HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/30/2020 Item 2, Havas
Wilbanks, Megan
From:Gary Havas <
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:ATC Communication for November 3, 2020 ATP review
Attachments:201129 BSLOC Notes to ATC meeting Nov 30.pdf
Greetings Chair Roberts and Committee members!
Without preamble (it’s included in the attached document), here is an initial overview review of the Draft ATP primary
document. Time was too short for an adequate review of the appendixes and the Negative Declaration documents. We
look forward to continuing our review in support of these documents and collaborating constructively in the formation
of a robust final document. Please consider continuing your meeting to the December 3 date so that our review may be
more complete and of greater value to the process.
Cheers!
Gary Havas
Board President, Bike SLO County
805-458-0755
gphavas6953@gmail.com
1
Bike SLO County
867 Pacific St #210
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
United States
(805) 547-2055
November 29, 2020
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Committee
Attn: Chair Roberts and Committee Members
℅ City Clerk
990 Palm St,
San Luis Obispo,
CA 93401
Bike SLO County’s initial comments on the 2020 Draft Active Transportation Plan
Greetings Chair Roberts!
Bike SLO County has assembled an ad-hoc review committee composed of staff, board members,
and community volunteers. On behalf of this group, please accept our gratitude for your and the
Committee’s work, the City’s work, and that of Alta Consulting in creating this new and well
composed Draft ATP (Plan). This will positively guide our City in the coming years, seeing to the
needs of people who walk and bike in our city and to those who wish to enjoy the benefits active
transportation brings to the community.
Our ad-hoc committee continues to review the document and its included components, and because
of the current timeline, has chosen to express only the most salient reactions developed so far. It’s
also because of the compressed timeline for approval that we strongly encourage expanding the
review timeline for the benefit of our group and for others we estimate still need time to compose
their thoughts and offer them for the benefit of the robustness of this important document. We feel
that for the community to adequately address the complexity of this document, please consider
extending final inputs past current deadlines.
During our conference Sunday, November 29, the review committee arrived at these observations of
the Plan’s main document:
●The Plan should initially make better, comprehensive correlation between the types of
cyclists, Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) definitions and applications, and the definitions of the
Tiers. Additionally, consider including existing low stress routes and display on Figure 9,
Page 50. Consider that even protected bike lanes transiting active driveways may disqualify
them from LTS1.
●Concerns were expressed that placing the Bob Jones Trail (BJT) on Tier 2 rather than on
Tier 1 jeopardizes the success of the planning and effort so far because it’s label makes it
seem less important. This important project and others will suffer when grant or other
funding is sought for completion if labeled with a Tier 2 moniker.
●Concerns follow that the definitions of the Tiers do not allow for special consideration of
projects like the Bob Jones Trail which are celebrated and anticipated by the community. An
additional example of redefinition would be to include wording in Tier 1 to address smaller
projects important to closing vital infrastructure gaps.
●Vision Zero was discussed and was highlighted as a guideline that needed updating to
address current issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). What followed was
discussion about how current police reporting practices might be modified to use language
that shows how infrastructure shortcomings are contributing to accidental collisions.
Changing reporting can be used as one of the tracking methods the Plan can use to
measure success. Noted was that only “reported” collisions were included, with the suspicion
that many accidents go unreported.
●This prompted comment on the use of the six E’s, which the League of American Bicyclists
has eliminated “Enforcement” as one of the as one of the essential elements of a bicycle
friendly community.
●The review committee agrees that with such a large percentage of right-turn collisions, and a
significant percentage of left turns, more policy should address incident reductions as part of
Vision Zero commitments. The plan needs to provide a clear understanding of the policies
and design. As an example, we feel more is needed to address these incursions in the
Design Guidelines, Appendix C, table on page 19.
●Measurement of the Plan’s success and impacts needs commitment to more frequency of
measurement that is locally made than what is currently offered. Consider expanding
resources to include those available from People For Bikes for analysis and modeling of
planned improvements. Consider permanent counting infrastructure and devices.
●Concerns arose about the validity and usefulness of the survey methods and the reliance on
post card and electronic responses.
●The committee recognizes this is a citywide plan. We offer that when the city infrastructure
connects to regional infrastructure, these connections should be recognized in the Plan.
Coordination in connection needs to be addressed and examined. If gaps are found, they
need attention as regional users enjoy City infrastructure also.
●A discussion developed around making this document read and flow better for the general
public use, perhaps with plainer language at times.
Please note that the other documents; Appendixes A, B, C, and the ISND were only partially
examined by only some of our members, indicating the need for more time, arguing for the inclusion
of the December 3 meeting.
Thank you for considering our work for what it’s intended to do: collaborate with your efforts and
offer the expertise of our advocates on behalf of people who walk and bike in San Luis Obispo, and
all those who benefit from active transportation.
Sincerely,
Gary Havas Rick Ellison
Board President Executive Director