused with pedestrian ramps. Other design elements, as recommended by the U.S. Access Board, should be considered to provide a visual and tactile warning for visually impaired users to distinguish bicycle ramps from pedestrian ramps. 6.5 Bicycle ramps should be flush with the gutter pan, avoiding vertical lips where feasible. Design Policies 18SLO Design GuidelinesBICYCLE LANES (CLASS II BIKEWAYS) & PROTECTED BIKE LANES (CLASS IV BIKEWAYS) 6.6 Protected bike lanes are the preferred form of bikeway facility to provide a low-stress, comfortable environment for cyclists of all ages and abilities. Protected bike lanes should be installed on routes identified in this Plan, and where feasible along new streets constructed as part of future development projects. 6.7 Where feasible, the preferred design for protected bike lanes is to construct the bikeway at an elevated or sidewalk-level, vertically separated from motor vehicle traffic. 6.8 Directional bikeways (i.e. one-way facility on each side of the street) are the preferred configuration for new bike lane and protected bike lane installations. Two-way bicycle facilities may be considered in constrained locations, but should generally be avoided along streets with high vehicle speeds, frequent intersections and high traffic- volume driveways. Where proposed, two-way bicycle facility intersections should be controlled by dedicated bicycle signal phases. 6.9. 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 way (protected bike lanes excluded). 6.10 When a street with bike lanes or protected bike lanes is resurfaced, smooth surfaced material shall be used. New pavement surfaces and paveouts with installation of new curb and gutter shall be installed without seams or creases within the bike lane. 6.11 Before a street with bike lanes is sealed, pavement deficiencies such as severe cracking and potholes shall be repaired. Existing surface elevation differences between the edge of asphalt and the concrete gutter shall be made flush to the extent practicable. Streets with bikeways shall only receive a slurry seals or microsurfacing, chip seals are not to be used on streets with bikeways. 6.12 Bike lanes shall be kept clear of all vegetation, including overhead (a minimum of 8 feet of vertical clearance). Landscaped medians and/or planter boxes may be placed within the buffer area in protected bike lane installations. 6.13 When installing new drainage inlets along bike lanes, side-opening inlets shall be used per City Engineering Standards to eliminate grates from the bikeway surface. When resurfacing roadways or performing other construction maintenance activities, inspection and assessment of drainage grates should be performed and corrected if deficient. 6.14 Angled Parking - The City shall avoid combining front-end angled parking with bike lanes given concerns for visibility, unless protected bike lanes are configured between the curb and angled parking stalls with an appropriate buffer to physically separate bicyclists from parking maneuvers. 6.15 Bikeways should be designed to avoid potential for incompatibility with motorized scooters or other micromobility devices that may be allowed to operate in the city in the future. BIKEWAY WIDTH DESIGN STANDARDS 6.16 The following standards in the table below shall establish bike facility width within the City of San Luis Obispo and shall meet or exceed standards described in the California Highway Design Manual and the California Manual of Traffic Control Devices. 6.17 Existing bikeways that do not meet the standards shown are accepted as part of the City’s bikeway network and may be upgraded if funding is available and significant environmental impacts can be avoided. 6.18 Construction of short segments of bikeway should generally be consistent with the design of adjoining bikeway segments, unless fully meeting these standards will provide significant improvement to the comfort or safety of bicycling. 19SLO Design GuidelinesDesign Policies BIKEWAY FACILITY CRITERIA Type Paved Width Notes & Additional Guidance Shared-Use Path (Class I Bikeway) Min: 10' Pref: 12' - 2 ft. shoulders shall also be included on either side of all Class I facilities Type Paved Width Next to Parking Vehicles per day 85% vehicle speeds Downgrade Notes & Additional Guidance Bike Lanes (Class II Bikeway) Min: 5' (meet 1 criterion) Pref: 8' No < 10,000 < 35mph < 4%- Dimensions are inclusive of 18 in. gutter for curbside bikeways. Where 24 in. gutter pans exist, increase min. bikeway width by 6 in. - Dimensions may also be applied to Advisory Bike Lane installations. - Dimensions exclude striped buffer. Min: 6.5' (meet 1 criterion) Pref: 8' Yes ≥ 10,000 ≥ 35mph ≥ 4% 8' (meet 2 criterion) Yes ≥ 10,000 ≥ 45mph > 4% Striped Bike Lane Buffer Min: 1.5' Pref: 3' - When a striped buffer is provided between a bike lane and traffic lane, 1 ft in width may be subtracted from the bike lane width as long as the combined bike lane and buffer width is no less than 7 ft. Bike Lane Channelization (at right-turn lanes) Min: 5' Pref: 6' - Where channelization adjoins a right-turn lane used as a designated bus or truck route, increase width to 6 ft. Type Paved Width Notes & Additional Guidance Protected Bike Lane (Class IV Bikeway) Min: 8' Pref: 12' (two-way) - Bike lane width does not include buffer area between bikeway and motor vehicle traffic and/or pedestrian sidewalk. - Dimensions are inclusive of 18 in. gutter pan for curbside bikeways. Where 24 in. gutters exists, increase minimum bikeway width by 6 in. - Width is measured from the centerline of stripe - Need at least 1’ clearance to any obstacle and no objects or elevation changes at the edges like curbs- At pinchpoints, a minimum width of 5 ft. for one-way bikeways and 8 ft. for two-way bikeways may be allowed for limited segments. Min: 5' Pref: 8' (on-street) Min: 5' Pref: 7' (elevated) Protected Bike Lane Buffer Area Min: 1.5' Pref: 3' - When adjacent to street parking, a min. buffer of 3 ft. is required. - The buffer between the bikeway and pedestrian sidewalk may be eliminated where the bikeway and sidewalk are vertically separated. - If configured at a height flush with the sidewalk, color, pavement markings, textured surfaces, landscaping or other features should be used to discourage pedestrian use of the bikeway. General Notes 1. Above dimensions apply to all new bikeway installations unless otherwise approved by the City Transportation Manager. Proposed widths below the "preferred paved width" listed above may require approval of an Infrastructure Design Exception by the Public Works Department. 2. Unless otherwise noted, all widths measured from centerline of leftmost stripe to centerline of rightmost stripe (or face of curb). Design Policies 20SLO Design GuidelinesBIKEWAY WIDTH DESIGN STANDARDS General Provisions 7.1 As part of the goal to increase all trips in the City to 20% by bicycle, the City shall maintain bicycle parking requirements as part of the Zoning Chapter of its Municipal Code 7.2 As stipulated by the Zoning Regulations, short- and long-term bicycle parking shall be provided whenever a new development is constructed or enlarged or whenever a new use is established. 7.3 The City shall explore areas in the downtown to add more in-street bike parking and bike corrals, including conversion of on-street parking stalls to bicycle parking and providing dedicated secure bicycle parking in parking structures. 7.4 The City shall look for opportunities to provide parking accommodations for larger-sized bicycles, such as cargo and recumbent bicycles, especially in the downtown. It shall also develop standards to accommodate the needs of these types of bicycles. 7.5 The City shall explore ways to accommodate the needs of electric bicycles and their charging equipment with installation of public and private bicycle parking. Bicycle Parking Design & Engineering 7.6 Development plans submitted for consideration by the City shall include dimensioned drawings that clearly describe and depict the location, orientation, number, type, and storage capacity of long and short-term bicycle parking facilities. 7.7 The City shall encourage existing development to upgrade their bicycle parking facilities to meet current City standards (e.g. type of rack, number of bicycles accommodated) 7.8 The City’s Community Design Guidelines shall contain illustrations of how bicycle parking should be installed and oriented as part of new development projects. The City shall maintain and regularly update bicycle parking standards in its Engineering Standards. 7.9 In the Downtown Core, bicycle racks shall be colored forest green consistent with City Council Resolution # 9278 (2002 Series) 7.10 Where on-street parking areas are utilized for bicycle parking, bicycle racks should be mounted off the street to the extent possible, to allow for street sweeping and to minimize conflicts with drainage. Preferred locations shall include: a. Low traffic speed and volume streets b. Just prior to mid-block pedestrian crosswalks c. Prior to driveway/street intersections outside of normal turning radii and where turning volumes are low d. High visibility areas e. High pedestrian volume f. Known high bicycle parking demand areas 7.11 Bicycle parking shall be provided where direct connections between surface modes of transportation are made (e.g. train station, bus terminals, park-and-ride facilities, ride hailing pick up points), at public buildings, medical centers, public facilities serving disadvantaged communities, and at public parks, plazas or other recreation facilities. 7.12 City transit vehicles shall continue to provide racks for the transport of bicycles and increase capacity as demand increases and rack design improves. City transit vehicles shall also continue efforts to accommodate electric bikes on bus racks as much as possible. 7.13 Should grant funds become available, the City shall offer racks or lockers to businesses at high bicycle parking demand locations if they agree to install and maintain them. 7.14 The City shall continue to require enhanced bicycle parking services, such as Bike Valet, at planned and permitted community events such as Thursday night’s Farmer’s Market, or Concerts in the Plaza, when over 300 attendees are expected. 21SLO Design GuidelinesDesign Policies Short-Term Bicycle Parking (Typically used for 4 hours or less) Bicycle Rack Siting and Design: 7.15 Install at highly visible locations that are as close to the main entrance of the destination as possible, at least as convenient as the most convenient automobile parking space available to the general public. 7.16 Short-term bicycle parking shall be visible from the interior of the destination. 7.17 Short-term bicycle parking shall be located where clear and safe pedestrian circulation is ensured. 7.18 Parked bicycles should neither be in jeopardy of damage by other area users, nor create unexpected hazards to those users. 7.19 Short-term bicycle parking shall be distributed to serve all tenants/visitors on sites that contain more than one structure or building entry. 7.20 Short-term bicycle parking shall avoid locations that require bicyclists to travel over stairs. 7.21 Short-term bicycle parking areas shall be illuminated during nighttime hours of use. 7.22 Whenever possible, protect bicycle parking areas from weather. 7.23 To the extent possible, accommodate cargo and other larger bicycles as well as electric bicycles and charging equipment 7.24 The City shall continue to promote and manage its Racks with Plaques bicycle rack donation program which provides short term public bicycle parking to serve public facilities and throughout the downtown area. 7.25 Peak Rack type racks, or other City approved design shall be used to meet the City’s short-term parking requirements. While approved for use, “U-style” racks should be minimized to the extent possible. Wave, comb, and toast style racks are examples of racks not permitted by the above guidelines. Long-term Bicycle Parking (Typically used for more than 4 hours) 7.26 Bicycle lockers, lockable rooms reserved for bicycle storage, and Bicycle Centrals (Stations) shall be used to satisfy the need for long-term bike parking. 7.27 Bicycle Centrals are defined as consolidated sheltered storage areas for employee or tenant bicycles, integrated into the design of work sites or developments, which may be combined with showers and bicycle repair and support facilities, with doors that can accommodate moving a bike in and out. 7.28 The City shall encourage the development of bicycle centrals at employment centers, mixed use developments, and locations where people gather. 7.29 Bicycle lockers shall: a. Be located at least as conveniently as the most convenient automobile parking space and installed at highly visible locations that are as close to the main employee entrance as possible. b. In the commercial core, be provided in parking structures, surface parking lots, or incorporated into new buildings and managed to enable safe and convenient access by downtown employees and residents. c. To the greatest extent possible, be integrated into a project’s overall architecture and site design themes. d. Be constructed of durable materials and be waterproof. Fiberboard or high-density foam walls or dividers shall be avoided as construction materials. e. Be installed on, and securely attached to a pad with a cross slope between one and two percent. Concrete is the preferred pad material. f. Employ secure locking mechanisms that make it easy for the intended users to access them. Design Policies 22SLO Design Guidelinesg. Encouraged to employ designs that prevent or discourage uses for anything other than bicycle storage h. To the extent possible, accommodate larger bicycles for cargo use or electric bicycles. 7.30 When interior locked rooms are used to provide long-term bicycle storage, these rooms shall: a. Have a minimum dimension of 11 feet to accommodate a six-foot-long bike plus five feet of aisle space outside of the doorway area. b. Include a means to organize bike storage with at least one wheel touching the ground. c. Be located near or at the employee street level entry and arranged in a way that enables convenient ingress and egress for people with bicycles. d. Exclude other routine indoor activities and be reserved for bicycle storage. e. To the extent possible, accommodate cargo and other larger bicycles and electric bicycles and charging equipment. f. Avoid use of vertical hanging bicycle racks, which do not accommodate the needs of users with limited lifting strength and/or those with larger vehicles, such as cargo or recumbent bicycles. No more than 50% of required long-term bicycle parking shall be provided via vertical hanging racks. Long-Term Bicycle Parking Support Facilities 7.31 The City shall support programs where commuting or touring bicyclists can shower, change, and possibly store their bicycles at athletic and fitness clubs and gymnasiums in the San Luis Obispo area. 7.32 Consistent with the City Zoning Code, the City shall require for the provision of shower and locker facilities at new workplaces and their upkeep for original intended use. Work sites that are not required to provide showers and clothing lockers should be strongly encouraged to do so. 7.33 The City may require a particular land use to provide more than the minimum number of showers or locker facilities, as established by the City Zoning Regulations, when it determines that the land use will generate higher demand for these facilities. 7.34 Full-length and well-ventilated clothing lockers shall be the preferred type of facility for storing personal gear and bicycling equipment. Mixed Use Facilities SHARED USE PATHS (CLASS I BIKEWAYS) Width 8.1 Shared-use paths shall have a standard width of 12 feet with two-foot shoulders (total width of 16 feet). A reduced path width of no less than eight (8) feet plus two-foot shoulders may be considered only in constrained locations where a full-width pathway is otherwise infeasible. Intersections 8.2 Intersections of shared-use paths and roadways should align at 90 degrees, either at crossings where motorists can be expected to stop, or a location completely out of the influence of any other intersection. At crossings of roadways with high vehicle volumes or speeds, and at intersections not able to align at 90 degrees, traffic control devices such as traffic signals, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, or flashing beacon systems should be installed to convey crossing right-of-way. 23SLO Design GuidelinesDesign Policies 8.3 At uncontrolled crossings, shared-use paths should be designed with raised crossings or “speed tables” to reduce motor vehicle speeds crossing the bicycle and pedestrian pathway. 8.4 Where share-use use paths are constructed parallel to a roadway, a minimum setback of five (5) feet should be provided, with a greater setback of 10-15 feet desired at driveway and minor street crossings. Where a minimum setback of five (5) feet cannot be provided, the buffer area between the pathway and street should include colored hardscape, landscape, railings/barriers, or other treatments to clearly convey the pathway as a separate facility from the roadway. Adjoining Creeks 8.6 Shared-use paths shall be located outside of creek setbacks, except where otherwise allowed or as provided for in the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element. 8.7 Where setback encroachments cannot be avoided, their extent shall be minimized, and existing riparian vegetation shall be reinforced with native plants to create landscaped buffers between the path and the riparian canopy. Pathway encroachments into the creek setback shall be subject to the exception process of the Creek Setback Regulations contained in the Municipal Code. 8.8 The number of bicycle-pedestrian bridges over creeks shall be minimized. Bridges shall: a. Be of a “clear span” design. b. To the greatest extent possible, be located to avoid removal of native trees and streamside habitat or impacts to important aquatic habitat areas. c. Minimize grading of creek banks or changes to the channel alignment. d. Include a smooth riding surface to minimize noise. On Agricultural Land 8.9 Shared-use paths that cross or border agricultural land shall: a. Use existing service roads where shared use is compatible with agricultural and bicycling operations b. Be fenced and signed to discourage trespassing onto adjoining areas c. Avoid dividing properties in a way that unduly complicates agricultural operations. Near Laguna Lake 8.10 Shared-use paths located near Laguna Lake, should: a. Be located beyond and adequately buffered from wetland habitat. b. Not alter the hydrological dynamics of the wetland. c. Be closed with proper public noticing when flood hazards exist. d. Ensure construction is preceded by a census of bird life in adjoining areas. Bird populations should be periodically monitored, and remedial action taken, as needed. On Flood Control Channels 8.11 Where an existing creek channel is widened to establish a new top of bank, multi-use paths shall be located outside of creek setbacks except where otherwise allowed or as provided for in the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element. 8.12 Where parallel flood control channels are constructed, shared-use paths may be located within the riparian canopy established by the new flood control channel, parallel to the channel side that is farthest from the parent creek. Design Policies 24SLO Design Guidelines8.13 When existing creeks are widened or when new flood control channels are constructed, shared-use paths should be installed at the same time or, at a minimum, their rights-of-way shall be reserved and maintained as clear space to enable their eventual installation. 8.14 Along parallel flood control channels, shared- use paths and service roads may share the same alignment. The structural design of these facilities shall be sufficient to support maintenance vehicles” Near the Railroad 8.15 Reconstruction of “at-grade” railroad crossings by the Union Pacific Railroad or others should be at right angles and shall include the installation of bicycle friendly panels on the approaches and between the tracks 8.16 New bicycle and pedestrian bridges along the Railroad Safety Trail should generally be separated from existing railroad bridges. 8.17 Shared-use paths along the railroad should include appropriate setbacks and fencing to ensure safe and compatible operations with active rail lines. Lighting 8.18 Vandal-resistant lighting shall be provided for all shared use paths and shall be consistent with City plans, located overhead (including in under crossings), generally not more than 16 feet high, direct light downward, have bulbs well recessed to avoid direct glare, and comply with City regulations and engineering standards. 8.19 Solar path lighting options should be considered for new installations. Access Control for Shared-Use Paths 8.20 Obstacle posts (bollards) and gates are fixed objects and placement within the path can cause them to be an obstruction to path users, especially bicycling. Obstacles such as posts or gates should be considered only when other measures have failed to stop unauthorized motor vehicle entry. Also, these obstacles may be considered only where safety and other issues posed by actual unauthorized vehicle entry are more serious than the safety and access issues posed to bicycling, walking, and other authorized path use. The three-step approach to prevent unauthorized vehicle entry is: a. Post signs identifying the entry as a shared use path with regulatory signs prohibiting motor vehicle entry where roads and pathways cross and at other path entry points. b. Design the path entry so it does not look like a vehicle access and makes intentional access by unauthorized users more difficult. Dividing a path into two one-way paths prior to the intersection, separated by low plantings or other features not conducive to motor vehicle use, can discourage motorists from entering and reduce driver error. c. Assess whether signing and path entry design prevents or minimizes unauthorized entry to tolerable levels. 25SLO Design GuidelinesDesign Policies PEDESTRIANIZED STREETS (“WOONERFS”) 9.1 Pedestrianized streets, such as woonerfs, shall be designed to encourage vehicle speeds of 15 mph or less, giving special attention to the safety of pedestrians. 9.2 Pedestrianized streets should include pavers, stamped/colored concrete, street murals, or other unique surface treatments to convey that these streets are unique human-scaled environments where road space is prioritized for walking and slow bicycling. NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAYS 10.1 Neighborhood Greenways shall be constructed with traffic volume and speed management measures to provide for target speeds of 15-20 mph and traffic volumes preferably under 1,500 vehicles/day, but no greater than 3,000 vehicles/day. Diverters or other volume management strategies should be considered where volumes exceed 1,500 vehicles/day. 10.2 Neighborhood Greenways should include branded pavement markings, signage, hi-visibility crosswalk markings, public artwork, green street elements, and other features to differentiate these routes from other streets and convey priority for bicycle and pedestrian travel. 10.3 Where consistent with the provisions of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), priority at side-street stop-controlled intersections should be given to bicyclists and pedestrians traveling along Neighborhood Greenway routes, with stop signs controlling cross traffic only. Design Policies 26SLO Design GuidelinesThis page intentionally left blank. 27SLO Design GuidelinesPedestrian Design Toolbox Section 3 Pedestrian Design Toolbox Pedestrian Design Toolbox 28SLO Design GuidelinesMarked Crosswalks A marked crosswalk signals to motorists that they must yield to pedestrians and encourages pedestrians to cross at designated locations. Installing crosswalks alone will not necessarily enhance the comfort level of crossings. At mid-block locations, crosswalks can be marked where there is a demand for crossing and there are no nearby marked crosswalks. TYPICAL USE Marked crosswalks at unsignalized intersections are only installed according to the City Engineering Standards. At unsignalized intersections, crosswalks may be marked under the following conditions: •At a complex intersection, to orient pedestrians in finding their way across. •At an offset intersection, to show pedestrians the shortest route across traffic with the least exposure to vehicular traffic and traffic conflicts. •At an intersection with visibility constraints, to position pedestrians where they can best be seen by oncoming traffic. •At an intersection within a school zone (yellow crosswalk) on a walking route. •At an intersection or mid-block location with moderate-to-high crossing demand, high speed/ volume motor vehicle traffic, and infrequent controlled crossings nearby. DESIGN FEATURES •The crosswalk should be located to align as closely as possible with the through pedestrian zone of the sidewalk corridor. •Users should not have to leave the crosswalk or reorient themselves from the crosswalk when accessing the curb ramp onto the sidewalk. •To reinforce yielding to pedestrians and reduce vehicle incursion into the crosswalk, include an advanced stop bar in advance of the crosswalk and advance yield markings ahead of uncontrolled crosswalks. •Crosswalk installations and marking styles shall comply with the provisions of the California MUTCD. •Marked crosswalks proposed at uncontrolled crossings with high traffic volumes/speeds will likely require additional crossing enhancements, such as median refuges, flashing beacons, pedestrian hybrid beacons, etc. 29SLO Design GuidelinesPedestrian Design Toolbox Marked crosswalks include standard parallel pavement markings as well as high-visibility ladder markings. NOTE: Yellow crossings indicate school zone areas. FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS •Pedestrians are sensitive to out-of-direction travel, and reasonable accommodations should be made to make crossings convenient at locations with adequate visibility. •High-visibility ladder crosswalk markings should be used at all marked crosswalks unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director. Crosswalk details shall be consistent with City Engineering Standards and the CA MUTCD. •Pavers, stamped concrete or other decorative crosswalk treatments may be used in lieu of ladder-style crosswalk markings in the downtown core to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Where decorative crosswalk treatments are used, retroreflective transverse lines shall still be installed on the boundaries of the crosswalk. •Installation of a marked crosswalk alone is often not sufficient at uncontrolled crossings on higher- speed and multi-lane roadways. At these locations, additional design features should be considered consistent with guidance provided by NACTO, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and the Federal Highway Administration. MATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE Because the effectiveness of marked crossings depends entirely on their visibility, maintaining marked crossings should be a high priority. Thermoplastic markings offer increased durability than conventional paint. Pedestrian Design Toolbox 30SLO Design GuidelinesRaised Pedestrian Crossings A raised crosswalk or intersection can eliminate grade changes from the pedestrian path and give pedestrians greater prominence as they cross the street. Raised crosswalks also function as speed tables and encourage motorists to slow down. As such, they should be used only in cases where a special emphasis on pedestrians is desired. Raised crosswalks are typically implemented on low-speed streets, neighborhood greenways and other areas of very high pedestrian activity. They are often paired with other treatments such as curb extensions for greater traffic calming effect. TYPICAL USE Like a speed hump/table, raised crosswalks have a traffic slowing effect which may be unsuitable for high-speed streets, roadways with sharp curves, designated transit or freight routes, and in locations that would reduce access for emergency responders. Approaches to the raised crosswalk may be designed to be similar to speed humps/ tables. DESIGN FEATURES •Use detectable warnings at the curb edges to alert vision-impaired pedestrians that they are entering the roadway. •Approaches to the raised crosswalk may be designed similar to speed humps. •Drainage improvements may be required depending on the grade of the roadway. •Special paving materials can be used to increase conspicuity of the crossing, and alert drivers to the presence of pedestrians. •Appropriate warning signs and pavement legends should be used to alert drivers to slow speeds approaching speed tables. 31SLO Design GuidelinesPedestrian Design Toolbox Raised pedestrian crossings help reduce vehicle speeds and give pedestrians greater prominence as they cross the street. FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS •The noise of vehicles traveling over raised crosswalks may be of concern to nearby residents and businesses. •Refer to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards for additional requirements. MATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE Because the effectiveness of marked crossings depends entirely on their visibility, maintaining marked crossings should be a high priority. Ensure drainage used to channel stormwater past the raised intersection is kept free of debris, to prevent stormwater from backing up and pooling. Pedestrian Design Toolbox 32SLO Design GuidelinesFrontage ZonePedestrian Through ZoneBuffer ZoneCurbside Lane The through zone is the area intended for pedestrian travel. This zone should be entirely free of permanent and temporary objects. Wide through zones are needed in downtown areas or where pedestrian flows are high. The frontage zone allows pedestrians a comfortable “shy” distance from the building fronts. It provides opportunities for window shopping, to place signs, planters, or chairs. The buffer zone, also called the furnishing or landscaping zone, buffers pedestrians from the adjacent roadway, and is also the area where elements such as street trees, signal poles, signs, and other street furniture are properly located. The curbside lane can act as a flexible space to further buffer the sidewalk from moving traffic and may be used for a bike lane. Curb extensions and bike corrals may occupy this space where appropriate. In the edge zone there should be a 6 inch wide curb. Sidewalk In residential areas Sidewalk Zones & Widths Sidewalks are the most fundamental element of the walking network, as they provide an area for pedestrian travel separated from vehicle traffic. Providing adequate and accessible facilities can lead to increased numbers of people walking, improved accessibility, and the creation of social space. Suburban Sidewalk 33SLO Design GuidelinesPedestrian Design Toolbox TYPICAL USES •Wider sidewalks should be installed near schools, at transit stops, in downtown areas, or anywhere high concentrations of pedestrians exist. •At transit stops, an 8 ft by 5 ft clear space is required for accessible passenger boarding/ alighting at the front door location per ADA requirements. •Sidewalks should be continuous on both sides of urban commercial streets and should be required in areas of moderate residential density (1-4 dwelling units per acre). •When retrofitting gaps in the sidewalk network, locations near transit stops, schools, parks, public buildings, and other areas with high concentrations of pedestrians should be the highest priority. •Sidewalk widths above minimums may be required based on pedestrian Level of Service thresholds. MATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE Sidewalks are typically constructed out of concrete and are separated from the roadway by a curb or gutter and sometimes a landscaped parkway. Less expensive walkways constructed of asphalt, crushed stone, or other stabilized surfaces may be approved as temporary installations only. Surfaces must be firm, stable, and slip resistant. Colored, patterned, or stamped concrete can add distinctive visual appeal, but must remain consistent with ADA Standards. STREET CLASSIFICATION CURBSIDE LANE BUFFER ZONE PEDESTRIAN THROUGH ZONE FRONTAGE ZONE Local Streets Varies Varies 5 ft (detached) 6 ft (when integral with curb and gutter) Varies by zone Downtown Commercial Core Varies Varies 8 ft minimum 12-16 ft preferred None Arterials and Collectors Varies Varies 5-7 ft (detached) 6-12 ft (when integral with curb and gutter) Varies by zone Pedestrian Design Toolbox 34SLO Design GuidelinesDESIGN FEATURES •Caltrans Standards typically govern City design standards for curb ramp design with some specific exceptions based on City Engineering Standards. •The level landing at the top of a ramp shall be at least 4’-4” feet long and at least the same width as the ramp itself. The slope of the ramp shall be compliant with current Caltrans Standards. •If the ramp runs directly into a crosswalk, the landing at the bottom will be in the roadway. •If the top landing is within the sidewalk or corner area where someone in a wheelchair may have to change direction, the landing must be a minimum of 4’-4” long (in the direction of the ramp run) and at least as wide as the ramp, although a width of 5’-0” is preferred. Curb ramps shall be located so that they do not project into vehicular traffic lanes, parking spaces, or parking access aisles. Three configurations are illustrated below. (Crosswalk spacing not to scale. For illustration purposes only) Perpendicular Curb Ramps (Recommended) Parallel Curb Ramp Diagonal Curb Ramp Diagonal ramps shall include a clear space of at least 48” within the crosswalk for user maneuverability TYPICAL USE •Curb ramps must be installed at all intersections and midblock locations where pedestrian crossings exist, as mandated by federal legislation (1973 Rehabilitation Act and ADA 1990). All newly constructed and altered roadway projects must include curb ramps. In addition, existing facilities must be upgraded to current standards when appropriate. •The edge of an ADA compliant curb ramp shall be marked with a tactile warning device (also known as truncated domes) to alert people with visual impairments to changes in the pedestrian environment. Contrast between the raised tactile device and the surrounding infrastructure is important so that the change is readily evident to partially sighted pedestrians. These devices are most effective when adjacent to smooth pavement so the difference is easily detected. Curb Ramps Curb ramps are the design elements that allow all users to make the transition from the street to the sidewalk. A sidewalk without a curb ramp can be useless to someone in a wheelchair, forcing them back to a driveway and out into the street for access. There are a number of factors to be considered in the design and placement of curb ramps. 35SLO Design GuidelinesPedestrian Design Toolbox FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS Unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director, where feasible, separate directional curb ramps for each crosswalk at an intersection should be provided rather than having a single ramp at a corner for both crosswalks. Although diagonal curb ramps often cost less to construct, they orient pedestrians directly into the traffic zone, which can be challenging for wheelchair users and pedestrians with visual impairment. Diagonal curb ramp configurations are not recommended unless right of way constraints do not allow directional ramps. Curb return radii need to be considered when designing directional ramps. While curb ramps are needed for use on all types of streets, the highest priority locations are in downtown areas and on streets near transit stops, schools, parks, medical facilities, shopping areas. Diagonal curb ramps only recommended when right-of-way does not allow directional ramps. Curb ramps at a curb extension with landscaping MATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE It is critical that the interface between a curb ramp and the street be maintained adequately. Asphalt street sections can develop potholes at the foot of the ramp, which can catch the front wheels of a wheelchair. Pedestrian Design Toolbox 36SLO Design GuidelinesDESIGN FEATURES •For purposes of efficient street sweeping, the minimum radius for the reverse curves of the transition is 10 ft and the two radii should be balanced to be nearly equal. •When a bike lane is present, the curb extensions should terminate one foot short of the parking lane to enhance bicyclist access. •Reduces pedestrian crossing distance by width of adjacent parking lane (6-8 ft. typical). •Planted curb extensions may be designed as a bioswale for stormwater management. •Potential for quick-build bulbouts using paint, flex posts, or other materials. A B C A B C D Curb Extensions (Bulbouts) Curb extensions, also known as bulbouts, minimize pedestrian exposure during crossing by shortening crossing distance and giving pedestrians a better chance to see and be seen before committing to crossing. D TYPICAL USE •Within parking lanes appropriate for any crosswalk where it is desirable to shorten the crossing distance and there is a parking lane adjacent to the curb. •May be possible within non-travel areas on roadways with excess space. •Particularly helpful at midblock crossing locations. •Curb extensions should not impede bicycle travel in the absence of a bike lane. •Curb extensions are often utilized as in-lane transit stops, allowing passengers to board and alight outside of the pedestrian through zone. MATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE Planted curb extensions may be designed as a bioswale, a vegetated system for stormwater management. To maintain proper stormwater drainage, curb extensions can be constructed as refuge islands offset by a drainage channel or feature a covered trench drain. 37SLO Design GuidelinesPedestrian Design Toolbox TYPICAL USE •Refuge islands can be applied on any roadway with a center left-turn lane or median that is at least 6’ wide. Islands are appropriate at signalized or unsignalized crosswalks. •The refuge island must be accessible, preferably with an at-grade passage through the island rather than ramps and landings. •The island should be at least 6’ wide between travel lanes and at least 20’ long (40’ minimum preferred). •Provide double centerline marking, reflectors, and “KEEP RIGHT” signage (CA MUTCD R4-7a) in the island on streets with posted speeds above 25 mph. MATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE Refuge islands may require frequent maintenance of road debris. Trees and plantings in a landscaped median must be maintained so as not to impair visibility, with nothing higher than 36 in where sight lines need to be maintained. DESIGN FEATURES •Median refuge islands can be installed on roadways with existing medians or on multi-lane roadways where adequate space exists. •Median Refuge Islands should always be paired with crosswalks and should include advance pedestrian warning signage when installed at uncontrolled crossings. •On multi-lane roadways, consider configuration with active warning beacons for improved yielding compliance. •Consider whether pedestrian activation should be provided in the island. Median Refuge Islands Median refuge islands are located at the mid-point of a marked crossing and help improve pedestrian access by increasing pedestrian visibility and allowing pedestrians to cross one direction of traffic at a time. Refuge islands minimize pedestrian exposure at mid-block crossings by shortening the crossing distance and increasing the number of available gaps for crossing. W11-2, W16-7P Cut-through median refuge islands are preferred over curb ramps to better accommodate wheel chairs users. A Pedestrian Island in large intersections helps shorten crossing distances. Pedestrian Design Toolbox 38SLO Design GuidelinesPedestrian Signalization Improvements Pedestrian signal heads indicate to pedestrians when to cross at a signalized crosswalk. All traffic signals should be equipped with pedestrian signal indications except where pedestrian crossing is prohibited by signage. Pedestrian signals should be used at traffic signals wherever warranted, according to the CA MUTCD. TYPICAL USE •Countdown pedestrian signals are particularly valuable for pedestrians, as they indicate whether a pedestrian has time to cross the street before the signal phase ends. Countdown signals should be used at all new and rehabilitated signalized intersections. •Adequate pedestrian crossing time is a critical element of the walking environment at signalized intersections. The length of a signal phase with parallel pedestrian movements should provide sufficient time for a pedestrian to safely cross the adjacent street. •There are several types of signal timing for pedestrian signals, including concurrent, exclusive, “Leading pedestrian interval” (LPI), and all-red interval. In general, shorter cycle lengths and extended walk intervals provide better service to pedestrians and encourage better signal compliance. For optimal pedestrian service, fixed- time signal operation usually works best. •Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) are used to reduce right turn and permissive left turn vehicle and pedestrian conflicts. The through pedestrian interval is initiated first, in advance of the concurrent through/right/permissive left turn interval. The LPI minimizes vehicle-pedestrian conflicts because it gives pedestrians a 3-10 second head start into the intersection, thereby making them more visible, and reducing crossing exposure time. Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) are recommended with an LPI. •Automated pedestrian phases are preferred to passive or active detection, particularly in areas of high pedestrian activity. 39SLO Design GuidelinesPedestrian Design Toolbox DESIGN FEATURES •The CA MUTCD recommends that traffic signal timing assumes a pedestrian walking speed of 3.5 ft per second. •At crossings where older pedestrians or pedestrians with disabilities are expected, crossing speeds as low as 3 ft per second should be assumed. Special pedestrian phases can be used to provide greater visibility or more crossing time for pedestrians at certain intersections. •Pedestrian pushbuttons may be installed at locations where pedestrians are expected intermittently. Otherwise, pedestrian signals should be automated with traffic signals in areas with high crossing volumes. When used, pushbuttons should be well signed and within reach and operable from a flat surface for pedestrians in wheelchairs and with visual disabilities. They should be conveniently placed in the area where pedestrians wait to cross. Section 4E.09 within the CA MUTCD provides detailed guidance for the placement of push buttons to ensure accessibility. FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS •When push buttons are used, they should be located consistent with ADA Standards so that someone in a wheelchair can reach the button from a level area of the sidewalk without deviating significantly from the natural line of travel into the crosswalk. Push button should be marked (for example, with arrows) so that it is clear which signal is affected. •In areas with very heavy pedestrian traffic, consider an all-pedestrian signal phase to give pedestrians free passage in the intersection when all motor vehicle traffic movements are stopped. An exclusive pedestrian signal phase is also called a “Pedestrian Scramble,” and can be provided to reduce vehicle turning conflicts. MATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE It is important to perform ongoing maintenance of traffic control equipment. Consider semi-annual inspections of controller and signal equipment, intersection hardware, and detectors. Pedestrian Design Toolbox 40SLO Design GuidelinesTYPICAL USE RRFBs are typically activated by pedestrians manually with a push button or can be actuated automatically with passive detection systems. RRFBs shall not be used at crosswalks controlled by YIELD signs, STOP signs, or traffic control signals. RRFBs shall initiate operation based on user actuation and shall cease operation at a predetermined time after the user actuation or, with passive detection, after the user clears the crosswalk. MATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE RRFBs should be regularly maintained to ensure that all lights and detection hardware are functional. Providing secondary installations of RRFBs on median islands improves driver yielding behavior W11-2, W16-7P Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFB) dramatically increase compli- ance over conventional warning beacons Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFB) are a type of active warning beacon used at unsignalized crossings. They are designed to increase motor vehicle yielding compliance on multi-lane or high-volume roadways. Guidance for marked/unsignalized crossings applies. DESIGN FEATURES Guidance for marked/unsignalized crossings applies. •A study of the effectiveness of going from a no-beacon arrangement to a two-beacon RRFB installation increased yielding from 18 percent to 81 percent. A four-beacon arrangement raised compliance to 88%. Additional studies of long- term installations show little to no decrease in yielding behavior over time. •See FHWA Interim Approval 21 (IA-21) for more information on device application standards. 41SLO Design GuidelinesPedestrian Design Toolbox •Parking and other sight obstructions should be prohibited for at least 100 feet in advance of and at least 20 feet beyond the marked crosswalk to provide adequate sight distance. (CA MUTCD 4F) FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS •PHBs may also be actuated by infrared, microwave, or video detectors. •Each crossing, regardless of traffic speed or volume, requires additional review by a registered engineer to identify sight lines, potential impacts on traffic progression, timing with adjacent signals, capacity, and safety. •The installation of PHBs should also include public education and enforcement campaigns to ensure proper use and compliance. MATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE PHBs are subject to the same maintenance needs and requirements as standard traffic signals. Signing and striping need to be maintained to help users understand any unfamiliar traffic control. TYPICAL USE PHBs are only used at marked mid-block crossings or unsignalized intersections. They are typically activated with a pedestrian pushbutton at each end. If a median refuge island is used at the crossing, another pedestrian pushbutton can be located on the island to create a two-stage crossing. DESIGN FEATURES •PHBs must be installed by meeting traffic signal control warrants per the CA MUTCD if roadway speed and volumes are excessive for comfortable pedestrian crossings. •If installed within a signal system, signal engineers should evaluate the need for the PHB to be coordinated with other signals and coordination should be avoided when long cycle lengths are in place to avoid potential users to cross illegally due to long wait times. •PHBs should be designed to avoid side street turning movement conflicts to mitigate or temporarily prohibit during beacon activation through use of blank out signs. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) Hybrid beacons or High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) beacons are used to improve unsignalized intersections or midblock crossings of major streets. It consists of a signal head with two red lenses over a single yellow lens on the major street, and a pedestrian signal head for the crosswalk. The signal is only activated when a pedestrian and/or bicyclist is present, resulting in minimal delay for motor vehicle traffic. Pedestrian Design Toolbox 42SLO Design GuidelinesAll Way Crossing Also known as a “pedestrian scramble” or “barnes dance,” intersections with this treatment allow for pedestrians to cross in any direction with no permitted vehicle conflicts. This treatment simplifies pedestrian crossings and can improve safety. TYPICAL USE All way crossings are typically used where pedestrian volumes are high (typically urban centers) or where a large percentage of crossing pedestrians have to cross two continuous crosswalks. No warrants exist by FHWA, though the City of Los Angeles uses: •Pedestrian volumes meeting or exceeding 30% of vehicle volume, AND •Turning traffic through any crosswalk exceeds 200 vehicle per hour, AND •History of collisions involving turning-vehicles and pedestrians DESIGN FEATURES •Diagonal crosswalks and signage notifying pedestrians they can cross in any direction. •Right turn on red restrictions for vehicles •Ample crossing time to enable all queued pedestrians to enter the intersection and sufficient clearance time to clear it. •All-way crossing phase can be inserted multiple times per cycle. FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS •Pedestrians may still attempt to cross during concurrent vehicular phases. Pedestrians may be more compliant at larger intersections or where traffic volumes are steady •All-way crossings can increase overall delay for both vehicles and pedestrians at an intersection, especially where addition of a dedicated pedestrian crossing phase requires increasing the total signal cycle length. That said, delays may be reduced for some intersection users, including pedestrians wishing to cross diagonally and for motor vehicle drivers at heavy right turn movements that previously conflicted with crossings with high pedestrian volumes. •Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) should be installed for visually impaired pedestrians so that they don’t cross at the wrong time using traffic noise as cues. MATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE All Way Crossings are subject to the same maintenance needs as standard marked crosswalks and traffic signals. 43SLO Design GuidelinesBicycle Design Toolbox Section 4 Bicycle Design Toolbox Bicycle Design Toolbox 44SLO Design GuidelinesBEFORE 11-12’ Travel 11’ Travel AFTER 11’ Travel 11-12’ Travel 6’ Bike 10-12’ Travel 10-12’ Turn 6’ Bike10-12’ Travel TYPICAL USE •Depending on a street’s existing configuration, traffic operations, user needs, and comfort level, various lane reconfigurations may be appropriate. •For instance, a four-lane street (with two travel lanes in each direction) could be modified to provide one travel lane in each direction, a center turn lane, and bike lanes. •Prior to implementing this measure, a traffic analysis should identify potential short-term and long-term impacts, including diversion to other parallel neighborhood streets. Lane configurations should also consider school, city bus, emergency service access, and other truck volumes. Lane Reconfigurations and Road Diets Streets with excess roadway capacity or wider lanes often make excellent candidates for lane reconfigurations, often called “road diets”. The removal of a single travel lane will generally provide sufficient space for bike lanes or wider sidewalks on both sides of a street, corner bulbouts or median refuges to shorten pedestrian crossing distances. Even if the width of the sidewalk does not increase, pedestrians benefit from the buffer that new bike lanes create between the sidewalk and travel lanes. Although the actual roadway crossing distance has not been reduced, the addition of bike lanes reduces the number of vehicle travel lanes pedestrians must cross. Additional benefits of lane reconfiguration may include decreased speed while also improving roadway operations due to elimination of lane weaving. 45SLO Design GuidelinesBicycle Design Toolbox DESIGN FEATURES •Narrower lanes generally encourage slower vehicle speeds, higher comfort for people walking and biking. •Vehicle lane width: Width depends on street context and types or road users. A lane width of 10 feet is generally appropriate on roadways with speeds of 40 mph or less. On roadways with higher speeds and/or frequent freight or transit service, 11-foot wide lanes may be desired. •Number of Lanes: Generally, 3 lanes with a center turn lane can provide a capacity of 20,000 vehicles per day, with some examples carrying over 24,000 vehicles per day. MATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE Road re-configurations are often paired with the road repaving schedule to reduce costs, as paving projects already require removal and re-installation of roadway striping and markings. Ongoing maintenance needs would be the same as other signing and striping installations. Before-and-after road reconfiguration on Laurel Lane in San Luis Obispo. General Flow lanes were narrowed to make way for a bike lane while retaining parking. Bicycle Design Toolbox 46SLO Design GuidelinesShared Lane Markings Shared Lane Marking (SLM) or “Sharrow” stencils are lane positioning stencils that can enhance shared roadways. The CA MUTCD approved pavement marking can serve a number of purposes, such as making motorists aware of the need to share the road with bicyclists, showing bicyclists the direction of travel, and, with proper placement, reminding bicyclists to bike further from parked cars to prevent collisions with drivers opening car doors. TYPICAL USE •Shared Lane Markings are not appropriate on paved shoulders or in bike lanes, and should not be used on roadways that have a posted speed greater than 25 mph. •Shared Lane Markings should be implemented in conjunction with BIKES MAY USE FULL LANE signs. DESIGN FEATURES • Placement in the center of the travel lane is generally preferred. When placed adjacent to parking, markings should be 3-4 feet from the parking lane, outside of the “door zone”. As a rule of thumb, minimum placement is centered 11-12 feet from the curb face with on-street parking and 4-5 feet from the curb with no parking. •Markings should be placed immediately after intersections and spaced at 250-foot intervals thereafter. CA MUTCD R4-11 (optional) CA MUTCD D11-1 (optional) CA MUTCD R117 (optional) A A 47SLO Design GuidelinesBicycle Design Toolbox MATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE •Shared lane markings should be inspected annually and maintained accordingly, especially if located on roadways that feature high vehicle turning movements, or bus, or truck traffic. Sharrows also serve as positional guidance and raise bicycle awareness where there isn’t space to accommodate a full-width bike lane. FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS •Consider modifications to signal timing to induce a bicycle-friendly travel speed for all users. •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. That said, bicyclist safety should be the primary factor when determining placement of shared lane markings. •A green thermoplastic background can be applied to further increase the visibility of the shared lane marking. •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. •A ”BIKES MAY USE FULL LANE” sign (R4-11) should be installed to further educate all roadway users. Bicycle Design Toolbox 48SLO Design GuidelinesBicycle Lanes On-street bike lanes (Class II Bikeways) designate an exclusive space for bicyclists through the use of pavement markings and signs. The bike lane is located directly adjacent to motor vehicle travel lanes and is used in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic. Bike lanes are typically on the right side of the street, between the adjacent travel lane and curb, road edge or parking lane. DESIGN FEATURES •Mark inside line with 6” stripe. (CA MUTCD 9C.04) Where parking lanes exist, mark 4“ parking lane line or “Ts”.1 Include a bicycle lane marking (CA MUTCD Figure 9C-3) at the beginning of blocks and at regular intervals along the route. (CA MUTCD 9C.04) Bike lane widths range from 5-8 feet, depending on location. See page 19 for City Standard bike lane widths. Include the "Bike Lane" (R81(CA)) sign the beginning and along each bicycle lane at all major changes in direction. 1  Studies have shown that marking the parking lane encourages people to park closer to the curb. FHWA. Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System. 2006. TYPICAL USE •Bike lanes may be used on any street with adequate space but are most effective on streets with moderate traffic volumes ≤ 6,000 ADT (≤ 3,000 preferred). •Bike lanes are most appropriate on streets with lower to moderate speeds ≤ 25 mph. •Appropriate for skilled adult riders on most streets. •May be appropriate for children when configured as 6+ ft wide lanes on lower-speed, lower-volume streets with one lane in each direction. A B C A B C C 49SLO Design GuidelinesBicycle Design Toolbox FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS •It may be desirable to reduce the width of general- purpose travel lanes in order to add or widen bicycle lanes. (HDM 301.2 3) •On multi-lane streets, the most appropriate bicycle facility to provide for user comfort may be buffered bicycle lanes or physically separated bicycle lanes. MANHOLE COVERS AND GRATES: •Manhole surfaces should be manufactured with a shallow surface texture in the form of a tight, nonlinear pattern •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. •Manholes, drainage grates, or other obstacles should be set flush with the paved roadway. Roadway surface inconsistencies pose a threat to safe riding conditions for bicyclists. Construction of manholes, access panels or other drainage elements should be constructed with no variation in the surface. MATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE Bike lane striping and markings will require higher maintenance where vehicles frequently traverse over them at intersections, driveways, parking lanes, and along curved or constrained segments of roadway. Bike lanes should also be maintained so that there are no potholes, cracks, uneven surfaces or debris and are within roadway surface tolerances. Bike lane word, symbol, and/or arrow markings (MUTCD Figure 9C- 3) shall be placed outside of the motor vehicle tread path in order to minimize wear from the motor vehicle path. (NACTO 2012) Standard Class II Bike Lane Place Bike Lane Symbols to Reduce Wear Bicycle Design Toolbox 50SLO Design GuidelinesBuffered Bicycle Lanes Buffered bike lanes are conventional bicycle lanes paired with a designated striped buffer space, separating the bicycle lane from the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane and/or parking lane. DESIGN FEATURES Buffer may be included within the bike lane paved width for widths greater than 6.5 feet. Buffers should be at least 2 feet wide. If buffer area is 4 feet or wider, white chevron markings should be used. (CA MUTCD 9C-104) •For clarity at driveways or minor street crossings, consider a dashed line. •There is no standard for whether the buffer is configured on the parking side, the travel side, or a combination of both. The facility designer shall consider which sides of the facility to buffer based on context. TYPICAL USE •Anywhere a conventional bike lane is being considered. •While conventional bike lanes are most appropriate on streets with lower to moderate speeds (≤ 25 mph), buffered bike lanes are appropriate on streets with higher speeds (+25mph) and high volumes or high truck volumes (up to 6,000 ADT). •On streets with extra lanes or lane width. •Appropriate for skilled adult riders on most streets. A A B B 51SLO Design GuidelinesBicycle Design Toolbox FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS •Green pavement may be used within the lane to discourage motorists from entering the buffered lane. •A study of buffered bicycle lanes found that, in order to make the facilities successful, there needs to also be driver education, improved signage and proper pavement markings.1 •On multi-lane streets with high vehicles speeds, the most appropriate bicycle facility to provide for user comfort may be physically separated bike lanes. •NCHRP Report #766 recommends, when space is limited, installing a buffer space between the parking lane and bicycle lane where on-street parking is permitted rather than between the bicycle lane and vehicle travel lane. 2 1 Monsere, C.; McNeil, N.; and Dill, J., “Evaluation of Innovative Bicycle Facilities: SW Broadway Cycle Track and SW Stark/Oak Street Buffered Bike Lanes. Final Report” (2011).Urban Studies and Planning Faculty Publications and Presentations. 2 National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Report #766: Recommended Bicycle Lane Widths for Various Roadway Characteristics Buffered bike lanes transition into conflict markings. The use of additional pavement markings delineates space between vehicles and cyclists. MATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE Bike lane striping and markings will require higher maintenance where vehicles frequently traverse over them at intersections, driveways, parking lanes, and along curved or constrained segments of roadway. Bike lanes should be maintained so that there are no potholes, cracks, uneven surfaces or debris. . Bicycle Design Toolbox 52SLO Design GuidelinesProtected Bike Lanes Protected bike lanes (Class IV Bikeways), also known as separated bikeways or cycle tracks, are on-street bikeway facilities that are separated from vehicle traffic. Physical separation is provided by a barrier between the bikeway and the vehicular travel lane. These barriers can include flexible posts, bollards, parking, planter strips, extruded curbs, or on-street parking. Separated bikeways using these barrier elements typically share the same elevation as adjacent travel lanes, but the bikeway could also be raised above street level, either below or equivalent to sidewalk level. DESIGN FEATURES Pavement markings, symbols and/or arrow markings must be placed at the beginning of the separated bikeway and at intervals along the facility based on engineering judgment to define the bike direction. (CA MUTCD 9C.04) 8-foot width preferred in areas with high bicycle volumes or uphill sections to facilitate safe passing behavior. 3-foot minimum buffer width adjacent to parking lines (2 foot minimum when adjacent to travel lanes), marked with 2 solid white (DIB 89, 2015). See page 19 for City Standard widths. TYPICAL USE •Along streets on which conventional bicycle lanes would cause many bicyclists to feel stress because of factors such as multiple lanes, high bicycle volumes, high motor traffic volumes (6,000-30,000 ADT), higher traffic speeds (25+ mph), high incidence of double parking, higher truck traffic (10% of total ADT) and high parking turnover. •Considerations for mitigation of intersection conflicts. A A B B C C 53SLO Design GuidelinesBicycle Design Toolbox FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS •Protected bike lane buffers and barriers are covered in the CAMUTCD as preferential lane markings (section 3D.01) and channelizing devices (section 3H.01). If the buffer area is 4 feet or wider, white chevron or diagonal markings should be used (section 9C.04). Curbs may be used as a channeling device, see the section on islands (section 3I.01). Grade-separation provides an enhanced level of separation in addition to buffers and other barrier types. •Where possible, physical barriers such as removable curbs should be oriented towards the inside edge of the buffer to provide as much extra width as possible for bicycle use. •A retrofit separated bikeway has a relatively low implementation cost compared to road reconstruction by making use of existing pavement and drainage and using a parking lane as a barrier. •Gutters, drainage outlets and utility covers should be designed and configured as not to impact bicycle travel. •For clarity at major or minor street crossings, consider a dotted line (CA MUTCD Detail 39A - Bike Lane Intersection Line) for the buffer boundary where cars are expected to cross. •Special consideration should be given at transit stops to manage bicycle and pedestrian interactions. Parked cars serve as a barrier between bicyclists and the vehicle lane. Barriers could also include flexible posts, bollards, planters, or other design elements Source: Bike East Bay. •Protected bike lanes should be provided at locations recommended in this Plan and incorporated into new street construction where feasible. •Special consideration should be given to smooth transitions to other types of bikeway facilities or non-bikeway facilities MATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE Bikeway striping and markings will require higher maintenance where vehicles frequently traverse over them at intersections, driveways, parking lanes, and along curved or constrained segments of roadway. Green conflict striping (if used) will also generally require higher maintenance due to vehicle wear. Bikeways should be maintained so that there are no potholes, cracks, uneven surfaces or debris. Access points along the facility should be provided for street sweeper vehicles to enter/exit the protected bike lane. Bicycle Design Toolbox 54SLO Design GuidelinesDESIGN FEATURES 12-foot operating width preferred (10 ft minimum) width for two-way facility. •In constrained locations an 8-foot minimum operating width may be considered (HDM 1003.1(1)). Adjacent to on-street parking a 3-foot minimum width channelized buffer or island shall be provided to accommodate opening doors (NACTO, 2012) (CA MUTCD 3H.01, 3I.01). •Additional signalization and signs may be necessary to manage conflicts. TYPICAL USE •Works best on the left side of one-way streets. •Streets with high motor vehicle volumes and/ or speeds and insufficient width for one-way protected bike lanes on each side of the street. •Streets with high bicycle volumes •Streets with a high incidence of wrong-way bicycle riding. •Streets with few conflicts such as driveways or cross-streets on one side of the street. •Streets that connect to shared use paths. A B Protected Bike Lane (Two-Way) Two-way protected bike lanes (Class IV Bikeways) are bicycle facilities that allow bicycle movement in both directions on one side of the road. Two-way protected bike lanes share some of the same design characteristics as one-way protected bike lanes, but often require additional considerations at driveway and side-street crossings, and intersections with other bikeways. A B 55SLO Design GuidelinesBicycle Design Toolbox A two-way facility can accommodate cyclists in two directions of travel. Two-Way Protected Bikeway FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS •On-street bike lane buffers and barriers are covered in the CA MUTCD as preferential lane markings (section 3D.01) and channelizing devices, including flexible delineators (section 3H.01). Curbs may be used as a channeling device, see the section on islands (section 3I.01). •A two-way protected bike lane on one-way street should be located on the left side. •A two-way protected bike lane may be configured at street level or as a raised separated bikeway with vertical separation from the adjacent travel lane. •Two-way protected bike lanes should ideally be placed along streets with long blocks and few driveways or mid-block access points for motor vehicles. •See Caltrans Design Information Bulletin No. 89 for more details. MATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE Bikeway striping and markings will require higher maintenance where vehicles frequently traverse over them at intersections, driveways, parking lanes, and along curved or constrained segments of roadway. Green conflict striping (if used) will also generally require higher maintenance due to vehicle wear. Protected bike lanes should be maintained so that there are no potholes, cracks, uneven surfaces or debris. Access points along the facility should be provided for street sweeper vehicles to enter/exit the separated bikeway. Bicycle Design Toolbox 56SLO Design GuidelinesDESIGN FEATURES •The preferred width of the advisory bike lane space is 6 ft. See page 19 for City Standard widths. •Consider using contrasting paving materials between the advisory bike lane and center travel lane to differentiate the advisory bike lane from the center two-way travel lane in order to minimize unnecessary encroachment and reduce regular straddling of the advisory bike lane striping. •Preferred two-way center travel lane width is 13.5–16 ft although may function with widths of 10–18 ft. (Small and Rural Multimodal Networks Report, Table 2-2) TYPICAL USE •Most appropriate on streets with low to moderate volumes and moderate speed motor vehicles where there is insufficient width for standard bike lanes. •Roadways in built-up areas with constrained connections, bicycle and pedestrian demand, and limited available paved roadway space. •Advisory bike lane designs work best on road segments without frequent stop or signal- controlled intersections. Advisory Bike Lanes Roads with advisory bike lanes accommodate low to moderate volumes of two-way motor vehicle traffic and provide a prioritized space for bicyclists with little or no widening of the paved roadway surface. An approved Request to Experiment is required for implementation, called “dashed bicycle lanes” in the FHWA experimentation process. 57SLO Design GuidelinesBicycle Design Toolbox DESIGN FEATURES At least 20 ft prior to an intersection, provide between 20 – 40 ft of length to shift the bikeway closer to motor vehicle traffic. Where the separated bikeway uses parked cars within the buffer zone, parking must be prohibited at the start of the transition. •Place a “Turning Vehicles Yield to Bikes” sign (modified MUTCD R10-15) prior to the intersection. •Optional - Provide a narrow buffer with vertical delineators between the travel and lane and bikeway to increase comfort for bicycle riders and slow driver turning speed. TYPICAL USE •Bikeways separated by a visually intensive buffer or on-street parking. •Where it is desirable to create a curb extension at intersections to reduce pedestrian crossing distance. •Where space is not available to bend-out the bikeway prior to the intersection. Bend-In To increase the visibility of bicyclists for turning motorists, a “bend-in” intersection approach laterally shifts the separated bikeway immediately adjacent to the turning lane. A B A B Bicycle Design Toolbox 58SLO Design GuidelinesClear sight lines at intersections and driveways for people on bikes and people driving are an important aspect of this design. The approach to an adjacent crossing intersection in Vancouver, BC. FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS •The design creates an opportunity for a curb extension, to reduce pedestrian crossing distance. This curb extension can also create public space which can be used bike parking corrals, bikeshare stations, parklets, public art exhibits, and/or stormwater features such as bioswales. •Can be paired with intersection crossing markings such as green colored pavement to raise awareness of conflict points. •Designers should consider that large shrubs, trees, or other items placed on the buffer may obstruct motor vehicle driver site-lines towards users of the bicycling facility, causing potential conflicts for right turning motor vehicle traffic. MATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE Bikeway striping and markings will require higher maintenance where vehicles frequently traverse over them at intersections, driveways, parking lanes, and along curved or constrained segments of roadway. Green conflict striping (if used) will also generally require higher maintenance due to vehicle wear. Bikeway should be maintained so that there are no potholes, cracks, uneven surfaces or debris. 59SLO Design GuidelinesBicycle Design Toolbox DESIGN FEATURES •An additional “Bicycle Signal” sign should be installed below the bicycle signal head. •Designs for bicycles at signalized crossings should allow bicyclists to trigger signals via pushbutton, loop detectors, or other passive detection, to navigate the crossing. •On bikeways, signal timing and actuation shall be reviewed and adjusted to consider the needs of bicyclists. (CA MUTCD 9D.02) TYPICAL USE •Two-way protected bikeways where contraflow bicycle movement or increased conflict points warrant protected operation. •Intersections with heavy right-turn volumes conflicting with bicycle crossings. •Where shared-use pathways approach signalized intersections. Separated Bicycle Signal Phase Separated bicycle lane crossings of signalized intersections can be accomplished through the use of a bicycle signal phase which reduces conflicts with motor vehicles by separating bicycle movements from any conflicting motor vehicle movements. Bicycle signals are traditional three lens signal heads with green, yellow and red bicycle stenciled lenses. A B A B Bicycle Design Toolbox 60SLO Design GuidelinesA bicycle signal head at a signalized crossing creates a protected phase for cyclists to safely navigate an intersection. A bicycle detection system triggers a change in the traffic signal when a bicycle is detected. FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS •A bicycle signal should be considered for use only when the volume/collision or volume/geometric warrants have been met or based on engineering judgement. (CA MUTCD 4C.102) •Bicycle scramble phases and bicycle signals are identified in NACTO guidance and used successfully in many cities in the USA. •Right (or left) turns on red should be prohibited in locations where such operation would conflict with a green bicycle signal indication. •Bicyclists moving on a green or yellow signal indication in a bicycle signal shall not be in conflict with any simultaneous motor vehicle movement at the signalized location •Bicyclists typically need more time to travel through an intersection than motor vehicles. Green light times should be determined using the bicycle crossing time for standing bicycles. •Bicycle detection and actuation systems include user-activated buttons mounted on a pole, loop detectors that trigger a change in the traffic signal when a bicycle is detected and video detection cameras, that use digital image processing to detect a change in the image at a location. MATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE Bicycle signal detection equipment should be inspected and maintained regularly, especially if detection relies on manual actuation. Pushbuttons and loop detectors will tend to have higher maintenance needs than other passive detection equipment. 61SLO Design GuidelinesBicycle Design Toolbox Appropriate barriers for reconstruction projects: •Curb separation •Medians •Landscaped Medians •Raised protected bike lane with vertical or mountable curb •Pedestrian Refuge Islands TYPICAL USE Appropriate barriers for retrofit projects: •Parked Cars •Flexible delineators •Bollards •Planters •Parking stops Barrier Protected Median Protected Parking Protected P 3’ Buffer and Spatial Envelope for Barriers Flexible Delineators (10’-40’ spacing) Raised Curb (2’ min. width, 4' if plantings present) Optional Planting Raised Bike Facility Buffered Door Zone (3’ min. and optional Flexible Delineators) Wheel Stops (6’ spacing, 1’ from travel lane) Planter Boxes (consistent spacing) Jersey Barriers/K-Rails (consistent spacing) Protected Bikeway Barriers Protected bikeways may use a variety of vertical elements to physically separate the bikeway from adjacent travel lanes. Barriers may be robust constructed elements such as curbs, or may be more interim in nature, such as flexible delineator posts. Grade Protected Bicycle Design Toolbox 62SLO Design GuidelinesRaised separated bikeways are bicycle facilities that are vertically separated from motor vehicle traffic. DESIGN FEATURES •Maximize effective operating space by placing curbs or delineator posts as far from the through bikeway space as practicable. •Allow for adequate shy distance of 1 to 2 feet minimum from vertical elements to maximize useful space. •When next to parking allow for 3 feet of space in the buffer space to allow for opening doors and passenger unloading. •The presences of landscaping in medians, planters and safety islands increases comfort for users and enhances the streetscape environment. FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS •Separated bikeway buffers and barriers are covered in the CA MUTCD as preferential lane markings (section 3D.01) and channelizing devices (section 3H.01). Curbs may be used as a channeling device, see the section on islands (section 3I.01). •With new roadway construction a raised separated bikeway can be less expensive to construct than a wide or buffered bicycle lane because of shallower trenching and sub-base requirements. •Parking should be prohibited within 30 feet of the intersection to improve visibility. MATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE Separated bikeways protected by concrete islands or other permanent physical separation, can be swept by smaller street sweeper vehicles. Access points along the facility should be provided for street sweeper vehicles to enter/exit the separated bikeway. 63SLO Design GuidelinesBicycle Design Toolbox • If a raised protected bike lane is used, the height of the lane should be maintained through the crossing, requiring automobiles to cross over. •Motor vehicle traffic crossing the bike lane should be constrained or channelized to make turns at sharp angles to reduce travel speed prior to the crossing. •Driveway crossings may be configured as raised crossings to slow turning cars and assert physical priority of travelling bicyclists. •Motor vehicle stop bar on cross-streets and driveways is setback from the intersection to ensure that drivers slow down and scan for pedestrians and bicyclists before turning. TYPICAL USE •Along streets with protected bike lanes where there are intersections and driveways. •Higher frequency driveways or crossings may require additional treatment such as conflict markings and signs. DESIGN FEATURES •Remove parking to allow for the appropriate clear sight distance before driveways or intersections to improve visibility. The desirable no-parking area is at least 30 feet from each side of the crossing. •Use colored pavement markings and/or shared line markings through conflict areas at intersections. Protected Bike Lanes at Driveways and Minor Streets The added separation provided by protected bike lanes creates additional considerations at intersections and driveways when compared to conventional bicycle lanes. Special design guidelines are necessary to preserve sightlines and denote potential conflict areas between modes, especially when motorists turning into or out of driveways may not be expecting bicycle travel opposite to the main flow of traffic. At driveways and crossings of minor streets, bicyclists should not be expected to stop if the major street traffic does not stop. Bicycle Design Toolbox 64SLO Design GuidelinesIntersection crossing markings can be used at high volume driveway and minor street crossings, as illustrated above. FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS •Removing obstructions and providing clear sight distance at crossings increases visibility of bicyclists. •Treatments designed to constrain and slow turning motor vehicle traffic will slow drivers to bicycle- compatible travel speeds prior to crossing the protected bike lane. MATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE Green conflict striping and markings, will require higher maintenance where vehicles frequently traverse over them at driveways and minor intersection. Green conflict striping (if used) will also generally require higher maintenance due to vehicle wear. 65SLO Design GuidelinesBicycle Design Toolbox Protected Bike Lanes at Transit Stops A transit side boarding island is a channelized lane for bicyclists designed to provide a path for bicyclists to pass stopped transit vehicles, and clarify interactions between pedestrians, bicyclists, and passengers, boarding and alighting. This is particularly helpful on corridors with high volumes of transit vehicles and bicyclists, where “leapfrogging” may occur, and on protected bike lane corridors where maintaining physical separation is important to maintain user comfort. •Direct pedestrians to crossing locations to minimize conflicts between modes. •High volume stops should have room for appropriately sized shelters and transit amenities. •Pavement markings and signage should clarify expectations among users. The bikeway could also ramp up to sidewalk level at this crossing to reduce bicycle speeds and enhance ADA access to the stop. •Pavement markings on the bikeway should define the bicycle path of travel to minimize intrusion by pedestrians, except at designated crossings. TYPICAL USE •Routes where bike lanes or protected bike lanes and transit operations overlap. •Provides an in-lane stop for buses, reducing delay at stops. •Median refuge also provides a shorter crossing for pedestrians at intersections DESIGN FEATURES •Pedestrian median refuge island (optional) shortens the crossing distance at intersections. •Pedestrian ramp into crosswalks should be ADA compliant with detectable warning surfaces. A B C D E F A B C D E F Bicycle Design Toolbox 66SLO Design GuidelinesFURTHER CONSIDERATIONS •Transit island should be wide enough to accommodate mobility devices. An 8’x5’ accessible clear space is required at the front door per ADA requirements. •Transit platforms should feature pedestrian scale lighting. •Side boarding island will require detectable warning surfaces along full length of platform if greater than 6” high. A transit side boarding island clarifies user spaces and minimizes conflict between bicyclists. pedestrians, transit passengers, buses, and vehicles. MATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE Similar to median refuge islands, side boarding islands may require frequent maintenance of road debris. If at street grade, the bikeway can be swept by street sweeper vehicles with narrow widths. 67SLO Design GuidelinesBicycle Design Toolbox DESIGN FEATURES •14 foot minimum depth from back of crosswalk to motor vehicle stop bar. (NACTO, 2012) •A “No Turn on Red” (CA MUTCD R10-11) or “No Right Turn on Red” (CA MUTCD R13A) sign shall be installed overhead to prevent vehicles from entering the Bike Box. (Refer to CVC 22101 for the signage) A “Stop Here on Red” (CA MUTCD R10-6) sign should be post mounted at the stop line to reinforce observance of the stop line. •A 50 foot ingress lane should be used to provide access to the box. •Use of green colored pavement is recommended. TYPICAL USE •At potential areas of conflict between bicyclists and turning vehicles, such as a right or left turn locations. •At signalized intersections with high bicycle volumes. •At signalized intersections with high vehicle volumes. •Not to be used on downhill approaches to minimize the right hook threat potential during the extended green signal phase. Bicycle Box A bicycle box is designed to provide bicyclists with a safe and visible space to get in front of queuing traffic during the red signal phase. Motor vehicles must queue behind the white stop line at the rear of the bike box. On a green signal, all bicyclists can quickly clear the intersection. A B C A B C Bicycle Design Toolbox 68SLO Design GuidelinesMATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE Bike boxes are subject to high vehicle wear, especially turning passenger vehicles, buses, and heavy trucks. As a result, bike boxes with green coloring will require more frequent replacement over time. The life of the green coloring will depend on vehicle volumes and turning movements, but thermoplastic is generally a more durable material than paint. A bike box allows for cyclists to wait in front of queuing traffic, providing high visibility and a head start over motor vehicle traffic. FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS •This treatment positions bicycles together and on a green signal, all bicyclists can quickly clear the intersection, minimizing conflict and delay to transit or other traffic. •Pedestrian also benefit from bike boxes, as they experience reduced vehicle encroachment into the crosswalk. •Bike boxes are best used at minor street intersection approaches where users arrive at a red light more often than not. Bike boxes should not be used to accommodate bicyclist turns at intersections that have substantial parallel green time as bicyclists cannot safely occupy the box when arriving on green. 69SLO Design GuidelinesBicycle Design Toolbox DESIGN FEATURES •Typical white bike lane striping (solid or dotted 6” stripe) is used to outline the green colored pavement. •In weaving or turning conflict areas, preferred striping is dashed, to match the bicycle lane line extensions. •The colored surface should be skid resistant and retro-reflective (MUTCD 9C.02.02). •In exclusive use areas, such as bike boxes, color application should be solid green. Colored Pavement Treatment Colored pavement within a bicycle lane may be used to increase the visibility of the bicycle facility, raise awareness of the potential to encounter bicyclists, and reinforce priority of bicyclists in conflict areas. A B A B TYPICAL USE •Within a weaving or conflict area to identify the potential for bicyclist and motorist interactions and assert bicyclist priority. •Across intersections, driveways and Stop or Yield- controlled cross-streets. •At bike boxes and two-stage turn boxes Bicycle Design Toolbox 70SLO Design GuidelinesGreen colored conflict striping indicates the typical path of travel of people on bicycles, and alerts people intending to turn across the bike lane to yield when bicyclists are present. FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS •Green colored pavement shall be used in compliance with FHWA Interim Approval (FHWA IA-14.10). 1 •While other colors have been used (red, blue, yellow), green is the recommended color in the US. •The application of green colored pavement within bicycle lanes is an emerging practice. The guidance recommended here is based on best practices in cities around the county. 1 FHWA. Interim Approval for Optional Use of Green Colored Pavement for Bike Lanes (IA-14). 2011. MATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE As intended, paint, thermoplastic, or other materials are placed in locations that are trafficked by vehicles and are subject to high vehicle wear. Colored pavement treatments will experience higher rates of wear at locations with higher turning vehicles, buses, and heavy trucks. At these locations, green coloring will require more frequent replacement over time. The life of the green coloring will depend on vehicle volumes and turning movements, but thermoplastic and Methyl Methacrylate (MMA) are more durable materials than paint. 71SLO Design GuidelinesMixed Use Design Toolbox Section 5 Mixed Use Design Toolbox Mixed Use Design Toolbox 72SLO Design GuidelinesDESIGN FEATURES 12 ft is the City Standard minimum width (with 2’ ft shoulders) allowed for two-way bicycle and pedestrian use. Lateral Clearance A 2 ft or greater shoulder on both sides of the path should be provided. An additional ft of lateral clearance (total of 3’) is required by the MUTCD for the installation of signage or other furnishings. Overhead Clearance •Clearance to overhead obstructions should be 8 ft minimum, with 10 ft recommended. A A B Shared Use Path Shared-Use Paths (Class I Bikeways) are off-street facilities that can provide a desirable transportation and recreation connection for users of all skill levels who prefer separation from traffic. They often provide low- stress connections to local and regional attractions that may be difficult, or not be possible on the street network. TYPICAL USE •In abandoned rail corridors (commonly referred to as Rails-to-Trails or Rail-Trails. •In active rail corridors, trails can be built adjacent to active railroads (referred to as Rails-with-Trails. •In utility corridors, such as powerline and sewer corridors. •In waterway corridors, such as along canals, drainage ditches, rivers, and creeks. •Along roadways. B 73SLO Design GuidelinesMixed Use Design Toolbox Striping •When striping is required, use a 4-inch dashed yellow centerline stripe with 4-inch solid white edge lines. •Solid centerlines can be provided on tight or blind corners, and on the approaches to roadway crossings. FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS •The provision of a shared use path adjacent to a road is not a substitute for the provision of on-road accommodation such as paved shoulders or bike lanes but may be considered in some locations in addition to on-road bicycle facilities. •To reduce potential conflicts in some situations, it may be better to place one-way side paths on both sides of the street. •The design of the trail should conform to Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles. CPTED is a framework that encourages intuitive visual cues to guide path users, increase the visibility of the corridor and adjacent landmarks and properties, careful design that indicates active use and upkeep, and manages conflicting uses, and regular maintenance to prevent improper or illegal uses. MATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE Shared-use paths may be constructed with concrete or asphalt surfaces. Design of path pavement sections should consider if the path must accommodate infrequent heavy vehicle use, such as maintenance or emergency response vehicles. Shared use paths must be regularly maintained so that they are free of potholes, cracks, root lift, and debris. Signage and lighting should also be regularly maintained to ensure shared use path users feel comfortable, especially where visibility is limited. Adjacent landscaping should be regularly pruned, to allow adequate sightlines, daylight, and pedestrian- scale lighting, and so as not to obstruct the path of travel of trail users. Shared Use Paths offer pedestrians and bicyclists space to be active away from vehicle traffic. Source: Peter Stetson. Mixed Use Design Toolbox 74SLO Design GuidelinesDESIGN FEATURES •Vehicle use should be limited to destinations along the shared street (residences, parking garages, maintenance and emergency access vehicles). •Vehicle speeds should be no more than 15 mph giving special attention to the safety of pedestrians •The entrance to the shared street should be designed so that the shared street is clearly recognizable (through signage, surface material, amenities and landscaping). •Amenities such as benches, cafe seating, and moveable landscaping elements should be included to communicate the prioritization of pedestrians and bicyclists, but should not restrict visibility •A clear width (void of vertical objects) should be provided to ensure emergency vehicle access. Shared Street A shared street, also referred to as a “woonerf”, is a street with no designated space for bicyclists, pedestrians or vehicles, however, pedestrian and bicycle travel are prioritized. Shared streets are designed for the speed of pedestrians and bicyclists, and pavement materials, landscaping and amenities communicate that this is not a standard road. Vehicle volumes should be very low with only local vehicles (no through travel) using the street. TYPICAL USE •Utilized in areas with high pedestrian activity that need to maintain limited access for vehicles and loading / unloading delivery trucks at designated hours. •In commercial areas, a shared street environment should be considered in places where pedestrian activity is high and vehicle volumes are either low or discouraged. •In residential areas, a shared street should be considered in places where sidewalks are limited, pedestrian activity and use of streets as public space is high, and vehicle volumes are low. 75SLO Design GuidelinesMixed Use Design Toolbox ADDITIONAL REFERENCES AND GUIDELINES FHWA, Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility & Reducing Conflicts, “Shared Streets”. 2016. EXAMPLES •Jack London Square, Oakland, CA •Wall Street, Asheville, NC •Bell Street Park, Seattle, WA •Old Firehouse Alley, Fort Collins, CO •Calle Guanajuato, Ashland, OR •Winthrop Street, Cambridge, MA •First Street North, Jacksonville Beach, FL MATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE Pavement materials should be similar to that of a pedestrian pathway or plaza using concrete, colored concrete, paving stones or similar materials. Pavement materials and depths should be designed to accommodate vehicular travel but should clearly signal to all roadway users that pedestrians have priority. In residential areas, shared streets expand public space and create new places for people to play. Shared streets in active commercial areas become destinations themselves. Mixed Use Design Toolbox 76SLO Design GuidelinesDESIGN FEATURES •Signs and pavement markings are the minimum treatments necessary to designate a street as a neighborhood greenway. •Implement volume control treatments based on the context of the neighborhood greenway, using engineering judgment. While motor vehicle volumes should not exceed 3,000 vehicles per day, ideal conditions are 1,500 vehicles per day or less. •Intersection crossings should be designed to enhance comfort and minimize delay for bicyclists of diverse skills and abilities Neighborhood Greenways A Neighborhood Greenway, also referred to as a “bicycle boulevard” in some cities, is a low-speed, low-volume roadway that is designed to enhance comfort and convenience for people bicycling and walking. It provides better conditions for bicycling and walking while improving the neighborhood character and maintaining emergency vehicle access. Neighborhood greenways are intended to serve as a low-stress bikeway network, providing direct, and convenient routes across communities. Key elements of neighborhood greenways are unique signage and pavement markings, traffic calming and diversion features to maintain low vehicle volumes, and convenient major street crossings. TYPICAL USE •Parallel with, and in close proximity to major thoroughfares (1/4 mile or less) on low-volume, low-speed streets. •Follow a desire line for bicycle travel that is ideally long and relatively continuous (2-5 miles). •Avoid alignments with excessive zigzag or circuitous routing. The bikeway should have less than 10% out of direction travel compared to shortest path of primary corridor. •Local streets with traffic volumes of fewer than 3,000 vehicles per day and posted speed limits of 25 miles per hour. Utilize traffic calming to maintain or establish low volumes and discourage vehicle cut through / speeding. 77SLO Design GuidelinesMixed Use Design Toolbox FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS •Neighborhood greenways are established on streets that improve connectivity to key destinations and provide a direct, low-stress route for bicyclists and pedestrians, with low motorized traffic volumes and speeds, designated and designed to give bicycle and pedestrian travel priority. •Neighborhood greenway retrofits to local streets are typically located on streets without existing signalized accommodation at crossings of collector and arterial roadways. Without treatments for bicyclists and pedestrians, these intersections can become major barriers along the neighborhood greenway. •Traffic calming can deter motorists from driving on a street. Anticipate and monitor vehicle volumes on adjacent streets to determine whether traffic calming results in inappropriate volumes. Traffic calming can be implemented on a trial basis. •The City may choose to use modified sharrow markings on neighborhood greenway routes to further convey priority for bicyclists. MATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE Neighborhood greenway require few additional maintenance requirements to local roadways. Signage, signals, and other traffic calming elements should be inspected and maintained according to local standards. An example of a large pavement marking to reinforce that the street is a neighborhood greenway. Chockers, planters, and curb extensions are often used to reinforce that the street is intended for local, slow-speed use instead of cut- through vehicle traffic. A chockers, planters, and curb extensions can also be used to restrict access to streets providing for slow-speed use instead of cut- through vehicle traffic. Mixed Use Design Toolbox 78SLO Design GuidelinesDESIGN FEATURES Setback bicycle crossing of 15-25 feet (19.5 feet preferred) allows for one passenger car to queue while yielding. Smaller setback distance is possible in slow- speed, space constrained conditions. Corner island with a 15-20-foot corner radius slows motor vehicle speeds. Larger radius designs may be possible when paired with a deeper setback or a protected signal phase, or small mountable aprons. Two-stage turning boxes are provided for queuing bicyclists adjacent to corner islands. •Use intersection crossing markings. Protected Intersection A protected intersection, or “Bend Out” crossing, uses a collection of intersection design elements to maximize user comfort within the intersection and promote a high rate of motorists yielding to people bicycling as well as reduce the crossing distance for pedestrians. The design maintains a physical separation within the intersection to define the turning paths of motor vehicles, slow vehicle turning speed, and offer a comfortable place for people bicycling to wait at a red signal. TYPICAL USE •Streets with protected bikeways protected by wide buffer or on-street parking. •Where two protected bikeways intersect and two- stage left-turn movements can be provided for bicycle riders. •Helps reduce conflicts between right-turning motorists and bicycle riders by reducing turning speeds and providing a forward stop bar for bicycles. •Where it is desirable to create a curb extension at intersections to reduce pedestrian crossing distance. A A B B 79SLO Design GuidelinesMixed Use Design Toolbox FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS •Pedestrian crosswalks may need to be further set back from intersections in order to make room for two-stage turning queue boxes. •Wayfinding and directional signage should be provided to help bicycle riders navigate through the intersection. •Colored pavement may be used within the corner refuge area to clarify use by people bicycling and discourage use by people walking or driving. •Intersection approaches with high volumes of right turning vehicles should provide a dedicated right turn only lane paired with a protected signal phase. Protected signal phasing may allow different design dimensions than are described here. MATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE •Green conflict striping (if used) will also generally require higher maintenance due to vehicle wear. •Bikeways should be maintained so that there are no potholes, cracks, uneven surfaces or debris. •Bikeways protected by concrete islands or other permanent physical separation, can be swept by street sweeper vehicles with narrow widths. Mixed Use Design Toolbox 80SLO Design GuidelinesRoundabout Roundabouts are circular intersections designed to eliminate left turns by requiring traffic to exit to the right of the circle. Roundabouts are installed to reduce vehicular speeds; improve safety at intersections through eliminating angle collisions; help traffic flow more efficiently and reduce operational costs when converting from signalized intersections; and help create gateway treatments to signify the entrance of a special district or area. Below are two types of roundabouts each for different roadway types and right-of-way constraints. 81SLO Design GuidelinesMixed Use Design Toolbox TYPICAL USE Providing safe and comfortable bicycle and pedestrian facilities at roundabouts is important to the City of San Luis Obispo meeting its transportation goals. Where bike lanes approach a roundabout, continuing them through the intersection as separated Class IV bike lanes or terminating them into a Class I shared-use path using bicycle ramps are options. DESIGN FEATURES •Roundabouts should be designed for a maximum fastest path vehicle speed of 25mph with low exit speed being of particular importance. •If separated Class IV bike lanes are used, additional right-of-way may be necessary. Bike lanes should meet design guidelines for that facility type. Sufficient space should be provided (at least 6.5 feet) between the edge of the bike lane and the crossing point to provide sufficient space for a bicyclist to leave the through lane and not block it while maneuvering to cross the roundabout. Signage and crossing markings should be provided to make vehicles aware of their obligation to yield. •If a Class I shared use path is used, bicycle ramps should be provided at least 50 feet from the pedestrian crossing and should not inadvertently lead visually impaired pedestrians into the bike lane. FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS •Multi-lane roundabouts present additional challenges for bicycle and pedestrian safety and comfort as all crossings represent dual-threat conflict risks. PROWAG recommends hybrid beacons be used for pedestrian crossings of more than one lane. In general, multi-lane roundabouts should be discouraged at locations with moderate- to-high bicycle and pedestrian activity. •Studies of roundabout yielding have shown higher vehicle speeds and much lower yielding when existing the roundabout. Additional consideration should be provided to mitigate this risk. •Shared lane markings may be used within the circulating lane.