Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/8/2020 Item 20, Horn -- Staff Agenda CorrespondenceCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum Council Agenda Correspondence Date: December 4, 2020 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Matt Horn, Public Works Director Prepared By: Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager VIA: Derek Johnson, City Manager SUBJECT: Item #20 – STUDY SESSION ON DRAFT ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN While Council will not take action on the Active Transportation Plan at the Study Session, this memo is to inform the Council that at the meeting on Thursday, December 3, 2020, the Active Transportation Committee (ATC) recommended the adoption of the Active Transportation Plan and that the Council receive and file the following list of substantive comments in the table below and endeavor to incorporate related edits into the final plan where feasible. The public comment period following the study session is through December 31, 2020. All feedback will be considered for inclusion into the final plan document that will return to the Council for final adoption. Substantive Comments on the Active Transportation Plan Number Page Comment 1 General Expand discussion of COVID-19-19 to include more general disruptions in the world. 2 General Remove mentions that SLO is “unaffordable” and instead rephrase to mention that the plan makes SLO more affordable. 3 General Change “unsheltered persons” to “unhoused” persons 4 General Many of the figures are very dense and cannot be zoomed by the reader to provide more detail (e.g., Figure 12). Suggest these figures be placed in the document at high resolution and with more detail (e.g., street names). 5 General Add language on the increase in the number of use of ebikes to induce new riders and require monitoring for safety consequences 6 General More explanation needed on how the tiers achieve ridership goals. 7 2 Add previous ATC members in acknowledgements section. 8 5-12 City Manager’s introductory references three innovations/focus points for the plan: 1) quick build, 2) LTS, 3) equity/sustainability/economy (page 5). The plan’s objectives of safety/health/sustainability, access/mode shift, collaboration/equity are introduced page 8. On page 10, it says the plan will accomplish mode share, bike/ped network, connectivity to destinations, reduced pollution/GHG, and disadvantaged community input. Item #20 – Study Session on Draft Active Transportation Plan Page 2 On page 10, it lists quality of life improvements to the build environment, public health, housing, and climate action. On page 12, the three foundations of sustainability, equity, and economic resilience are introduced. In the Vision & Goals chapter (starting page 18), the goals are divided into four sections: build it, safety, accessibility, and equity. The plan will regroup goals, pillars, etc. At minimum, the goals as introduced in the beginning of the plan (yellow box on page 8) should correspond to the Vision & Goals chapter. 9 6 Suggest an addition to the Introduction stating that this is a “living” document and as such will be periodically reviewed and updated as we learn from implementation of the plan and as the needs of city residents and visitors evolve – this will be particularly true of the project lists 10 14 Think Chapter 4, on community engagement, should be moved to the end. See how it flows chronologically, but for anyone reading this plan that information is not as useful/relevant as subsequent sections (the important results of outreach are included in the prior chapter about biking and walking today). 11 18 Remove wording “highest priority” “moderate priority” and “lower priority” in the project tier discussion box. 12 20 add the “ATC” in point 1.6. 13 21 7.25 Please consider removing U-style racks as an option as they require bicycles to use kickstands. Unless you are willing to scratch/dent up your bike frame. Pg. 21 Doors leading into buildings with bicycle parking need to be automatically operated (or at the very least not swing shut) to accommodate large bicycles. Also, make sure they are on the bottom floor. 14 23 There is an existing reference to exploring changes to the Municipal Code as they pertain to micromobility (p. 23). This is currently the only reference to the Municipal Code in the plan. Suggest making this a broader exploration to review any conditions in the Municipal Code that pertain to bicycling and walking such as exploring allowing sidewalk bicycle riding. 15 23 "Open streets" should be explained/defined (p. 122? As first mention). 16 26 ACS data should be supplemented with local data on mode share. 17 26 Consider an equity performance measure. 18 46 Like the side-by-side comparison of total collisions and severe/fatal collisions by mode but think the relationship should be highlighted in the text as well. In my mind, the conclusion is that active transportation collisions have a disproportionate share of the injuries. 19 47 The paragraph requires the reader to assume that the discussion is about collisions with cars, but this is not stated and should be. The question is further clouded by the information in the “2017 Collisions by Type” pie chart. The chart shows 86% car, which we might assume means car versus car, but could mean car versus object Item #20 – Study Session on Draft Active Transportation Plan Page 3 (ex. tree, light pole) collisions. By default, does 8% bike collisions mean bike versus bike or object (potentially true, but not stated), or bike versus car collision? The description and the diagrams should be more clearly labeled. Additionally, the reader should be informed as to why (presumably) car versus car collisions are significant in a bike-pedestrian plan. 20 p. 53, column 2, para 1 This entire paragraph is very confusing and needs to be re-written. A large part of the confusion lied in the error of there being no symbols on Figure 10 to indicate significant colors of the roadways. This reader deduces (maybe incorrectly) that on Figure 10, interconnected low-stress corridors are displayed in blue. The paragraph should lead the reader in by stating, "On Figure 10, interconnected low-stress corridors are displayed in blue.” “Line two says, “When the color of a collection of roadways changes or the color is broken….” We don't actually mean the color of the roadway. The statement would be clearer if it said, "when the LTS of a collection of roadways changes or varies, ... 21 p. 53, column 2, para 2 The word “connected” is a jargon term in this document that seems to be a shorthand implied definition for “interconnected low stress travel”. In this sentence the full "implied definition" should be written out, ex. “These crossings provide the majority of the downtown area with more interconnected low stress travel.” Make it clearer what “connected” means and provide more definition and explanation. 22 54 Figure 10's legend should include the low stress and high stress symbols and descriptions. The colors used in the figure are not defined and the scale is too small to highlight pertinent information, so the figure is not informative. 23 p. 55, column 2, para 1 & 3 Figure 11 should be presented before Figure 12, or the labels should be switched. 24 80 Chapter 5 needs more explanation and examples of what protected bike lanes are with photos of different ways to construct them. 25 80 In Chapter 5, more attention is needed to prevent right- and left-turn collisions and provide a clear understanding of the policies and design. They need to be stronger in the Design Guidelines, Appendix C, table on page 19. Add language in chapter 5 on how some of these toolbox options help with these collisions. 26 80 In Chapter 5, consider adding a pathway project connecting Goldenrod Rd to the new business parks along Farmhouse Lane. 27 96 Supplement text on Figure 18, which itemizes the gaps between existing and proposed, along with numbers that place these gaps on the map. The goal would be for community members to zoom in on their specific area of concern and be able to understand the status. Make clearer that the network viewer is available. 28 112 Full page photo has great subject matter and facial expressions but may elicit some cringe-worthy comments due to the camera angle and the shadows created by the skirt of the central rider. Strongly Item #20 – Study Session on Draft Active Transportation Plan Page 4 suggest replacing this photo with another. Some potential photos taken of micro-mode pedicab riders in SLO are provided as separate files in this commentary email. 29 117 Move mention of “fall prevention for seniors program” to earlier in Chapter 6. 30 128 Appendix A will be most useful if it includes details of the specific projects, such as zoomed in Project maps, and description/diagrams of the various Project Components (or links to city website documents with these details). It would be helpful if the “Appendix A” wording was a live link like the Figure XX wordings are. Make public viewer footer more visible in Appendix A. Many of the public comments received to date express concern that the ATP is not addressing the gaps in the existing low stress bike and pedestrian network. And yet closing the gaps was one of the major goals when assigning projects to the Tier system. The conclusion is that the ATP is not clearly relaying the information so that the public can be better assured in the gap-closing priority. Repeating the comment on page 53 (above), the document relies on the wording “connected” quite often with the implication that the reader understands this word to mean ‘interconnected low stress travel”. But that point is not well made, leading to questions and criticisms by multiple reviewers that the ATP does not address gaps in safe travel routes. The ATP needs to provide more detailed (zoomed in) maps and more detailed descriptions of the Tier 1 and 2 bike and pedestrian projects in order to address the common concerns voiced by the reviewing public. 31 132 Double check mileage total on Prado/Dalidio corridor. 32 138-141 The cost range for a bike lane is shown at $100k-$400k/mile (page 138), but the subsequent case study of the Higuera street bike lane says the project cost $15k total. That project is at least half a mile (measured on Google Maps), so that would be only $30k/mile. If we recently implemented a project for less than the low range for a facility, think we should adjust the estimate range. 33 140, fig 29 The dollar cost estimates should be rounded to the nearest $100 or $1,000. Showing costs to the penny presumes more detailed cost analysis than anyone realistically has and makes the table look cluttered. 34 141-142 Really like the suggestion to consider EVERY project as having potential to be a quick-build project. Due to the high cost of implementing the Tier 1 plan, it will be crucial to use quick build techniques as much as possible. See no reason why quick build techniques cannot be used in at least some aspect of all projects. Also like the suggestion of removing the quick build map as it does seem to be limiting. 35 143, fig 30 This figure has no reference in the text. Every figure should have some textural reference. Also, Figure 30 begs the question of, "How Item #20 – Study Session on Draft Active Transportation Plan Page 5 is this figure related to the Tier 1 and 2 project Figures 26 and 27"? The text could address this question, as in, "all quick build projects fall within the Tier1 and 2 categories." (this is example wording - not checked for accuracy) - or some similar discussion. 36 144, para 1 Pre-approved designs are a time- and cost-saving measure that the City should pursue. However, this action is not listed as a stand- alone goal in this document. Pre-approved designs should be included as an Implementation Policy. 37 144 Make a clearer distinction between a pilot project and a quick-build project. 38 149 “Continue progress towards the City's Vision Zero goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and severe injuries, endeavoring towards a 75% reduction by 2030” I believe this should be a 100% reduction by 2030 since Vision Zero calls “to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries” We received a few correspondence regarding Vision 0 and I suggest staff incorporate stronger language into the plan. There is room for improvement and revising these policies to use the newest techniques. The categories in which we capture these statistics have a car centric perspective. We need to update our Vision 0 perspective to the latest standards. 39 149 Remove this mention of the Performance Measures since it already appears in Chapter 2. Design Appendix 40 Throughout Avoid use of paint for colorized bikeways – reduced friction, particularly when wet. Use thermoplastic or MMA instead (which also require less frequent maintenance). 41 5 Add a reference to a few Cal Bike resources. 42 7 Made this comment the last time around and maintain that describing children and teen pedestrians as having “insufficient judgement” is completely backwards. The design should be sufficient for the range of population using it, not the other way around. I get that these are from AASHTO, but I don’t think we’re beholden to repeat that language in our plan. (look for other national guidance on this to reference).