Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/8/2020 Item 20, Horn (2) -- Staff Agenda Correspondence Council Agenda Correspondence City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum Date:December 8, 2020 TO:Mayor and Council FROM: Matt Horn,Public Works Director Prepared By:Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager VIA:DerekJohnson, City Manager DJ SUBJECT:Item #20–STUDY SESSION ON DRAFT ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Transportation staff has received several comments and questions from individual Councilmembers ahead of the December 7, 2020 Study Session on the City’s Draft Active Transportation Plan (Item #20). To help inform the discussion during the upcoming Study Session, staff has prepared the following initial responses to several of these questions: Question #1: Has the plan been vetted by the City’s traffic engineers (i.e. does the Plan’s effectson vehicle circulation conform with the performance standards in the General Plan Circulation Element)? Response #1: The Draft Plan was developed over the past two years by the City’s Transportation Division, with focused consideration for both pedestrian and bicycle considerations, but also potential effects on overall traffic circulation within the city. As a programmatic plan covering citywide active transportation programs, policies and infrastructure, the Plan provides a somewhat high-levelview of each individual proposed project, andis not intended to replace the need for more focused project-level technical analysis, community outreach, and review by appropriate advisory bodies and City Council. While the Plan recommendations have been evaluated for potential“fatal flaws” and do not include any recommendations that would create any obvious inconsistencies with the City’s adopted traffic circulationperformance standards, more focused project-level analysiswill be conducted during the planning and design phase of each individual project, including review for potential negative impacts to vehicular traffic circulation. As with any land use or transportation project, if a proposed project is anticipated to degrade traffic operations below adopted thresholds, this will be documented and the City Council will have the opportunity to consider the benefits and disadvantages of each proposal prior to approving an individual project for implementation. Question #2:Why have recreational bike paths and low-stress connections been postponed for funding? Why not complete low-cost “gap closing” connections? Response #2:This has been a frequent question and staff agrees that this topic should be addressed in more detail in the Plan. The projects recommended in the Plan are organized into three tiers, with Tier 1 projects representing the highest-priority investments that the City should focus immediate efforts on, Tier 2 representing valuable projects that would be pursued so long as they don’t draw resources away from Tier 1 projects, and Tier 3 projects, which are useful, but will not be aggressively pursued by the City at this time. Item #20–Study Session on Draft Active Transportation PlanPage 2 The Tier 1 network was identified with significant direction and oversight by the Active Transportation Committee and includes a network of crosstown routes and crossing improvements that are anticipated to have the greatest potential to increase safety and pedestrian and bicycle mode share. The Tier 1 network is intended to close major gaps in the existing pedestrian/bicycle system and provide a seamless system of low-stress crosstown routes that connect to most of the major neighborhoods and destinations in the city. The Tier 1 network includes neighborhood greenways through low-traffic residential streets, off-street shared-use pathways where right-of- way allows, and physically protected bike lanes (“cycle tracks”) along higher-traffic streets where parallel off-street paths are not feasible or face significant design or constructability constraints. The Tier 1 network is intended to represent projects that could potentially be completed within the next 10 years if funding allows. While the Tier 1 network includes several off-street multi-use paths, such as completing the gap in the Railroad Safety Trail between Tank Farm Road and Orcutt Road, and constructing parallel shared-use paths along Prado Road,Tank Farm Roadand Madonna Road, some reviewers have asked why other segments of the Bob Jones Trail and Railroad Safety Trail within the city limits have not been assigned the highest (Tier 1) priority level. While staff and the Active Transportation Committee agreed that these trails are desirable, particularly as recreational facilities,and these facilities remain in the Plan, they were not included in the Tier 1 network for the following reasons: Bob Jones Trail from Octagon Barn toLos Osos Valley Road (Tier 2 Project) –This segment will most likely be implemented with the potential redevelopment of the properties within the Los Osos Valley Road Creekside Special Focus Area. The Active Transportation Committee recommended this as a Tier 2 project because it was anticipated to have less potential to increase bike/ped mode share compared to other projects. Bob Jones Trail from Prado Road north to Marsh Street (Tier 3 Project) –While desirable, this project was included in the Tier 3 priority list due to significant design and constructability challenges. The path alignment traverses through many private properties, creates challenging design constraints due to riparian and flooding concerns, and ultimately will likely take more than the next decade to plan and implement. Railroad Safety Trail from Jennifer Street Bridge to Pepper Street (Tier 3) –This remaining segment along the Railroad Safety Trail alignment, which includes a dedicated pedestrian/bicycle path along the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, is included in the Tier 3 project list—not because it would not be a desirable project, but due to the significant design and constructability challenges. Union Pacific Railroad has already notified the City that they would not approve the right-of-way acquisitions needed to complete the trail alignment along this segment. In addition, additional right-of-way would be required from private property owners, and several new high-cost bridges would need to be constructed. The most recent segment of the Railroad Trail from Taft to Pepper took approximately eight years to progress from planning to construction and the remaining segments of the trail would be expected to face similar, if not more significant, challenges and delays. In developing this network, the Active Transportation Committeeultimatelymade a conscious decision to prioritize facilities that offersignificant utility as transportation facilitiesand that face fewer constructability challenges over projects that would serve primarily asrecreation facilities Item #20–Study Session on Draft Active Transportation PlanPage 3 with significant design challenges and less potential to increase bicycle and walking mode share in the immediate future. Question #3: As more and more automobiles go electric, reducing greenhouse gas emissions from them, is investing so much funding in bike paths the most effective way to meet our Climate Action goals? Response #3: As documented in the City’s Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery, electrification of the vehicle fleet and advancements in other sectors, such as constructionand building, alone will be not be enough to reach the City’s greenhouse gas reduction goals. While electrification is an important piece of the puzzle, as shown in the chart below from the Climate Action Plan, the City would need to reduce overall vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and increase the share of citywide trips using sustainable transportation modes (i.e. transit, bicycling, walking, carpool) in order to achieve the ambitious climate action goals that the City has adopted. The State of California has acknowledged this as well, re-tooling the CEQA process for evaluating transportation impacts to focus on reducing VMT. Question #4: Have residents approved installation of these bikeways in their neighborhoods? Response #4:The Draft Plan was developed with significant community input over the past two years, including a citywide transportation survey, an online web forum, an interactive GIS comment map, several “pop-up” meetings at local businesses on weekends, a public workshop at the City/County Library, events at the Cal Poly University Union and Downtown Farmer’s Market, and nearly 20 Active Transportation Committee meetings. With that said, more focused neighborhood level community outreach would be conducted as specific projects are funded and enter a more detailed planning and design phase. Question #5: Have bike racks been considered for their public art potential? Response #5:While the City Zoning Regulations and Engineering Standards identify specific bike rack models that we have found to function well for most types of bicycles, the Plan does include a specific policy recommendation to incorporate public art and other placemaking enhancements into active transportation projects, which could certainly include artwork incorporated into bike racks, as long as the type of racks proposed retain their functionality. Item #20–Study Session on Draft Active Transportation PlanPage 4 Question#6: How does this plan give consideration to or equitably benefit seniors, the disabled, and people with young children who need to use cars? Response #6:The most significant evolution that the Active Transportation Plan offersover the existing BicycleTransportation Plan is the addition of policies, programs, physical improvement projects and design standards for pedestrians. This includes a specific focus on providing facilities that are accessible for users of all ages and physical ability levels, including seniors, young children and those with mobility challenges. As discussed on pg. 35 and Figure 28 in the Draft Plan, pedestrian improvements such as sidewalk repairs/installations, crossing safety enhancements, safety lighting, and curb ramps are prioritized at locations with high pedestrian demand and higher concentration of vulnerable users(children, seniors, people with disabilities)—these improvements would be prioritized at locations near transit stops, the downtown core, parks, K-12 schools and senior living facilities (See Figure 28 in the Draft Plan for priority focus areas). There will certainly be many people within in our community that will continue to rely on cars for most transportation purposes. By increasing the viability of other transportation modes like transit, walking and bicycling for community members who are interested in using those modes, which is a primary focus of the Active Transportation Plan, the hope is that additional automobile parking and traffic capacity will be preserved for seniors, the disabled, and other individuals who will continue to rely on cars. Question #7: Can the maps be made higher resolution and “zoom in” friendly? Response #7:Yes, this is a common request and something that staff is working on with our graphic design consultantfor the Final Plan. Question #8: Does the Plan include bicycle licensing and training for bicyclists? Does it address unsafe bicyclist behavior? Response #8:The Draft Plan does include a whole chapter (Chapter 6) on active transportation programs focused on addressing unsafe bicyclist behavior, which includes community education campaigns and safety training workshops, and other activities such as bike light checkpoints, bicycle rodeo for local K-12 schools, and bicycle/skateboard ticket diversion programs. In addition, good infrastructure design has been found to reduce several common types of unsafe bicyclist and pedestrian behaviors—riding on sidewalks, riding the wrong direction on a roadway, crossing outside of crosswalks, etc. are all examples of potentially unsafe behavior that is often a symptom of inadequate infrastructure and connectivity, such as infrequent safe crossing opportunities, lack of well-connected bike lanes, and on-street bike facilities that do notfeel safe to most users. While staff has researched the feasibility of bicycle licensing in the past, requiring a license to operate a bicycle is not recommended in the Draft Plan. Research of other U.S. cities that have implemented bicycle licensing requirements indicates that these programs are often costly, difficult to administer, detract law enforcement resources from other crime-prevention priorities, and ultimately have little effect on increasing safe bicyclist behaviors. For additional reference, here is an interesting article on this topic: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-29/why-bicycle-licensing-usually-doesn-t- work However, the SLO Police Department does offer avoluntary Bicycle Registration Program to help in the location of bicycles if stolen or lost. Bicycles can be registered here: Item #20–Study Session on Draft Active Transportation PlanPage 5 https://www.jotformpro.com/form/43275816048964 Staff is looking forward to further questions and discussion during the Study Session. As a reminder, the public comment period for the Public Draft Active Transportation Plan remains open throughDecember 31, 2020. All feedbackis welcome andwill be considered for inclusion into the final Plan document, which is scheduled to be presented for Council consideration and potential adoption on February 2, 2021.