Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 20 - Study Session on the Draft Active Transportation PlanItem 20 GtT Y O fiCouncil Agenda Report ti Department Name: Cost Center: For Agenda of: Placement: Estimated Time: FROM: Matt Horn, Public Works Director Prepared By: Luke Schwartz, Transportation Manager Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager Public Works 5010 December 8, 2020 Study Session 60 Minutes SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION ON DRAFT ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive a presentation on the Draft Active Transportation Plan (Attachment A); and 2. Provide comments and direction to staff to guide the final Draft Active Transportation Plan to be considered for adoption. REPORT -IN -BRIEF Consistent with the Sustainable Transportation Major City Goal identified in the 2019-21 Financial Plan, the City Transportation Division has prepared the City's first Active Transportation Plan to guide future transportation planning for both bicycling, walking and other forms of human powered transportation. This report provides an overview of proposed policies, projects, programs, and implementation strategies contained in the Draft Plan. The purpose of this study session is to invite comments, questions, and general input on the Draft Plan from the Council and community. Staff is scheduled to return to the City Council for consideration and potential adoption of the Final Active Transportation Plan on February 2, 2021. The Draft Active Transportation Plan document is provided as a Council Reading File (Attachment A) and is available for public review at www.slobikewalk.org, DISCUSSION Background Over the past two years, City staff has been working on preparation of the City's first Active Transportation Plana plan that serves as both a successor to the City's 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan, as well as the City's first comprehensive plan on pedestrian policies, programs and infrastructure recommendations. The consolidation of the two modes (as well as consideration for other human powered devices) into one plan serves to not only support the goals of the 2014 General Plan Circulation Element to increase access and mode share for sustainable transportation modes, but also to increase the City's chances of competing for grants, especially the highly competitive California Active Transportation Program, which in the last cycle provided $440 million in funding and has contributed over $10 million toward bicycle and pedestrian projects in the City of San Luis Obispo to date. Packet Page 467 Item 20 The Draft Active Transportation Plan at a Glance The Active Transportation Plan is centered around four major goals: 1) Build It. The City can develop the physical infrastructure necessary to achieve this Plan's goals with an emphasis on priority actions to build a high -quality bicycle and pedestrian network. 2) Safety. Active transportation can be safe. With an emphasis on addressing safety, education, and partnerships. 3) Accessibility. Active transportation can be easy. With an emphasis on user convenience, accessibility, and connectivity. 4) Equity. Active transportation is for everyone. With an emphasis on accommodating diverse mobility needs and inclusive and collaborative outreach. The structure of the Active Transportation Plan document is organized as follows: Chapter 1: Introduction - Introduces the Plan within the context of wider City policy and explains what an Active Transportation Plan is. Chapter 2: Vision and Goals - Captures the vision and goals of the Plan and identifies performance measures to ensure that the City track progress and make the Plan vision a reality. Chapter 3: Bicycling and Walking in the City Today - An inventory of present-day bicycle and pedestrian conditions. Chapter 4: Community Engagement - Provides a summary of the community outreach activities organized and facilitated by City staff, focusing on barriers to walking and bicycling. Chapter 5: Recommended Bicycle & Pedestrian Projects - Identifies recommended bicycle and pedestrian projects that will enhance the biking and walking experience for San Luis Obispo residents. Chapter 6: Bicycle & Pedestrian Programs - Provides a description of bicycle and pedestrian education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation programs. Chapter 7: Implementation - Details a practical roadmap for implementing the proposals within this plan including project details, cost estimates, and grant funding opportunities. Changes from the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan In addition to adding a pedestrian component, the Active Transportation Plan proposes a new approach to implementing projects compared to the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan. This is in response to public outreach results as well as input from the Active Transportation Committee. Previous bicycle and pedestrian planning efforts have prioritized the implementation of striped bike lanes and off-street shared -use paths such as the Railroad Safety Trail and the Bob Jones City -to -Sea Trail. While all proposed shared -use paths and many other bicycle projects from the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan have been carried over to the Active Transportation Plan, the new Plan has a greater focus on prioritizing projects that provide physical separation and safe crossing opportunities along existing major city streets, which provides more intuitive routes with more direct connections to key destinations that community members already travel to daily. Packet Page 468 Item 20 The Active Transportation Plan also incorporates new best practices and design tools that were not approved for use in California or widely deployed at the time the previous Bicycle Transportation Plan was adopted, such as protected bike lanes and protected intersections. Furthermore, the Active Transportation Plan places more emphasis on investments that have the greatest potential to increase bicycling and walking for transportation purposes, especially projects within the City right-of-way that can be built more quickly, affordably, and minimizes the need for outside agency approvals. Barriers to Bicycling and Walking To achieve the City's Modal Split Objectives, public outreach and surveys were conducted to identify the barriers to bicycling and walking. For bicycling, surveys showed that the perception of risk with using higher -stress facilities is often the most significant barrier to bicycling for most people. 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 individuals who bike, 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 as shown below. IN e Strong + Fearless WiW-ig to nde a t)Io� on any roadway regardon of traffic =hdit onS. Com[WatiVe taking the large and ndng in a vehimdar rri-anrw on rna streets wrtheut dwgrialed GLc,ycle facJI "F 22% Interested, but Concerned Infrequent bicyclists with some intonation towards bicycling more regularly if they felt safer on the roadways. Not very comfortable sharing the road with cars. or riding on major street& even with a bike lane. Prefer separated pathways or low -traffic neighborhood streets. W4_-Illre Enthusiastic + Confident L_ _ _ , . 1 ... _ _ _ _ . _ r1ng the rna&ray mth auto mopve wffc in some nstanaes. but prefer to ride in their own designated bike tans or off-street fa6ily- 21% No Way No How Residents who sunpiy are not interested in bicyding for rsasons of topography. inability. or simply complete and utter Lack of interest. Unlikely to adopt bicycling in any way. For walking, types of pedestrians usually vary according to age and/or physical ability. Public outreach results indicated drivers not paying attention, pedestrians not feeling safe, and time to reach destination as the top concerns about walking today in San Luis Obispo. Survey results as well as feedback from public workshops also indicated a concern about the need for more protected crossings along high traffic roadways and more street lighting, especially near Cal Poly as a particular barrier to walking. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Given the public outreach on barriers to walking and bicycling which detailed concerns about safety, a level of traffic stress analysis was performed on the existing network to provide data on the comfort level of existing facilities. Packet Page 469 Item 20 Provided with this data, staff worked with the Active Transportation Committee to develop a proposed network of bicycle and pedestrian projects that enhance user safety and comfort levels. Building off the proposed network from the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan, routes were identified that could include more separation from vehicular traffic along roadways that are within existing city right-of-way. Several design strategies that were not widely deployed in California (or approved by Caltrans) at the time the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan was adopted, include protected bike lanes ("cycle tracks") and bicycle protected intersections. Caltrans has since authorized the use of these design strategies and many successful installations have been completed throughout California in recent years. While many locations will require further analysis to ascertain whether a protected bike lane is feasible, the Active Transportation Plan proposes protected bike lanes on most arterial routes. The Active Transportation Plan also identifies information on existing sidewalks and areas where there are gaps in the sidewalk network to be completed. xisting and Proposed Bicycle and Shared Use Network Facility Type Existing (miles) Proposed (miles) Shared Use Path 11 31 Bicycle Lane 37 13 Bicycle Route 26 0.4 Neighborhood Greenway 0.5 10 Protected Bicycle Lane 0 25 In addition to proposed bikeways, outreach results indicated that getting across large arterial streets was a barrier for both walking and bicycling and therefore the Active Transportation Plan identifies almost fifty locations citywide for crossing improvements. While each location will require further analysis prior to implementation, the improvements are categorized into locations of major and minor crossings. Possible improvements at major crossing locations could include roundabouts, flashing beacons, or a new tool known as a protected intersection. Possible improvements at minor crossing locations include curb ramps, crosswalk striping, bike boxes, and curb extensions, or other improvements. Additional Pedestrian Amenities In addition to the bicycle and pedestrian network, the Active Transportation Plan identifies projects and programs to enhance the walking experience. In conjunction with the COVID-19 economic response campaign known as Open SLO, the City installed approximately 40 parklets citywide. The Active Transportation Plan builds on this success and provides guidance for a sustained parklet program. Other programs include recommendations to bring an Open Streets event (also known as Ciclovia) to San Luis Obispo, continued support for a citywide bike share system, and recommendations to incorporate public art and placemaking streetscape enhancements as part of future active transportation projects. Packet Page 470 Item 20 Prioritization of Projects Given that the Plan proposes 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, and ultimately — mode share. Therefore, the bicycle and pedestrian network projects were evaluated against a set of criteria and scored. The following criteria were used to prioritize the proposed bicycle and pedestrian projects: • Ridership/Usage Potential • Safety/Collisions • Equity: Improve access for Disadvantaged and Low -Income Communities Members • Community Input • Existing Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) • Proximity to Key Destinations: Schools (K-12 and Cal Poly), Parks and Open Space, Retail and Employment Centers, Downtown, Senior Housing & Supportive Facilities 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. The Plan proposes that the City endeavor to complete the Tier 1 network by 2030 to be consistent with Climate Action Goals to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions in the City. • 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. 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. 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 corridors was selected (see Figure 1 below). These Tier 1 priority corridors 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 improve bicycle and pedestrian circulation, but to a lesser extent than the Tier 1 network. Packet Page 471 Item 20 Figure 1. Tier I Projects (routes and crossing improvements) Additional Pedestrian Specific Improvements In addition to the bikeways, shared -use paths and crossing improvement projects identified as part of the Tier 1-3 networks, the Active Transportation Plan also proposes to 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. To complete the pedestrian network, 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 streetlights 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, the Plan outlines methodology for prioritizing City -initiated installation of these pedestrian improvements based on factors such as collision history, pedestrian activity, and proximity to key destinations such as schools (including Cal Poly), parks, the downtown core, and senior living facilities. Packet Page 472 Item 20 Implementation The Active Transportation 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. Leveraging Funds and 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. Quick -Build 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. Quick -build strategies also provide the flexibility to test and refine designs before committing to more substantial infrastructure investments. An example of a quick -build strategy is the recent installation of bike lanes on Higuera Street in the downtown. By first installing the bike lanes in paint at a cost of around $15,000, the city is able to test the viability of the design before committing to a more permanent installation. Projects Built as a Condition of Development An additional opportunity to fund projects is to ensure 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. Measuring Progress Towards Implementing the Plan Ongoing monitoring and evaluation will be vital in achieving the goals of the Active Transportation Plan. The following matrix summarizes the proposed ways the City will measure progress towards implementing the Active Transportation Plan, with a summary report to be presented every other year to the Active Transportation Committee and made available to community on the City's website. Packet Page 473 Item 20 Performance Measure Goa"n Goal # Goal Measure Current Goal Status (Baseline) The share of citywide commute trips made by Current Mode Share: bicycling to 20% and 12% by walking by 2030 . Bicycle - 8.3% I • Walk - 7.2% • Drive Alone - 67.7% Consistent with the City's Climate Action Plan and Current Mode Share: 2 General Plan Mode Share Objectives, decrease the • Drive Alone - 67.7% share of total citywide trips made by single - occupant auto to 50% or less by 2030 3 Achieve Platinum Level status as Bicycle Friendly Gold Status Community by the League of American Bicyclists Continue progress towards the City's Vision Zero Three -Year Total (2015-2017): goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and severe • 3 fatal collisions 4 injuries, endeavoring towards a 75% reduction by . 43 severe injury 2030. collisions Complete installation of the Active Transportation 6.5% of the ultimate Tier 1 Plan's Tier 1 bicycle and pedestrian network by network currently in place: 2030. • 0% of new low -stress 5 bikeway mileage • 0% of new enhanced pedestrianibicycle crossings Consistent with the General Plan Circulation Baseline to be set in 2021 Element policies, strive to allocate transportation 6 funding across various transportation modes approximately proportional to the General Plan Modal Split Objectives Double the mode share for all bicycle and Baseline to be set in 2021 7 pedestrian trips for public K-12 schools in the city POLICY CONTEXT The recommendations of the Active Transportation Plan support the current Sustainable Transportation Major City Goal identified in the 2019-21 Financial Plan. In addition, the Active Transportation Plan implements many of the goals, objectives policies and programs of both the City's General Plan and Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery. The General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements identify a multitude of goals and policies promoting bicycling and walking, and reducing community dependence on single -occupant automobile trips. Similarly, reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and related greenhouse gas emissions through improving access and use of sustainable transportation modes, such as walking and bicycling, is one of the most important goals identified in the City's Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery. Packet Page 474 Item 20 In turn, one of the key Foundational Actions identified under the Connected Community Pillar of the Climate Action Plan recommends that the City "Complete on of the Active Transportation Plan and begin implementation immediately". A fundamental objective of the Active Transportation Plan is to provide the policies, programs and infrastructure needed to 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. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT In the fall of 2019, City staff branded an outreach strategy known as the "Roll and Stroll" campaign and held a series of both in -person and online community outreach activities for the Active Transportation Plan. The community outreach is summarized in the draft Plan. In -Person Activities In person outreach included five pop-up workshops on weekends in neighborhoods throughout the City, event booths at the SLO Farmers Market and Cal Poly University Union, as well as an open house workshop at the City/County Library. Online Activities Online activities included a project webpage at www.slobikewalk.org, on online interactive mapping tool, and an online Citywide Active Transportation Survey. The online Active Transportation Survey was conducted to better understand existing travel behavior, major barriers to active transportation, and what investments community members would like the City to prioritize in order to increase access to walking and bicycling. Postcards were distributed to a randomly generated list of 4,500 city residents to invite participation in the survey, which resulted in 709 completed surveys, providing a statistically valid sample. Other community members were also offered the opportunity to participate the survey, although the results were not counted as part of the statistically valid survey sample. An Interactive Online Mapping Tool was created to provide participants with an opportunity to mark locations throughout the city to identify locations of desired intersection crossing priorities, bikeway, and pedestrian facility improvements. Packet Page 475 Item 20 The input received as part of these public outreach activities was used to guide development of the projects, policies, and programs included in the Draft Active Transportation Plan. CONCURRENCE Over the past two years, spanning at least 17 meetings, the Active Transportation Committee (ATC) has provided valuable input on the Active Transportation Plan. The ATC will consider a recommendation of the Public Draft Active Transportation Plan on November 30 and December 3 (if needed). Staff will inform the Council of the ATC's recommendations within the staff report for potential Council adoption of the Final Active Transportation Plan on February 2, 2021. The Planning Commission will consider a recommendation of the Draft Active Transportation Plan on Wednesday, December 9, 2020. Staff will inform the Council of the recommendation as part of Council's consideration of the Active Transportation Plan adoption on February 2, 2021. In addition, the Parks and Recreation Commission has provided valuable input on the Draft Plan, which will be incorporated into the Final Plan. The Draft Active Transportation Plan has also been shared with the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Task Force for any recommendations it may wish to provide. The Administrative Draft Active Transportation Plan was provided for internal review by several City departments, including City Administration, Fire and Police Departments, Construction Inspection, Office of Sustainability, and the Community Development Department (planning and development engineering groups). Other community groups have helped shape the Active Transportation Plan including the SLO Chamber of Commerce, Downtown SLO, SLO County Public Health Injury Prevention Committee, SLO County Healthy Eating -Acting Living Coalition, Bike SLO County, Save Our Downtown, SLO U40, Cal Poly ASI, and others. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This study session does not constitute a "Project" under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15378. However, a CEQA Initial Study / Negative Declaration has been prepared for the Plan and is provided for public review concurrent with release of the Public DRAFT Plan (Attachment B). FISCAL IMPACT Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2019-21 Funding Identified: No Packet Page 476 Item 20 Fiscal Analysis: Funding Sources Current FY Cost Annualized On -going Cost Total Project Cost General Fund State Federal Fees Other: Total $0 $0 $0 This study session itself does not have any direct fiscal impact since no formal action will be taken. If adopted, the fiscal impact associated with fully implementing the Active Transportation Plan is significant and will extend over many years, requiring substantial funding commitments over multiple financial plans as well as exploration of grants, development fees and other outside funding sources. Since the Active Transportation Plan is a programmatic document, it provides only a planning level assessment of project costs. Therefore, a high- and low-cost range has been provided. The broad range of potential costs is appropriate given the level of uncertainty in the design at this point in the planning process. Total ist Estimate for Build Priority Level -Out of Active Transportation Cost Estimate Low Cost Estimate (High) Tier 1 Projects $ 16,800,000 $ 195,400,000 Tier 2 Projects $ 2,900,000 $ 26,500,000 Tier 3 Projects $ 30,900,000 $ 181,400,000 Consistent with the Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery, the Active Transportation Plan calls for the City to actively work toward achieving the General Plan mode share targets by 2030 by prioritizing implementation of the Tier 1 bicycle and pedestrian network. Other projects would be completed as opportunities become available or as part of development mitigation. With that said, ultimately each individual project and program expenditure would be considered and prioritized by the City Council as part of the City's two-year financial planning process. A total of $140,000 was previously allocated for the development of the Active Transportation Plan in the FY 2017-19 and FY 2019-21 Financial Plans. STUDY SESSSION FRAMEWORK FOR FEEDBACK TO STAFF At this study session, Council will receive a summary presentation of this report, hear input from the public, and provide questions and feedback to staff to guide development of the Final Plan. In providing feedback to staff, below are a series of questions that Council may want to use to guide the discussion. Packet Page 477 Item 20 Question #1. Does Council believe the policy framework of the Plan provides a suitable roadmap for reaching mode share targets identified in the Circulation Element? If not, are there specific ways the Council would like to see staff amend the policy framework of the proposed Plan? Question #2. Is Council satisfied with the overall organization of the Plan? Are there specific pieces of information that are difficult to find, or not covered in the Plan that Council would like to see included in the Final Plan? Question #3. Does Council have additional input on the proposed bicycle and pedestrian network? Are there any projects not identified in the Plan where the Council believes improvements should be recommended? Question #4. Would Council like to make changes to the proposed strategy for project Tiering (Tier 1-3)? Are there projects that Council believes should be identified with a higher/lower priority? Question #5. Does the Council have concerns with establishing an ambitious target date of 2030 for completion of the Tier 1 network? Question #6. Is Council satisfied with proposed Performance Measures and plan to monitor success? ALTERNATIVES Council could provide feedback in areas other than the example questions listed above. Attachments: a - COUNCIL READING FILE - Public Draft of the Active Transportation Plan b - COUNCIL READING FILE - Initial Study Negative Declaration Packet Page 478 Y 'Ll"N"R5 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Active Transportation Plan Roil and stroll towards a safe, equitable, and sustainable community RZErws 0! 616P0 PUBLIC DRAFT I MOVE MER20M GAT Y OJh CITY OF ►SHII DELIS OBISPO L�rs o� Study Session Recommendation 1. Receive staff report and presentation on the Draft Active Transportation Plan 2. Provide comments and direction to staff to guide development Transportation Plan adoption. of the Final Active to be considered for Why are we creating an Active Transportation Plan? ■ First comprehensive plan on both bicycling and walking transportation SCE Policy 5.2.5> ■ Increase readiness for State grants which have added a focus on Disadvantaged Communities \1 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. ATP at a Glance Foundational Principles: ■ Sustainability & Climate Action ■ Equity ■ Community Resilience & Economic Vitality 4 Major Goals: 1. Build it 2. Safety I Accessibility 4. Equity Structure of the Plan ■ Chapter 1: Introduction ■ Chapter 2: Vision and Goals ■ Chapter 3: Bicycling and Walking in SLO Today ■ Chapter 4: Community Engagement ■ Chapter 5: Recommended Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects ■ Chapter 6: Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs ■ Chapter 7: Implementation ■ Appendices: Detailed Project Information and Design Guidelines Changes from the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan ■ Pedestrians! ■ New design tools and best practices Protected Bike Lanes Protected Intersections New Crossing Devices (RRFBs, HAWKs) ■Focus on intuitive routes with more direct connections to key destinations Climate Action Plan Goals • Goal of carbon neutrality by 2035 • Transportation largest producer of GHG • C.A.P. Pillar #4 (Connected Community) • Achieve GP Mode Split Goals by 2030 cn L, 200,000............................................ CO \J 160,000......... L 0 120,000......... c � . cn P 80,000.......... ......... — w o 40,000.......... ......... cc a 0 29,250 Mode split 341-920 Electric vehicles Other sectors C Of City (T) Resident Type of Transporta i;nn Trips GAT Y O.n CITY 4F S.1II1 LUIS OBISPO LEI so - GENERAL PLAN - - • Lora use - a . _ - — - • circulation - - - Housing - _ - - Ncise safety - _ _ Conservation and and Open Perks and water and MAY 2eI5 CITY OF SAH 111.E OB IS P❑ R i- 5 VOLUME 7 Technical Foundation and Work Program ClimaL-Action Plan for CnrnrnNnity RAuwAry Barriers to Walking? IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ME To WALK IN TOWN MORE OFTEN BECAUSE... Drivers don't watch out for me — 52% of respondents are I don't feel safe walking at night 47°/❑ concerned about It takes too long 4% drivers not paying There are no sidewalks during some parts of my trip 35� attention when people There aren't enough safe crossings 2$°i° are walking Sidewalks are in poor condition 22% Sidewalks are too narrow 177 % I don't feel safe walking during the day 6% I am not in good health to walk S% d% 25% 50% 75% 1 DO% Pedestrian Facility Types PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL & PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON SIDEWALKS & 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. PEDESTRIAN SCRAMBLE HIGH -VISIBILITY CROSSWALK BULB -OUT CURB RAMP REFUGE ISLAND RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON Barriers to Bicycling? don't like to bike in heavy traffic Gaps in the bicycle network make it difficult to travel safely Drivers are speeding or are too aggressive There aren't enough bicycle lanes The streets are too dark at night can't carry all my stuff Bike lanesipaths are poorly maintained (debris. faded striping, potholes) Biking isn't safe for my children There isn't enough secure bike parking IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO BIKE IN TOWN MORE OFTEN BECAUSE... 66% 6296 _ dos 43% ' 40% 3S% 34% ft takes too long - 29% There are no showers or lockers at my destination1?(, I don't have a bike 1$0 I am not in good health to bike 1196 I don't want to wear a helmet 1 %; 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% I I 'O of respondents are concemed about bicycling in heavy vehicular traffic Types of Bicyclists in SLO Afong + Feadam ViUru m We a beyde a, arN mad" mqW&B&S I m� Cafrrfortable L*wq tre lam _rkd nciN -n a vmiarar rria neF on rma u _,hum but mod scme exirmm Nwraus ::Cyckrkg more rr-xJUWe f t UOY tak armor m rhe 3EMOY& Not vermode Awng tr* food rM rsrr., :r ndd-g an m-qw 3DEets. ewm mM a bkm Ana- Praer seer PRrMH S ar h3*4MlfiC s% Enthug. astc + CanM ent OD&*My wdb auurnaWe walk in aorr= rrLarm taa Orow ID AdE n #mr am 1% No Way No Now Pm offas w,re 9rn* am- rut somml; ncyorg for nmmwma of nac Or snphf aWWSYD aM Ul2Br 13M CO rile tramlp in adopt tag n aryr day_ 60% of SLO Residents Would Bike More If More Low -Stress Routes and Crossings Were Available i CITY OF SqII LUIS OBISPO oresign L I,.. 0 .. .�i. �,;� � .:�''� -�T,�,,�'��' � ; •�.• __art' <. • '�'iA��[•. 'T, }--�... jam •.!' •.f _: ����1+. ,. -S L' - _ _ �� -. � �-: ��: �s ' lull 1 yr 03li t 1[U,13 kjDlz5ry s { is r f{J I �4V r K GkT Y 0A CITY OF SqIl LUIS OBISPO L�Ig o4 Bike and Ped Network Figure 17. Proposed Bicycle Network � `t"'� smre Unlwh ey 01 a • v b-"Own �'\ _. _A. 9 0.5 1 Miles o- • - ...........L t San Luis Obispo W4 Proposed Bicycle Network -- - Shared -Use Path Bicycle Route -- - - - Protected Bicycle Lane School ---- Rail - - Bicycle Lana •---• Neighborhood Greenway f.) BicyclelPedestnan Grade- Park or Open Space Trads Separated Crossing 0 alta Over 240 projects of routes and crossing improvements Existing and Proposed Bicycle Shared -Use Path Network Shared Use Path 11 31 Bicycle Lane 37 13 Bicycle Route 26 0.4 Neighborhood 0.5 10 Greenway Protected Bike 0 25 Lane 63 Crossing Improvements 30 Grade Separated Crossings Cost Estimate: $50 million (low) - $406 millio (high) Project Prioritization Priority 90� Tier 1 Highest -priority projects Actively pursue with the greatest potential to funding for these increase bicycling and projects first walking Tier 2 Moderate -priority projects Pursue as that play an important role in opportunities arise the future bike and walk but not at the network but with less expense of delaying potential than Tier 1 projects Tier 1 projects Tier 3 Lower -priority projects that Mostly through grants help complete the bike and and where required walking network but not as a condition of new likely to generate development measurable increases in bike and walk trips. Figure 26. Tier 1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects State UnIWL ser—r Can a 'N mar., taf io 0.5 1 WIN So, TX5 San Luis Obispo 0 Proposed 84cyclelPedestrian School 01ty of Sm WS Qbwo Tier I Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Major Crossing Impiovement •see Ch 5 V MilUMorrol Park or open space prt*a9edb4eway —Anh-olm Neighborhood Greenway — Hig;jera$tWersh$t Railroad Safety Trail Proposed BicyclelPedestrian Rail ar-d CIDSSIFF9 VWS Broad St! Santa Barbra Cordder Los Clsos Valley Rd PradedDilidio Minor Crossing Improvement Proposed RicyclelPedlestran Trails Foothill Blvd — Madonna RdV Tank Farm Rd Cm-minn &ft MUM Tier 1 Network: Highest priority with greatest potential to increase citywide use with potential to be built in a timely manner vacheco ementary School ��-0 F o�c� ion Santa Rosa Park Q The Monday Club 7 O 8 O % poi Rile Mission San Luis Aid trips Obispo de Tolosa Charles A and L D O W N Mary R Maino H I S T IC Open Space D I S T R T von or QHa Ele nta School {d9 t Q SLO Swim Center ake ... ny's � ©le Lagt.School Irish Hills Laguna Park Q a South Hills rk 0—It Rd Natural = Open Space Reserve 0 Q Cost hotesale Dignity Ith La bnrato ri RRM Design Group _ ,TpdOrcwr,l L ( Islay Open! `$ Whiz Kids T 0 WaAace Gr p Engineering n Luis.. San L 's Obispo Co ty c Regional y Airport S 0 i W1:J i Prioritization Factors GAT Y O.n ti CITY OF SMI LUIS OBISPO Safety and collisions Destination Proximation Disadvantaged communities - n----7N V \IS Outreach results Pavement Projects chools Parks and Open Space Cal Poly Downtown Retail and Employment Centers Transit Connections Senior Services ti CITY OF SMI LUIS OBISPO V -tS Figure 27. Tier 2 and 3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects . % Cagiomla 1 P7 Pc6yteehrwa sta4a Univaraly �. h � Yry `0� L kc Nffur Resn p"k A 6 sr* Rrsrrv�or Nai vra+ � se Q 0.5 A/ SL J 0 San Luis Obispo City orsmuuso Tier 2 and 3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects -SEV C0FVF Tier 2 Projects Major Proposed BicydeJPedestrian Proposed 8fcydelPedesban S&,00l �--� Rail andcrossmgtypes Major Crossing Improvement Grade -Separated Crossing . Park or Open Space Trails Costs for Build -Out of Active Transportation Plan Projects PRIORITY LEVEL T e � 1 Projects Tier 2 Projects C OAST ESTIMATE (LOW) COST E TI MATE C H I C Hj $1 U41 , r 61 .00 $1 95.377 . 730.5� $3J 19,215.50 7.6 ,904,90 Tier 3 Projects VU88,243.50 181. 1,170,90 0 GkT Y 0A '° CITY 4F SqIl LUIS OBISPO LEIS 0 0 x Additional Pedestrian Specific Improvements Figure 2a. Priaritzed Pedestrian Ernpravemnents 1 ` �5 i � ya 9g s E ,�0 o:s 711�e San Luis Obispo Opportunity Areas Prioritized for Pedestrian Improvements New Pedestrian Programs and Goals$, ■ Continue ongoing safety and education campaigns ■ Parklets: Provides design guidance on parklets and recommends establishing a formal parklet program ■ Safe Routes to School: Proposes that the City will create a SRTS Plan for every K-12 School ■ Supporting Open Street Events Such as Ciclovia ■ Neighborhood Traffic Calming, public art, and placemaking opportunities. Implementation ■ Plan will be built over a number of years depending on funding and staff resources through the 2-year budget process ■ Leveraging Funds: Incorporate improvements as part of larger roadway resurfacing projects. ■ Quick -Build: semi -permanent projects that can be designed and implemented quickly, often with lower -cost materials ■ Projects Built as a Condition of Development: Transportation Impact Fees which collect fair share funding from development ROLL& STROLL �NPIAN A710 CITYOFSLOACr�JA NSPORT �V C Y O� CITY 4F SqIl LUIS OBISPO L�Ig 04 r Rider ROLL& STROLL NPIAN A710 CITYOFSLOACr��JA NSPORT Sam Fig r Rider A;_ * kk �' AR d 411111 r �T,STRO r � - 40 '4. .IW 1\v r Or MARE m6 FLAGS TO WALK AND HIRE? � NCW WayLD YGV HR AND HIKE? PI-AfE YD mm Af' MaW WaULp Y6V MAKE :C p PLACE 7'a W BE7TE4 pLK AND HIKE] r s 14 r-- a i t MpyZ 5� A aETY<R i HPW urowy ��� a00 e«L ro �-x <w slrt? lop tomC ' Nbmp YOU Mp,*" SLG A 8E77ER p AGE TO WALK AND HIKE? w, ` / � k /[ACE TP u�l SZO n s<r/ES'�ol mal a . � 01. /J6W WOVLD YOV MAKE SLO AT<IfF< ` PLACE TO WALK A<D 8lKE? �� r r� ■ Online Activities Household Transportation Survey 2019 Bicycling 4- Which of the fotlowing best describes your bicycling behavior? itE.:. I'll ride in any conditions I feel safe riding on most I'll ride in protected streets facilities Not interested / Not comfortable 1� Ob' Vp L�quna talaPti• ! i ii �c.iy� �rar Active Transportation Committee Input Over 19 Meetings ATC M eetin gs can the Active Trans p ortatiton Plan Date Subject Outcome Feb 2, 2018 flan Kickoff' Discussion and Input March 15, 2018 Early Plan Development Discussion and Input July 19, 2018 Early Flan Development Discussion and Input e t 20, 2018 Early Plan Development Discussion and In Lit Nov 1 2018 Plan Update Discussion and Input Nov 29, 2018 Plan Updato Discussion and Input Jan 17, 2019 Plan Update Discussion and Input Feb 26, 2019 Bike fPed Network Discussion and Input March 21, 2019 Bike fPed Network Discussion and Input April 17, 2019 Bike fPed Network Discussion and Input May 16, 2019 Plan Update Discussion and Input June 27, 2019 Bike fPed Network Discussion and Input July 18, 2019 Bike fPed Network Discussion and Input Aug21 2019 Bike fPed Network. Discussion and Input e t 19, 2419 ATP Policies Discussion and Input e t 5, 2019 Crossing Improvements Discussion and Input [act 24, 2019 Open House Work5hop Workshop Input Nov 21, 2019 ATP Outreach results Discussion and Input Dec 10, 2019 Project Prioritization Methodology Discussion and Input Jan 1, 2020 ATP Policies Discussion and Input March 10, 2020 Project Prioritization Tier List Action Item May 4, 2020 Vision and goals Action Item June 11, 2020 Design Guidance Action Item Aug 20, 2020 Implementation and Comprehensive List of Policies in the ATP Action Item In person meetings or other input ■ Cal Poly ASI and Administration ■ Save Our Downtown ■ SLO RISE ■ Downtown Association ■ SLO U40 ■ HEAL-SLO ■ SLO Chamber of Commerce ■ And many others i Response to Questions Why Does the Plan Prioritize Protected Bike Lanes Over Shared -Use Paths, Low -Stress Neighborhood Streets and Recreational Facilities ? State University � tt •, �taw � f'g F r � Sud.n.. vu 01 J Y 0 N 0.5 1 Tier 1 Bikeway Network: Shared -Use Path Neighborhood Greenway Protected Bike Lane State University What About the RRST & Bob Jones Trails? Shared -Use Path (Future) Shared -Use Path (Existina or Alreadv Tier 1 ] State University it t Why Not In Tier 1 Network? • Right -of -Way (numerous land owners, including UPRR) • Creek Impacts • Lack of connectivity to destinations • Personal security concerns • Constructability challenges — challenging to build in a timely manner Response to Questions • Why does the Plan not include more emphasis on active transportation within the Downtown Core? • Considering the current economic environment, why is the City prioritizing millions in spending on bike and pedestrian projects? • Will individual neighborhoods be able to provide input on specific projects identified in the ATP? • Have the effects of the ATP on auto traffic circulation been considered? • How does the Plan accommodate the needs of seniors, young children, and those with disabilities —many of whom will likely have to rely on automobiles for transportation? Concurrence Active Transportation Committee (Dec 3, 2020): Recommended adoption of the Active Transportation Plan and that staff consider comments provided by the ATC for inclusion into the plan where feasible. ATC Comment Themes 1. Improve clarity of maps and ability to "zoom in" 2. Additional explanation of plan concepts including the project tiers 3. Refinements to how causes of collisions are described as well as language describing Vision Zero 4. Comments on ways to improve the organization and flow of the plan 5. Requests to add or change certain photos to illustrate key concepts Ihl Public Draft www.slobikewalk.org Public Review Period: 11/19/20 — 12/31/20 Email Comments to afukushima@slocity.org W'"c WRLF �J1"N 0 �R SC�tooL SH Public Review Draft And Neg Dec ATC Until Dec Dec 3 31 st ti CITY 4F SqR LUIS OBISPO Council Study Session I_!-• :3 Planning Commission M-MV-1 -tS Council Adoption Feb 2 Recommendation 1. Receive a presentation on the Draft Active Transportation Plan 2. Provide comments and direction to staff to guide the final draft Active Transportation Plan to be considered for adoption. Questions for Discussion ■ Question #1: Does the policy framework of the Plan provide a suitable roadmap for reaching mode share targets identified in the Circulation Element? ■ Question #2: Is Council satisfied with the overall organization of the Plan? ■ Question #3: Does Council have additional input on the proposed bicycle and pedestrian network? Questions for Discussion ■ Question #4: Would Council like to make changes to proposed project prioritization, namely projects in the Tiers 1-3? ■ Question #5: Does Council have concerns with establishing an ambitious target date of 2030 for completing the Tier 1 network? ■ Question #6: Is Council satisfied with the proposed Performance Measures and plan to monitor success?