HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-11222 adopting the Active Transportation Plan and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (EID 0496-2020)R 11222
RESOLUTION NO. 11222 (2021 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
PLAN AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT (EID 0496-2020)
WHEREAS, the Climate Action Plan includes a goal of reaching adopted mode share
targets related to carbon neutrality by 2030 and the Circulation Element of the General Plan
establishes a goal of reducing motor vehicle use and reaching 20% of all citywide trips by bicycle
and 18% by walking, carpooling and other forms of transportation; and
WHEREAS, the Circulation Element of the General Plan establishes a goal to consolidate
the Bicycle Transportation Plan with a citywide Pedestrian Plan (an “Active Transportation Plan”);
and
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impact of the Active Transportation Plan has
been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant
to an initial environmental study (EID 0496-2020) and an Initial Study/Negative Declaration of
environmental impact has been prepared and circulated for public review and comment period
from November 19, 2020 to December 31, 2020; and
WHEREAS, an outreach strategy known as the “Roll and Stroll” Campaign was conducted
consisting of both online and in-person activities, including six pop-up workshops in the
community, an open house workshop, an online interactive mapping tool, a project webpage, a
citywide survey, as well as a statistically valid survey distributed to a randomly generated list of
4,500 city residents to invite participation in the survey; and
WHEREAS, the Active Transportation Committee provided input on the Active
Transportation Plan in over 19 meetings over the course of two years and at the hearing of
December 3, 2020 conducted via a virtual, online, meeting platform reviewed the Active
Transportation Plan and unanimously recommended approval of the Active Transportation Plan;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at the hearing on December 9, 2020, conducted
via a virtual, online, meeting platform, reviewed the Active Transportation Plan and unanimously
recommended approval of the Plan and adoption of the Initial Study / Negative Declaration for the
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council at the study session on December 8, 2020 via a virtual,
online, meeting platform, reviewed the Active Transportation Plan and provided input in
anticipation of the final draft of the Plan; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
Resolution No. 11222 (2021 Series) Page 2
R 11222
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
to adopt the Initial Study / Negative Declaration, approve the Active Transportation Plan, and
authorize the Public Works Director to update the Active Transportation Plan with administrative,
non-policy amendments as necessary and appropriate. This resolution is based on the following
California Environmental Quality Act findings, with associated findings:
SECTION 1. Environmental Review. The City Council finds and determines that the
Initial Study / Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of
the project as defined by CEQA, finds that approval of the Active Transportation Plan would not
result in any significant environmental impacts, and hereby approves the Negative Declaration and
directs staff to prepare and file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk within five
working days of the approval of the Active Transportation Plan.
SECTION 2. Findings. This Council, after consideration of the Active Transportation
Plan, as recommended by the Active Transportation Committee and Planning Commission, staff
recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings:
1. The proposed Active Transportation Plan will promote the public health, safety, and
welfare of persons working, living, or travelling in the City by providing a network of
convenient pedestrian and bicycle facilities and programs.
2. The proposed Active Transportation Plan is consistent with the General Plan (including
Circulation Element Policies 1.7.1, 1.7.2, 1.75, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2 among others) and will
further General Plan goals to reduce single-occupancy motor vehicle use by
implementing planned projects or programs that both support and promote sustainable
alternatives to motorized transport such as walking, using transit and bicycles.
3. The proposed Active Transportation Plan will provide new and improved bicycle and
pedestrian facilities which furthers existing General Plan policies and objectives to
complete a network of safe and convenient bikeways and walkways that connect
neighborhoods with major activity centers and routes outside of the city.
Resolution No. 11222 (2021 Series) Page 3
R 11222
SECTION 3. Approval. The Active Transportation Plan is hereby approved by the City
Council and Resolution Number 10471 (2013 Series) approving the 2013 Bicycle Transportation
Plan is hereby repealed and superseded.
Upon motion of Council Member Christianson, seconded by Council Member Pease, and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Member Christianson, Marx, Pease, Vice Mayor Stewart, and
Mayor Harmon
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 2nd day of February 2021.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, on ____________________________.
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
Active Transportation Plan
Roll and stroll towards a safe,
equitable, and sustainable community
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ADOPTED FEBRUARY 2, 2021
Acknowledgments
CITY COUNCIL
Heidi Harmon, Mayor
Erica Stewart, Vice Mayor
Carlyn Christianson
Andy Pease
Jan Marx
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
Jenna Espinosa (past member)
Ken Kienow (past member)
Layla Lopez (past member)
Paul Orton (past member)
Howard Weistenthal
(past member)
CITY MANAGEMENT
Derek Johnson, City Manager
Shelly Stanwyck, Community
Services Director
Greg Hermann, Deputy
City Manager
CITY STAFF
Mary Andrews
Gamaliel Anguiano
Tyler Cory
Matt Crisp
Sahvanna Ettestadt
Adam Fukushima
Matt Horn
Shannon Pressler
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
3
Table of Contents
01
Introduction
p. 8
02
Vision & Goals
p. 20
03
Bicycling & Walking
in San Luis Obispo Today
p. 32
04
Community Engagement
p. 60
05
Recommended Bicycle
& Pedestrian Projects
p. 80
06
Bicycle & Pedestrian Programs
p. 116
07
Implementation
p. 130
Glossary of Terms
p. 164
Appendices
p.168
Appendix A: Project List
Appendix B: Project Costs
Appendix C: Design Guidelines
Appendix D: Plan Adoption Resolution
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
4 Administrative Amendment June 3, 2021
Table of Figures
Figure 1. Climate Action Plan Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions, by
Sector (MTCO2e in 2035) ...................................................................13
Figure 2. Land Use Designations .......................................................35
Figure 3. Existing Bicycle Facilities .....................................................39
Figure 4. Existing Bicycle Parking ......................................................41
Figure 5. Bicycle Involved Collisions 2015–2017 ................................47
Figure 6. Pedestrian Involved Collisions 2013–2018 ...........................48
Figure 7. Most Common Bike Crash Types .......................................49
Figure 8. Most Common Pedestrian Crash Types .............................49
Figure 9. Level of Traffic Stress ..........................................................51
Figure 10. Connectivity ......................................................................53
Figure 11. Regional Definition of Disadvantaged Communities ...........56
Figure 12. AB 1550 Designated Disadvantaged Community Areas ....57
Figure 13. Median Income .................................................................58
Figure 14. Vehicle Access ..................................................................59
Figure 15. Downtown Street Types by Modal Priority ........................87
Figure 16. All Ages and Abilities Bikeway Selection Matrix ..................89
Figure 17. Complete Bicycle Network ................................................98
Figure 18. Proposed Bicycle Network ................................................99
Figure 19. Existing & Proposed Bicycle Facilities ..............................100
Figure 20. Existing & Proposed Bicycle Facilities - North ..................101
Figure 21. Existing & Proposed Bicycle Facilities - Central................102
Figure 22. Existing & Proposed Bicycle Facilities - Southeast ...........103
Figure 23. Existing & Proposed Bicycle Facilities - Southwest ..........104
Figure 24. Proposed Crossing Improvements ..................................108
Figure 25. Existing & Missing Sidewalks ...........................................110
Figure 26. Proposed Bikeway LTS ...................................................112
Figure 27. Tier 1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Corridors ...............134
Figure 28. Tier 1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects - North ................135
Figure 29. Tier 1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects - Central ..............136
Figure 30. Tier 1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects - Southeast .........137
Figure 31. Tier 1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects - Southwest .........138
Figure 32. Tier 2 and 3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects ...................142
Figure 33. Prioritized Pedestrian Improvements ...............................146
Figure 34. Total Plan Build-Out Cost Estimate Table .........................150
Figure 35. Projects with High Quick-Build Potential ..........................153
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
5
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 policies, 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
6
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
7
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 using 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.
The Active Transportation Plan is a living
document and will be reviewed and
updated periodically as needed.
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 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.
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
INTRODUCTION
10
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 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 Bicycle Transportation Plan. 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 Active Transportation Plan, the City has created its first comprehensive document
on both bicycle and pedestrian transportation circulation. The Active Transportation
Plan expands the City’s programs, policies and design toolbox to incorporate current
industry best practices to make active transportation more enjoyable, connect better to
community destinations and improve access to a diverse range of community members.
To reflect a greater commitment to the needs of all non-motorized transportation
users, the City’s Bicycle Transportation Committee was restructured in 2018 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. The Active Transportation
Committee has served a critical role in guiding development of this Plan.
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
IntroductIon
11
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 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
costs.
Climate Action: Reducing vehicle miles traveled
through increasing active transportation options and
reducing GHG emissions.
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
INTRODUCTION
12
Policy Context
The Active Transportation Plan implements
the 2014 Land Use and Circulation Elements
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:
Motor Vehicles: 50%
Transit: 12%
Bicycles: 20%
Walking, 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
13
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
14
Foundation 3: Community Resilience
and Economic Vitality
The community and the economy are experiencing substantial impacts
from a wide range of disruptions from COVID-19 to social conflicts as
well as rapid changes in our 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.
See the graphic on the next page for personal
and societal costs of commute choices
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
IntroductIon
15
Graphic by Discourse Media, data by George Poulos. Specific costs provided for reference only, actual costs may vary by location and date.
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
INTRODUCTION
16
This page intentionally left blank.
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
IntroductIon
17
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 Plan 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 Plan.
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
18
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 Plan.
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
19
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, Convenience, 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:
TIER 1
Projects with the greatest potential to increase
bicycle and pedestrian mode share.
TIER 2
Projects that play an important role in the future bicycle
and pedestrian network, but with less potential than Tier
1 improvements to increase bicycling and walking.
TIER 3
Projects that help complete the bicycling and walking
network, 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
22
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, convenience, 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 C), 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
1.3a - 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.
1.3b - 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 (see
page 152 for a broader discussion of Quick-Builds). 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
23
1.6 Decrease Reliance on Single-Occupant Autos. With input from
the City Council, Active Transportation Committee 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. Regularly maintain pedestrian and bicycling facilities
so people feel safe and comfortable. Procure 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
24
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 the 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.
2.4a - 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.
2.4b - 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
25
Goal 3 – Convenience
Active transportation is easy.
The City’s Active Transportation Plan prioritizes structural changes
that make active transportation more attractive. Outreach survey
results indicated that for San Luis Obispo to replace more automobile
trips with active transportation trips, active transportation needs to
be as convenient or more convenient than driving an automobile.
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.
3.2a - 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.
3.2b - 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.
3.3a - 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.
3.3b - 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.
3.3c - 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 (or events that
temporarily activate public streets for non-motor vehicle use)
and pilot active transportation projects, such as the creation
of temporary pedestrianized, car-free streets to expand
public space for visitors and community members.
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
VISION & GOALS
26
3.5 Land Use and Zoning Code.
3.5a - 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.
3.5b - 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 businesses 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. Explore ways to partner with third-party apps or
web-based maps 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.
3.8 Electric Assist Bicycles. Electric assist, or e-bikes, make bicycling
more accessible to more people by making hills easier to climb and longer
distances easier to reach. The City will explore ways to expand access to
e-bikes, particularly for disadvantaged community members, which could
include exploring grants or subsidized discounts with local bike shops.
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
Vision & Goals
27
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.
4.1a - Ensure that bikeway designs do not create additional barriers
for people with varying mobility demands, including individuals
using bicycles with trailers, electric bikes, recumbent bicycles or
other devices adapted for those with diverse mobility needs.
4.1b - Explore bikeshare opportunities such as trikes, cargo bikes,
and recumbent bicycles for people with physical mobility challenges.
4.1c - Explore opportunities to accommodate use of
electric bikes including bikeway design to increasing
the affordability of electric bike ownership.
4.2 ADA Amenities.
4.2a - 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.
4.2b - 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.
4.3a - 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.
4.3b - Follow inclusive public engagement practices for project-
level planning efforts of active transportation projects.
4.3c - 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
28
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. Endeavor to design and
implement active transportation projects that are compatible with
existing neighborhoods, encouraging neighborhood residents to
participate with project planning and identifying specific design
elements that best fit the unique character of their neighborhoods
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.
4.7 Demographic Representation. Strive to achieve the same
demographic representation of those using active transportation
modes as those using single occupancy motor vehicles.
Other Important Equity Actions
4.8 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.
4.9 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.
4.10 Addressing the Cost Barrier to Bikeshare and Transit.
Evaluate the feasibility of low- or no-cost bikeshare and transit
memberships to economically disadvantaged individuals.
4.11 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.
4.12 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.
4.13 Visual Traffic Signals. Where allowed and appropriate, use traffic
signs that communicate the intended message visually without text,
which helps with conveying messages to non-english speakers.
4.14 Update Bicycle and Pedestrian Education. Update bicycle and
pedestrian education efforts to reflect more diversity, equity, and inclusion.
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
Vision & Goals
29
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:
Bicycle - 8.3%
Walk - 7.2%
Drive Alone - 67.7%
Summarize biennially (every other year) 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:
Drive Alone - 67.7%
Summarize biennially (every other year) 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 trend of zero fatal collisions by 2030.
Three-Year Total (2015-2017):
3 fatal collisions
43 severe injury collisions
City of San Luis Obispo Annual Traffic Safety Report
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
VISION & GOALS
30
PERFORMANCE MEASURE BASELINE TRACKING MECHANISM
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:
0% of new low-stress bikeway mileage
0% 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)
8 Strive to achieve the same demographic representation
of those using active transportation modes as those
using single occupancy motor vehicles.
Baseline to be set in 2021 U.S Census Bureau, American Communities
Survey, Citywide Household Transportation
Survey and other sources
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
Vision & Goals
31
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
34
Re se r v i o r Ca ny o n
Na t u r a l Re se r v e
I ri sh H i ll s
Na t ur al
Re s e r ve
L ag un a L a ke
Na tu r a l
Re se r ve
Califo rnia
Polytechnic
Sta te Univ ersity
W Foot
hill
R
d
Southwo
o
d
D
r
Flo
r
a
S
t
Slack StFerrini RdOlive StGr
o
v
e
S
t
Murray St
A l r i t a S t
Guerra
Dr
Ironbark StDa
l
i
d
i
o
C
a
rm
e
l
S
t
B
e
a
c
h
S
t
Bishop StMcCollum St
Sydney StS eq u oi a D r
Ta n g l e w o o d D r
Fuller
R
d
Fredericks St
Lincoln StDiablo
Dr
R
o
c
k
v
i
ew
P
l
Suburban Rd Ga
r
d
e
n
S
t
Tiburon W ayLaurel LnBridge Creek RdBu
l
lo
c
k
L
nW
C
r
e
e
k
R
d
Vachell LnPi
n
n
a
c
l
e
s
R
d
Wo o d b ri d g e St
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
S
t
Palm St
Mou
n
t
B
i
s
h
o
p
R
d
Loomis
S
t
S
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
D
r
Righetti RdHigh St Islay StBr
o
a
d
S
t
Pacific St
M ill StSan Luis DrG
ra
n
d A
v
e
Poin
se
t
t
i
a
S
t
W F o o th ill B lv dBlue
Gran
ite
Ln
Monterey St
M arsh StPismo St
Oceanaire DrS Higuera StMadon
n
a
R
d Cal
i
forn
ia
B
lvd Mo
u
n
t
L
ow
e
R
dMainini Ranch RdE Foothill Blvd
O
c
o
n
n
o
r Wa
y
Tank Farm Rd
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
d
Or
c
u
t
t
R
d
L
o
s
O
s
o
s
V
alle
y
R
d
Sources:
City of San Luis Obispo
Land Use and Major Destinations
San Luis Obispo
0 10.5 Mile
1
101
101
Agriculture
Open Space
Recreation
Business Park
Commercial
Retail
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Medium-High Density Residential
Office
Park
Public Use
Rural Residential
Services and Manufacturing
Tourist Destination
School
Downtown Boundary
Rail
Trails
Figure 2. Land Use Designations
35
Who Bikes and Walks
in San Luis Obispo?
During the fall of 2019, the City of San Luis Obispo distributed a
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 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 Transportation 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
36
What do residents say about biking?
49% of residents noted that they ride a bike for work
and school trips at least once per week.
The majority of residents (83%) own a bicycle.
The vast majority of residents (90%) felt they were
in good enough health to ride a bicycle.
60% 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?
50% of residents walk for work and school trips at least once per week.
45% of residents don’t feel safe walking at night vs. 6%
who don’t feel safe walking during the daytime.
The vast majority of residents (96%) felt they were in good
enough health to walk a reasonable distance.
78% of residents think the sidewalks are in good condition.
Types of Bicyclists in San Luis Obispo
Surveys show the most significant barrier to bicycling for most people are
facilities perceived as stressful or unsafe. 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. There
are many diverse types of bicyclists, 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 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
37
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
38
Re s e r v io r C a ny o n
Na t u ra l Re s e r v e
I r i s h Hi l l s
Nat u r a l
Re s e r ve
La g un a L a ke
Na t u ra l
Res e r ve
Califo rnia
Polytechnic
Sta te Univ ersity
W Foothill RdF
l
o
r
a
S
t
Calle JoaquinHill StGr
o
v
e
S
t
Murray St
Guerra
Dr
Bishop StSydney StR o y a l W a y Ella StR
o
c
k
v
i
e
w
P
l
Meissner Ln Fi
x
l
in
i
S
t
Suburban Rd
Luneta Dr
Elks LnLaurel LnBranch St
B
u
ll
o
c
k
L
n
Ramona Dr
W Creek Rd
Pi
n
n
a
c
l
e
s
R
d
Woodbridge St
South StOs
o
s S
t
Augusta StPalm St
Mount Bishop Rd
Vachell LnCerro Romauldo
HooverS
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
D
r
N
i
p
o
mo
S
tPeach StHigh St Mo
r
r
o
S
tPatricia DrIslay StB
r
o
a
d
S
tValle Vista PlSanta Fe RdMill StSan Luis DrPrado Rd
Poinsettia StGrand AveW F o o th ill B lv d
Buchon StBlue Granite
Ln
Monterey St
Marsh StPism o StOceanaire
D
r
S Higuera StMadon
n
a
R
d Higuera StHig h l an d Dr Cal
i
fo
rn
ia
B
lvd
Chorro StMainini Ranch RdE Foothill BlvdFoothill Blvd
Buckley Rd
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
O
c
o
n
n
or
W
ay
Tank Farm Rd Or
c
u
t
t
R
d
L
o
s
O
s
o
s V
alle
y R
d
Fr
o
om
R
a
n
c
h
W
a
y
0 10.5 Miles
Sources:
City of San Luis Obispo
Existing Bicycle Facilities
Shared-Use Path
Bicycle Lane
Bicycle Route
Bicycle/Pedestrian Access
Bicycle/Pedestrian Grade-
Separated CrossingProtected Bicycle Lane
Neighborhood Greenway
School
Park or Open Space
Rail
Trails
San Luis Obispo
1
101
101
Figure 3. Existing Bicycle Facilities
39
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 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
40
Re s e r v io r C a ny o n
Na t u ra l Re s e r v e
I r i s h Hi l l s
Nat u r a l
Re s e r ve
La g un a L a ke
Na t u ra l
Res e r ve
Califo rnia
Polytechnic
Sta te Univ ersity
W Foothill RdF
l
o
r
a
S
t
Calle JoaquinHill StGr
o
v
e
S
t
Murray St
Guerra
Dr
Bishop StSydney StR o y a l W a y Ella StR
o
c
k
v
i
e
w
P
l
Meissner Ln Fi
x
l
in
i
S
t
Suburban Rd
Luneta Dr
Elks LnLaurel LnBranch St
B
u
ll
o
c
k
L
n
Ramona Dr
W Creek Rd
Pi
n
n
a
c
l
e
s
R
d
Woodbridge St
South StOs
o
s S
t
Augusta StPalm St
Mount Bishop Rd
Vachell LnCerro Romauldo
HooverS
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
D
r
N
i
p
o
mo
S
tPeach StHigh St Mo
r
r
o
S
tPatricia DrIslay StB
r
o
a
d
S
tValle Vista PlSanta Fe RdMill StSan Luis DrPrado Rd
Poinsettia StGrand AveW F o o th ill B lv d
Buchon StBlue Granite
Ln
Monterey St
Marsh StPism o StOceanaire
D
r
S Higuera StMadon
n
a
R
d Higuera StHig h l an d Dr Cal
i
fo
rn
ia
B
lvd
Chorro StMainini Ranch RdE Foothill BlvdFoothill Blvd
Buckley Rd
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
O
c
o
n
n
or
W
ay
Tank Farm Rd Or
c
u
t
t
R
d
L
o
s
O
s
o
s V
alle
y R
d
Fr
o
om
R
a
n
c
h
W
a
y
0 10.5 Miles
Sources:
City of San Luis Obispo
1
101
101
Existing Public Bike Parking Locations
Existing Bike Parking Locations Rail
Trails
San Luis Obispo
School
Park or Open Space
Figure 4. Existing Bicycle Parking
41
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
42
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
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. The focus is on collisions involving
bicyclists and pedestrians, who are more likely to be seriously injured or killed in a crash. As
reported in the 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. Bicycle collisions are down 47% from peak levels in 2009 and pedestrian
collisions down 15-21% from a peak in 2004. While the number of pedestrian collisions are
down from their peak, there was 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. Data-driven analysis performed for the annual Traffic Safety
Report and regular collaboration between the City Public Works
and Police departments 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.
Overall, total collisions by travel mode from 2015 to 2017 in San
Luis Obispo are generally proportional to current mode share trends,
with roughly 14% of all reported collisions involving a bicyclist or
pedestrian. However, as illustrated in the adjacent graphic, the majority
of collisions resulting in severe injury or death involved a bicyclist
(47%) or pedestrian (29%). These trends show that bicyclists and
pedestrians are drastically overrepresented in the share of collisions
that resulted in severe and life-threatening injuries. This highlights
the need for the City to continue prioritizing safety enhancements
for the most vulnerable road uses, such as pedestrians and
cyclists, in order to advance the community’s Vision Zero goals.
Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the locations of all
bicycle and pedestrian involved collisions.
86%
CAR
6%
PEDESTRIAN
24%
CAR
8%
BICYCLE
34%
BICYCLIST
501
Total Collisions
47%
BICYCLE
29%
PEDESTRIAN
29%
PEDESTRIAN
17
Severe Injury or
Fatal Collisions
66%
DRIVER
52%
2017 Collisions by Type
Party at Fault
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
BICYCLING & WALKING IN SAN LUIS OBISPO TODAY
46
Re s e r v io r C a ny o n
Na t u ra l Re s e r v e
I r i s h Hi l l s
Nat u r a l
Re s e r ve
La g un a L a ke
Na t u ra l
Res e r ve
Califo rnia
Polytechnic
Sta te Univ ersity
W Foothill RdF
l
o
r
a
S
t
Calle JoaquinHill StGro
v
e
S
t
Murray St
Guerra
Dr
Bishop StSydney StR o y a l W a y Ella StR
o
c
k
v
i
e
w
P
l
Meissner Ln
F
ix
l
in
i
S
t
Suburban Rd
Luneta Dr
Elks LnLaurel LnBranch St
B
u
ll
o
c
k
L
n
Ramona Dr
W Creek Rd
Pi
n
n
a
c
l
e
s
R
d
Woodbridge St
South StOs
o
s S
t
Augusta StPalm St
Mount Bishop Rd
Vachell LnCerro Romauldo
HooverS
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
D
r
N
i
p
o
mo
S
tPeach StHigh St Mo
r
r
o
S
tPatricia DrIslay StB
r
o
a
d
S
tValle Vista PlSanta Fe RdMill StSan Luis DrPrado Rd
Poinsettia StGrand AveW F o o th ill B lv d
Buchon StBlue Granite
Ln
Monterey St
Marsh StPism o StOceanaire
D
r
S Higuera StMadon
n
a
R
d Higuera StHig h l an d Dr Cal
i
fo
rn
ia
B
lvd
Chorro StMainini Ranch RdE Foothill BlvdFoothill Blvd
Buckley Rd
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
O
c
o
n
n
or
W
ay
Tank Farm Rd Or
c
u
t
t
R
d
L
o
s
O
s
o
s V
alle
y R
d
Fr
o
om
R
a
n
c
h
W
a
y
0 10.5 Miles
Sources:
City of San Luis Obispo
1
101
101
Rail
Trails
School
Park or Open Space
San Luis Obispo
Fatal
Severe Injury
1 Collision
2-3 Collisions
4-6 Collisions
Bicycle Involved Collisions 2015-2017
Figure 5. Bicycle Involved Collisions 2015–2017
47
Re s e r v io r C a ny o n
Na t u ra l Re s e r v e
I r i s h Hi l l s
Nat u r a l
Re s e r ve
La g un a L a ke
Na t u ra l
Res e r ve
Califo rnia
Polytechnic
Sta te Univ ersity
W Foothill RdF
l
o
r
a
S
t
Calle JoaquinHill StGr
o
v
e
S
t
Murray St
Guerra
Dr
Bishop StSydney StR o y a l W a y Ella StR
o
c
k
v
i
e
w
P
l
Meissner Ln Fi
x
l
in
i
S
t
Suburban Rd
Luneta Dr
Elks LnLaurel LnBranch St
B
u
ll
o
c
k
L
n
Ramona Dr
W Creek Rd
Pi
n
n
a
c
l
e
s
R
d
Woodbridge St
South StOs
o
s S
t
Augusta StPalm St
Mount Bishop Rd
Vachell LnCerro Romauldo
HooverS
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
D
r
N
i
p
o
mo
S
tPeach StHigh St Mo
r
r
o
S
tPatricia DrIslay StB
r
o
a
d
S
tValle Vista PlSanta Fe RdMill StSan Luis DrPrado Rd
Poinsettia StGrand AveW F o o th ill B lv d
Buchon StBlue Granite
Ln
Monterey St
Marsh StPism o StOceanaire
D
r
S Higuera StMadon
n
a
R
d Higuera StHig h l an d Dr Cal
i
fo
rn
ia
B
lvd
Chorro StMainini Ranch RdE Foothill BlvdFoothill Blvd
Buckley Rd
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
O
c
o
n
n
or
W
ay
Tank Farm Rd Or
c
u
t
t
R
d
L
o
s
O
s
o
s V
alle
y R
d
Fr
o
om
R
a
n
c
h
W
a
y
0 10.5 Miles
Sources:
City of San Luis Obispo
1
101
101
Rail
Trails
School
Park or Open Space
San Luis Obispo
Fatal
Severe Injury
1 Collision
2-3 Collisions
4-6 Collisions
Pedestrian Involved Collisions 2015-2017
Figure 6. Pedestrian Involved Collisions 2013–2018
48
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. This indicates 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
Pedestrian Crossing Illegal Location 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. 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 and
speed and volume data to assign an LTS ranking to a given facility.
Roughly two- thirds of San Luis Obispo residents indicate 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 to guide
improvements 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. In the downtown core, most streets are narrow with lower vehicle
speeds and traffic distributed evenly throughout the historic street grid,
generally providing lower-stress travel for bicycling. In contrast are 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, 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 lanes—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
Re s e r v io r C a ny o n
Na t u ra l Re s e r v e
I r i s h Hi l l s
Nat u r a l
Re s e r ve
La g un a L a ke
Na t u ra l
Res e r ve
Califo rnia
Polytechnic
Sta te Univ ersity
W Foothill RdF
l
o
r
a
S
t
Calle JoaquinHill StGro
v
e
S
t
Murray St
Guerra
Dr
Bishop StSydney StR o y a l W a y Ella StR
o
c
k
v
i
e
w
P
l
Meissner Ln
F
ix
l
in
i
S
t
Suburban Rd
Luneta Dr
Elks LnLaurel LnBranch St
B
u
ll
o
c
k
L
n
Ramona Dr
W Creek Rd
Pi
n
n
a
c
l
e
s
R
d
Woodbridge St
South StOs
o
s S
t
Augusta StPalm St
Mount Bishop Rd
Vachell LnCerro Romauldo
HooverS
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
D
r
N
i
p
o
mo
S
tPeach StHigh St Mo
r
r
o
S
tPatricia DrIslay StB
r
o
a
d
S
tValle Vista PlSanta Fe RdMill StSan Luis DrPrado Rd
Poinsettia StGrand AveW F o o th ill B lv d
Buchon StBlue Granite
Ln
Monterey St
Marsh StPism o StOceanaire
D
r
S Higuera StMadon
n
a
R
d Higuera StHig h l an d Dr Cal
i
fo
rn
ia
B
lvd
Chorro StMainini Ranch RdE Foothill BlvdFoothill Blvd
Buckley Rd
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
O
c
o
n
n
or
W
ay
Tank Farm Rd Or
c
u
t
t
R
d
L
o
s
O
s
o
s V
alle
y R
d
Fr
o
om
R
a
n
c
h
W
a
y
0 10.5 Miles
Sources:
City of San Luis Obispo
*LTS is not shown for all streets but for major corridors that connect one part of the city to another
1
101
101
Rail
Trails
School
Park or Open Space
Existing Bikeway Level of Traffic Stress
LTS 1 (Most Comfortable)
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4 (Least Comfortable)
San Luis Obispo
Figure 9. Level of Traffic Stress
51
Low-Stress Connectivity Islands Analysis
Based on the Level of Traffic Stress Analysis, Figure 10 looks
at how stressful it is to bike or walk from one part of the city to
another and highlights the barriers between areas of the city.
In the figure, each random color or “island” represents a part of the
city that is relatively comfortable to bicycle or walk to destinations
within that area of the city. But a change in color indicates there is
a barrier such as a high-speed roadway, freeway, or railroad tracks,
which makes it stressful to cross to the next part of the city.
The goal is for the entire city to be one island. Improvements
that can remove barriers traveling between areas of the
city and make it more comfortable could include:
Signalized Intersection
High-Visibility Crosswalks with flashing beacons
Low-speed roadways, bridges or tunnels bypassing high-speed streets
For instance, on the one hand, while the downtown does include some
stressful roadways, the existing crossings make it easier and less
stressful to travel to destinations within the downtown than outside of
the downtown. While on other hand, higher speed streets like Foothill
Blvd and Broad Streets create a barrier to areas of the city on either
side of those streets given the relatively fewer number of signalized
crossings. Adding more signalized crossings or other improvements
could reduce these barriers and better connect these parts of the city.
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
BICYCLING & WALKING IN SAN LUIS OBISPO TODAY
52
Reservior Canyon
Natural Reserve
Irish Hills
Natural
Reserve
Laguna Lake
Natural
Reserve
California
Polytechnic
State University
W Foothill RdF
l
o
r
a
S
t
Calle JoaquinHill StGr
o
v
e
S
t
Murray St
Guerra
Dr
Bishop StSydneyStRoy a lW a y Ella StR
o
c
k
vie
w
P
l
MeissnerLn Fi
x
lin
i
S
t
Suburban Rd
Luneta Dr
ElksLnLaurelLnBranch St
B
u
ll
o
c
k
L
n
Ramona Dr
WC
r
e
e
k
R
d
Pi
n
n
acl
e
s
R
d
WoodbridgeSt
South StOs
o
s
S
t
Au
gustaStPalm St
Mo
u
n
t
B
i
s
h
o
p
R
d
VachellLnCerro Romauldo
HooverS
ac
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
D
r
N
i
p
om
o
S
tPeach St
High St Mo
r
r
o
S
tPatricia DrIslayStB
r
o
a
d
S
tValleVista PlSanta FeRdMill StSan Luis DrPrado
R
d
Poinset
t
i
aStGrandAveWFoothillBlvdBuchon StBlue Granite
Ln
Monterey St
Marsh StPism o St
O cean ai re Dr
S Higuera StMadon
n
a
R
d Higuera StHighlandDr Cal
i
forn
ia
Blvd
Chorro StMainini Ranch RdE Foothill BlvdFoothillBlvd
Buckley Rd
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
O
c
o
n
n
o
r
W
a
y
TankFarmRd Or
c
u
t
t
R
d
L
o
s
O
s
o
s
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
F
r
o
om
R
a
n
c
h
W
a
y
010.5 Miles
Sources:
City of San Luis Obispo
1
101
101
Rail
Trails
School
Park or Open Space
Low Stress Connectivity Islands
San Luis Obispo
*Each random color represents a different “island.” The goalis to have all one color indicating that all areas of the City are connected.
Figure 10. Connectivity
53
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:
Median Household Income
Minority Status
Free or reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch Program
Population of persons aged 65 and up
Housing Affordability
Educational Attainment Language Proficiency
Households with no vehicles available
Access to regular local transit service
Sidewalk completeness
Proximity 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 11 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 12 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, unhoused 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
Re s e r v io r C a ny o n
Na t u ra l Re s e r v e
I r i s h Hi l l s
Nat u r a l
Re s e r ve
La g un a L a ke
Na t u ra l
Res e r ve
Califo rnia
Polytechnic
Sta te Univ ersity
W Foothill RdF
l
o
r
a
S
t
Calle JoaquinHill StGr
o
v
e
S
t
Murray St
Guerra
Dr
Bishop StSydney StR o y a l W a y Ella StR
o
c
k
v
i
e
w
P
l
Meissner Ln Fi
x
l
in
i
S
t
Suburban Rd
Luneta Dr
Elks LnLaurel LnBranch St
B
u
ll
o
c
k
L
n
Ramona Dr
W Creek Rd
Pi
n
n
a
c
l
e
s
R
d
Woodbridge St
South StOs
o
s S
t
Augusta StPalm St
Mount Bishop Rd
Vachell LnCerro Romauldo
HooverS
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
D
r
N
i
p
o
mo
S
tPeach StHigh St Mo
r
r
o
S
tPatricia DrIslay StB
r
o
a
d
S
tValle Vista PlSanta Fe RdMill StSan Luis DrPrado Rd
Poinsettia StGrand AveW F o o th ill B lv d
Buchon StBlue Granite
Ln
Monterey St
Marsh StPism o StOceanaire
D
r
S Higuera StMadonn
a
R
d Higuera StHig h l an d Dr Cal
i
forn
ia
B
lvd
Chorro StMainini Ranch RdE Foothill BlvdFoothill Blvd
Buckley Rd
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
O
c
o
n
n
or
W
ay
Tank Farm Rd Or
c
u
t
t
R
d
L
o
s
O
s
o
s V
alle
y R
d
F
r
o
om
R
a
n
c
h
W
a
y
0 10.5 Miles
Sources:
City of San Luis Obispo
*Point ratings based on SLOCOG method
for identifying disadvantaged communities.
Zones ranking in the highest 20th percentile
qualify as disadvantaged communities.
1
101
101
Rail
Trails
School
Park or Open Space
Regional Definition of Disadvantaged Communities
San Luis Obispo
0 - 25
26 - 45
46 - 70
71 - 110
111 - 205 (Disadvantaged Community)
Figure 11. Regional Definition of Disadvantaged Communities
56
Reservior
Canyon
Natural Reserve
Irish Hills
Natural
Reserve
Laguna Lake
Natural
Reserve
California
Polytechnic
State University
W Foothill RdF
l
o
r
a
S
t
Calle JoaquinHill StGr
o
v
e
S
t
Murray St
Guerra
Dr
Bishop StSydneyStRoy a lW ay Ella StR
o
c
k
vie
w
P
l
MeissnerLn Fix
lin
i
S
t
Suburban Rd
Luneta Dr
ElksLnLaurelLnBranch St
B
u
ll
o
c
k
L
n
Ramona Dr
Pi
n
n
a
c
l
e
s
R
d
WoodbridgeSt
South StOs
o
s
S
t
Aug
usta
S
tPalm St
Mo
u
n
t
B
i
s
h
o
p
R
d
VachellLnCerro Romauldo
HooverS
ac
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
D
rNi
p
om
o
S
tPeach St
High St Mo
r
r
o
S
tPatricia DrIslayStB
r
o
a
d
S
tValleVista PlSanta FeRdMill StSan Luis DrPrado
R
d
Poins
e
ttiaStGrandAveWFoothillBlvdBuchon StBlue Granite
Ln
Monterey St
Marsh StPism o St
O cean ai re Dr
S Higuera StMadon
n
a
R
d Higuera StHighlandDr Cal
i
fo
rn
ia
B
lvd
Chorro StMainini Ranch RdE Foothill BlvdFoothillBlvd
Buckley Rd
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
O
c
o
n
n
or
W
a
y
TankFarmRd Or
c
u
t
t
R
d
L
o
s
O
s
o
s
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
Fr
o
om
R
a
n
c
h
W
a
y
Sources:
California Air Resources Board
City of San Luis Obispo AB 1550 Designated Disadvantaged Community Areas
Disadvantaged Community
Areas School
Park or Open Space
Rail
Trails
San Luis Obispo
010.5 Mile
1
101
101
Figure 12. AB 1550 Designated Disadvantaged Community Areas
57
Southwo
o
d
D
r
Flo
r
a
S
t
Slack StFerrini RdOlive StGr
o
v
e
S
t
Murray St
A l r i t a S t
Guerra
Dr
Ironbark StDa
l
i
d
i
o
C
a
rm
e
l
S
t
B
e
a
c
h
S
t
Bishop StMcCollum St
Sydney StS eq u oi a D r
Ta n g l e w o o d D r
Fuller
R
d
Fredericks St
Lincoln StDiablo
Dr
R
o
c
k
v
i
ew
P
l
Suburban Rd Ga
r
d
e
n
S
t
Tiburon W ayLaurel LnBridge Creek RdBu
l
lo
c
k
L
nW
C
r
e
e
k
R
d
Vachell LnPi
n
n
a
c
l
e
s
R
d
Wo o d b ri d g e St
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
S
t
Palm St
Mou
n
t
B
i
s
h
o
p
R
d
Loomis
S
t
S
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
D
r
Righetti RdHigh St Islay StBr
o
a
d
S
t
Pacific St
M ill StSan Luis DrG
ra
n
d A
v
e
Poin
se
t
t
i
a
S
t
W F o o th ill B lv dBlue
Gran
ite
Ln
Monterey St
M arsh StPismo St
Oceanaire DrS Higuera StMadon
n
a
R
d Cal
i
forn
ia
B
lvd Mo
u
n
t
L
ow
e
R
dMainini Ranch RdE Foothill Blvd
O
c
o
n
n
o
r Wa
y
Tank Farm Rd
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
d
Or
c
u
t
t
R
d
L
o
s
O
s
o
s
V
alle
y
R
d
$7,724
$6,867
$35,417$10,595
$16,134
$53,470
$113,821
$47,632
$84,750
$30,038
$46,979
$36,902
$44,079
$46,375
$53,500
$104,013
$67,679
$73,405
$55,069
$19,238
$60,385
$96,188
$38,480
$56,368
$73,173
$109,056
$52,263
$112,917
$108,750
$100,000
$100,000
Re s e r v i o r
C a nyo n
Na t u r a l Re se r v e
I ri sh H i ll s
Na t ur al
Re s e r ve
L ag un a L a ke
Na tu r a l
Re se r ve
Califo rnia
Polytechnic
State Univ ersity
Sources:
US Census
City of San Luis Obispo Median Household Income
$85,000 and Greater
$60,000 - $85,000
$45,000 - $60,000
$20,000 - $45,000
$20,000 or Less School
Park or Open Space
Rail
Trails
San Luis Obispo
0 10.5 Mile
1
101
101
Figure 13. Median Income
58
Southwo
o
d
D
r
Flo
r
a
S
t
Slack StFerrini RdOlive StGr
o
v
e
S
t
Murray St
A l r i t a S t
Guerra
Dr
Ironbark StDa
l
i
d
i
o
C
a
rm
e
l
S
t
B
e
a
c
h
S
t
Bishop StMcCollum St
Sydney StS eq u oi a D r
Ta n g l e w o o d D r
Fuller
R
d
Fredericks St
Lincoln StDiablo
Dr
R
o
c
k
v
i
ew
P
l
Suburban Rd Ga
r
d
e
n
S
t
Tiburon W ayLaurel LnBridge Creek RdBu
l
lo
c
k
L
nW
C
r
e
e
k
R
d
Vachell LnPi
n
n
a
c
l
e
s
R
d
Wo o d b ri d g e St
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
S
t
Palm St
Mou
n
t
B
i
s
h
o
p
R
d
Loomis
S
t
S
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
D
r
Righetti RdHigh St Islay StBr
o
a
d
S
t
Pacific St
M ill StSan Luis DrG
ra
n
d A
v
e
Poin
se
t
t
i
a
S
t
W F o o th ill B lv dBlue
Gran
ite
Ln
Monterey St
M arsh StPismo St
Oceanaire DrS Higuera StMadon
n
a
R
d Cal
i
forn
ia
B
lvd Mo
u
n
t
L
ow
e
R
dMainini Ranch RdE Foothill Blvd
O
c
o
n
n
o
r Wa
y
Tank Farm Rd
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
d
Or
c
u
t
t
R
d
L
o
s
O
s
o
s
V
alle
y
R
d
Re se r v i o r Ca ny o n
Na t u r a l Re se r v e
I ri sh H i ll s
Na t ur al
Re s e r ve
L ag un a L a ke
Na tu r a l
Re se r ve
15%
0.7%
11.3%
4.9%13.7%
11%
6.3%
9.1%
3.1%
2.5%
3.6%
2.8%
2.8%
7.8%
Califo rnia
Polytechnic
Sta te Univ ersity
Sources:
US Census
City of San Luis Obispo Percentage of Households Without Access to a Vehicle
< 1%
1% - 4%
4% - 8%
8% - 10%
> 10%School
Park or Open Space
Rail
Trails
San Luis Obispo
0 10.5 Mile
1
101
101
Figure 14. Vehicle Access
59
04
Community
Engagement
Overview
In October 2019 San Luis Obispo City staff held community outreach
events for the Active Transportation Plan. 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.
The purpose of the engagement effort was
to obtain community input on:
Vision for the Plan
Types of active transportation infrastructure and
policies to support the City’s mode share goals
Barriers to walking and bicycling in the City
What type of bicyclist they considered themselves
The diverse types of active transportation users in our community
Recommendations focused on:
Types of bicycle facilities needed
Types of pedestrian facilities needed
Desired locations for pedestrian crossing improvements and curb ramps
Desired routes to prioritize first for investment
Policies/Programs the public supports
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
Jan
2020
FEB maR aPR may Jun JuL aug SEP oCt noV DEC FEB maR aPR may Jun JuL aug SEP oCt noV DEC Jan
2021
FEB
Existing Conditions, Needs
Assessment, & Initial Development
of the Plan with the Active
Transportation Committee
Project
Kick-Off
SEPtEmBER—DECEmBER 2019FEBRuaRy 2018
Public
Engagement
noVEmBER 2020
Release Draft Plan and Present to Active
Transportation Committee & Planning Commission
FEBRuaRy 2021
Prepare Final Plan and
Present to City Council
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
DECEmBER 2020
City Council
Study Session
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
64
JanuaRy—SEPtEmBER 2019
Jan
2019
FEB
2018
Jan
2020
FEBmaRaPRmayJunJuLaugSEPoCtnoVDEC FEB maR aPR may Jun JuL aug SEP oCt noV DEC Jan
2021
FEB
Existing Conditions, Needs
Assessment, & Initial Development
of the Plan with the Active
Transportation Committee
Project
Kick-Off
SEPtEmBER—DECEmBER 2019FEBRuaRy 2018
Public
Engagement
noVEmBER 2020
Release Draft Plan and Present to Active
Transportation Committee & Planning Commission
FEBRuaRy 2021
Prepare Final Plan and
Present to City Council
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
DECEmBER 2020
City Council
Study Session
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 Plan, 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
Improve Bike Infrastructure
More Protected Bike Lanes
More Street Lights
Implement a Quick
Build Policy
Protected Intersections
Connectivity
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
Other Activities
Project Website
The Project website provided San Luis
Obispo residents with updates on the Plan,
access to documents, and opportunities
to provide input on the Plan.
Active Transportation Survey
As part of the outreach effort, a Household
Transportation Survey was sent out to a randomly
generated list of residents in the city to yield a
statistically valid sample. A separate version of
the survey was made available for all community
members. However, only results from the
statistically valid survey are provided in this Plan.
Interactive Online Mapping Tool
The Interactive Online Mapping Tool provided the
community an opportunity to provide feedback on
the 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:
42 entries for bicycling; and
32 entries for walking.
A total of 37-line segments were
added to the online map:
22 segments referencing
barriers to bicycling;
12 segments referencing
barriers to walking; and
Three (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
Why are
People Not Biking
More Today?
Residents who participated in
the 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
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
74
Why are People
Not Walking
More Today?
Residents who took the
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
Community EngagEmEnt
75
Types of Infrastructure and Policies
Desired by the Community
Protected bike lanes on major arterials are the most
desired types of bicycle infrastructure
Broad, South Higuera, Tank Farm Road, Madonna,
Foothill, Santa Rosa, and Los Osos Valley Road
Crossing of major streets for both pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure
S. Higuera, Broad Street, Tank Farm, Los Osos Valley
Road, Madonna, Santa Rosa, and Foothill Blvd
Curb ramps and completing sidewalk gaps
around schools and downtown
Streetlights around Cal Poly University and downtown area
Quick build policy introducing projects quickly with
temporary materials and pilot installations
Enforcement and lowering speeds
Motorist, 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
motorists drive too fast.
Make it Comfortable
Design 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.
Continue 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
Build low-stress bicycle and pedestrian facilities that provide access
to local destinations in every neighborhood in San Luis Obispo.
Install 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
Continue 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?
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: Convenience
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.
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:
Recognition 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
Approval of the Anholm Neighborhood Greenway
Plan and Safe Routes to School Plan for Bishop
Peak and Pacheco Elementary Schools
Over 30 parklets and a new buffered bike lane installed in the
downtown as part of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic response
Groundbreaking of a critical section of the Railroad Safety
Trail from Pepper Street across Hwy 101 to Taft Street
Completed dozens of curb ramp upgrades and hundreds
of linear feet of new and reconstructed sidewalk
More than 5 enhanced pedestrian crossings with flashing
beacons as well as the first pedestrian hybrid beacon
Numerous decorated crosswalks and painted curb extensions
Added striped buffers to over 10 miles of bike lane
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.
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PROjECTS
84
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 facilitate
bicycling comfort for all ages and abilities. See Figure 16 for a graph
of how speed and volume influence the selection of bikeway types.
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
Downtown Concept Plan
Downtown is the cultural and economic heart of
San Luis Obispo—a bustling, diverse mixed-use
district where people work, live, shop, dine, and
enjoy entertainment. In 2017, the City Council
adopted an update to the Downtown Concept Plan.
While not a regulatory document, the Downtown
Concept Plan serves as a high-level representation
of the community’s vision for how downtown San
Luis Obispo should be developed over the next
25 years. This vision is expressed through a series
of goals, design principles, illustrative plans, and
diagrams, guiding land use, building forms and public
infrastructure strategies within the downtown.
Several of the primary planning principles and
specific goals in the Downtown Concept Plan relate
to transportation, calling for strategies that improve
mobility, safety and accessibility for pedestrians,
bicyclists and transit users throughout the downtown.
These principles echo the General Plan Circulation
Element’s model priorities for downtown streets,
which articulate the City’s commitment to improve
sustainable transportation options and decrease
dependence on single-occupant automobile travel.
The Downtown Concept Plan also introduces
a concept of downtown street types by
modal priority (See Figure 15).
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PROjECTS
86
Figure 15. Downtown Street Types by Modal Priority
87
The conceptual circulation strategies identified in the Downtown
Concept Plan include a variety of improvements, such as:
Sidewalk widening to provide width for pedestrian foot traffic, sidewalk
dining, landscaping, street furniture and other streetscape enhancements
Sidewalk corner curb extensions
Scramble crossings
Parklets
Buffered and protected bike lanes
Expanded paseos and mid-block crossings
Improved bike and pedestrian signals and
intersection crossing enhancements
Street murals, decorative crosswalks, and other public art enhancements
Pedestrian-scale street lighting
Shared Streets (“Woonerfs”), where pedestrians and bicycles are
prioritized, but slow automobiles are permitted as “guests”
The Active Transportation Plan echoes the overarching
strategies and circulation recommendations from the Downtown
Concept Plan, and identifies many of the specific bicycle and
pedestrian improvement projects and programs envisioned
for the downtown area, including but not limited to:
Installation of protected bike lanes and sidewalk widening
along the Marsh and Higuera Street corridors
Extension of the Morro (Bill Roalman) Greenway through
downtown and addition of the Anholm Neighborhood Greenway
connecting downtown with destinations to the north
Addition of dedicated bicycle facilities along upper Monterey Street
Addition of enhanced pedestrian and bicycle crossings at
several intersections along the Higuera and Marsh Street
corridors, including a potential mid-block paseo crossing at
Higuera & Court Street, new crossings at Beach and Carmel
Streets, and a potential scramble crossing at the intersections
of Chorro & Monterey and Monterey & Santa Rosa
Future shared streets, or “woonerfs” along Monterey
Street and along the Broad Street “dog leg”
Implementation of a formal parklet program
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PROjECTS
88
Figure 16. All Ages and Abilities
Bikeway Selection Matrix
SLO Active Transportation Plan
www.SLObikewalk.org
Bicycle Rider + 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
Shared-Use Path
A completely separated right-
of-way for the exclusive use of
bicycles and pedestrians with
minimized intersections with
motor vehicles.
Protected Bike Lane
(Cycle Track)
An on-street bikeway that
is separated from traffic by
a vertical barrier, such as a
curb, median, or bollards.
Bike Lane
A striped lane for one-way
bike travel on a street.
Neighborhood
Greenway
Streets with low traffic
volumes and speeds,
designated and designed to
give priority to bicycle travel.
Bicycle Route with
Sharrow Markings
Provides for shared use
with motor vehicle traffic.
Treatments include signs and
pavement markings.
Pros +Separated from other
vehicular traffic
+Comfortable
for all users
+Provide excellent
recreational
opportunities
+No need for on-
street right-of-way
+Physically separated
from motor vehicles
+Improves safety
+Comfortable for
majority of riders
+Reduces impediments
within the bike lane
+Lower-cost than
shared use paths
+Can have economic
benefits in
downtown areas
+Provide dedicated
spaces for bicycles
+Less costly to install
and maintain
+Provides low speed
and low volume
bikeway without
parking removal
+Informs motorist
that bicyclist may
be present
+Less maintenance
costs than a
traditional bike lane
+Informs motorist that
bicyclist may be present
+Low maintenance costs
Cons –High-cost
–Pedestrian conflicts
–Concerns for
personal security
–Require separate
right-of-way
–Hard to connect
to businesses and
activity centers
–Needs on-street
right-of-way
–Cost more than
traditional bike lanes
–Street sweeping
more challenging
–Does not provide
separation
–Can have impediments
such as double-
parked motor vehicles
–Does not provide
additional safety from
motor vehicles
–Needs on-street
right-of-way
–Car door zone conflicts
–Possible diverters
can be inconvenience
to residents
–Does not provide
protection
–May not provide
separate space for
bicyclist at times
–Routes aren’t
always the most
efficient 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
89
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
90
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
91
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.
Bicycling and
Shared-Use
Facility Types
(cont.)
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PROjECTS
92
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.
While curb level type
protected bike lanes are the
preferred treatment, there
are various ways to design
protected bike lanes given the
context and characteristics
of a particular street.
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
Recommended Bicycle & PedestRian PRojects
93
Bikeway
Amenities
BIKE PARKING
Includes curbside and sidewalk racks,
corrals, bike lockers or bike stations
Racks provide short-term dedicated
parking outdoors
Lockers provide long-term secure
parking at high demand locations
Stations provide long-term indoor parking typically
near transit and can be staffed or self-serve
BICYCLE-FRIENDLY INTERSECTIONS
Intersections designed to provide
additional separation, comfort, and
safety for people biking and walking
May include bike boxes, signal priority,
curb extensions, or islands to separate
bicyclists from turning motorists
Ideal for locations with conflicts between
people driving, walking, and biking
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PROjECTS
94
BIKE SHARE
Self-serve bike pickup, either at
designated stations or dockless
Ideal for short point-to-point trips and
connections to and from transit stations
Provides access to bikes for peole who
may not own a personal bicycle or do
not have storage space for a bike
GREEN BIKE LANE THROUGH
INTERSECTIONS
Provides additional comfort for bicyclists
Creates bicycle visibility for drivers
Ideal for locations with conflicts between
people driving, walking, and biking
BIKE SIGNALS
Bike signals can create even more
separation between bicyclists and vehicles
Allows for better intersection
movements for all users
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
Recommended Bicycle & PedestRian PRojects
95
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
96
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
97
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 18 breaks
down the bike network today, the proposed new bikeways, and the
complete network by facility type. Figure 19 as previously presented in
Chapter 3, illustrates the existing bike network, while Figure 19 through
Figure 23 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 17. Complete Bicycle Network
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PROjECTS
98
W Foothill RdF
l
o
r
a
S
t
Calle JoaquinHill StGro
v
e
S
t
Murray St
Guerra
Dr
Bishop StSydneyStRoy a lW a y Ella StR
o
c
k
vie
w
P
l
MeissnerLn Fi
x
lin
i
S
t
Suburban Rd
Luneta Dr
ElksLnLaurelLnBranch St
B
u
ll
o
c
k
L
n
Ramona Dr
WC
r
e
e
k
R
d
Pi
n
n
acl
e
s
R
d
WoodbridgeSt
South StOs
o
s
S
t
Au
gustaStPalm St
Mo
u
n
t
B
i
s
h
o
p
R
d
VachellLnCerro Romauldo
HooverS
ac
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
D
rNi
p
om
o
S
tPeach St
High St Mo
r
r
o
S
tPatricia DrIslayStB
r
o
a
d
S
tValleVista PlSanta FeRdMill StSan Luis DrPrado
R
d
Poinset
t
i
aStGrandAveWFoothillBlvdBuchon StBlue Granite
Ln
Monterey St
Marsh StPism o St
O cean ai re Dr
S Higuera StMadonn
a
R
d Higuera StHighlandDr Cal
i
forn
ia
Blvd
Chorro StMainini Ranch RdE Foothill BlvdFoothillBlvd
Buckley Rd
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
O
c
o
n
n
o
r
W
a
y
TankFarmRd Or
c
u
t
t
R
d
L
o
s
O
s
o
s
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
F
r
o
om
R
a
n
c
h
W
a
y
Reservior Canyon
Natural Reserve
Irish Hills
Natural
Reserve
Laguna Lake
Natural
Reserve
California
Polytechnic
State University
0 10.5 Miles
Sources:
City of San Luis Obispo
Proposed Bicycle Network
Shared-Use Path
Bicycle Lane
Bicycle Route Protected Bicycle Lane
Bicycle/Pedestrian Grade-
Separated Crossing
Neighborhood Greenway
School
Park or Open Space
Rail
Trails
San Luis Obispo
1
101
101
Figure 18. Proposed Bicycle Network
99
Re s e r v io r C a ny o n
Na t u ra l Re s e r v e
I r i s h Hi l l s
Nat u r a l
Re s e r ve
La g un a L a ke
Na t u ra l
Res e r ve
Califo rnia
Polytechnic
Sta te Univ ersity
W Foothill RdF
l
o
r
a
S
t
Calle JoaquinHill StGr
o
v
e
S
t
Murray St
Guerra
Dr
Bishop StSydney StR o y a l W a y Ella StR
o
c
k
v
i
e
w
P
l
Meissner Ln Fi
x
l
in
i
S
t
Suburban Rd
Luneta Dr
Elks LnLaurel LnBranch St
B
u
ll
o
c
k
L
n
Ramona Dr
W Creek Rd
Pi
n
n
a
c
l
e
s
R
d
Woodbridge St
South StOs
o
s S
t
Augusta StPalm St
Mount Bishop Rd
Vachell LnCerro Romauldo
HooverS
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
D
r
N
i
p
o
mo
S
tPeach StHigh St Mo
r
r
o
S
tPatricia DrIslay StB
r
o
a
d
S
tValle Vista PlSanta Fe RdMill StSan Luis DrPrado Rd
Poinsettia StGrand AveW F o o th ill B lv d
Buchon StBlue Granite
Ln
Monterey St
Marsh StPism o StOceanaire
D
r
S Higuera StMadon
n
a
R
d Higuera StHig h l an d Dr Cal
i
fo
rn
ia
B
lvd
Chorro StMainini Ranch RdE Foothill BlvdFoothill Blvd
Buckley Rd
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
O
c
o
n
n
or
W
ay
Tank Farm Rd Or
c
u
t
t
R
d
L
o
s
O
s
o
s V
alle
y R
d
Fr
o
om
R
a
n
c
h
W
a
y
0 10.5 Miles
Sources:
City of San Luis Obispo
Existing & Proposed Bicycle Network
Shared-Use Path
Bicycle Lane
Bicycle Route
Bicycle/Pedestrian AccessNeighborhood Greenway
School
Park or Open Space
Rail
Trails
San Luis Obispo
1
101
101
Existing| Proposed
Protected Bicycle Lane
Figure 19. Existing & Proposed Bicycle Facilities
100
Bishop
Peak Natural
Reserve
Cerro San
Luis Natural
Reserve University Dr
Mount
B
i
s
h
o
p
R
d
West
S
t
Hil
l
S
tCouper Dr
Abbott St
Daly
A
ve Stanford
Dr
Oak
S
t
Hillcrest
Pl
Wilson St
Miossi
R
d
Hathway Aly
Center S
t
Phillips Ln
Bond StCollege AveOakridge DrHiguera St
Garfield St
Clover
Dr
Felton
W
a
y
Stafford
S
t
Fel Mar Dr
Los Cerros
Dr
T
o
r
o
S
t
Meinecke
A
v
e
Walnut
St
Boy
s
e
n
A
v
e
Al
b
e
rt
D
r
Henderson AveGraves Ave
Mission St
Twin
R
i
d
g
e
D
r
Montal
b
a
n
S
t Klamath
RdCasa S
t
Slack StFerrini RdCuesta DrOlive
St
Serrano Dr
P
e
p
p
e
r
S
t
Palm
St
Pinnacles
R
d
N Cho
r
ro
S
t
Gr
o
v
e
S
t
Mountai
n
Vi
e
w
St
P
a
s
a
t
i
em
p
o
D
r
Corralitos Ave
Murray St
N Perimeter Rd
S
P
o
l
y
V
i
e
w
D
r
Kentucky StVia
Ca
r
ta
McCollum StJeffrey DrHathway AvePeach St
Fredericks St
Lincoln St
S
P
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
R
d
Luneta Dr
Ramona Dr
San Luis DrMill St
Monterey StW C
ree
k
Rd
Cerro Romauldo
Broad
S
t
Ch
o
r
r
o
S
tPatricia DrG
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
Highland Dr
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
B
l
v
d
Foothill
B
l
v
d
California
Polytechnic
State University
1
101
0 0.50.25 Miles
Sources:
City of San Luis Obispo
Existing & Proposed Bicycle Network - North
Shared-Use Path
Bicycle Lane
Bicycle Route Bicycle/Pedestrian Access
Neighborhood Greenway
School
Park or Open Space
Rail
Trails
San Luis Obispo
Existing| Proposed
Protected Bicycle Lane
Existing Bicycle/Pedestrian Grade-Separated Crossing
Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Grade-Separated Crossing
Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing Improvement
Figure 20. Existing & Proposed Bicycle Facilities - North
101
Terrace Hill
Open Space
Reservior Canyon
Natural Reserve
Cerro San Luis
Natural Reserve
Laguna Lake
Natural
Reserve
F
l
o
r
a
S
t
King StRu
t
h
S
t
D
a
l
i
d
i
o Story StHutton StHarris StB
i
n
n
s
C
tIris StEmily StAlrita StExposition DrWil
ding
L
n
Rachel StCa
z
a
d
e
r
o
S
t
Center St
Parker StPhillips Ln
Vi
c
to
r
i
a
A
v
eMeadow StDana StAr
c
h
e
r
S
t
He
l
e
n
a
S
t
Caudill
S
t
Walnut
St
Geor
ge St
Lizzie
S
t
Mission St
U p ham
StGr
o
v
e
S
t
Montal
b
a
n
St
Bridge St Si
e
r
r
a
W
a
y
Corrida Dr Blvd del CampoLawton AveHil
l
S
t
Olive
St
Church StBeebee StCorralitos Ave
Mountai
n
Vi
e
w
St
Ca
rm
e
l
S
t Be
a
c
h
S
t
BishopStP
e
p
p
e
r
S
t
Sydney St
Ella
StSanta Barbara StLincoln StF
i
x
l
i
n
i
S
tGa
r
d
e
n
S
t Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
B
l
v
d
Sandercock St
Branch St
T
o
r
o
S
t
Woodbridge StOs
o
s
S
t
Au
g
u
s
t
a
S
t
Palm
St
Leff StNi
p
om
o
S
t
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
S
t
Peach
St
High St Mo
r
r
o
S
t
Islay StBr
o
a
d
S
t San Luis DrPacific St
Mill St
Buch
on
St
Monterey
St
Pismo
St
Marsh StHiguera StCh
o
r
r
o
S
t
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
0 0.50.25 Miles
Sources:
City of San Luis Obispo
Existing & Proposed Bicycle Network - Central
Shared-Use Path
Bicycle Lane
Bicycle Route Bicycle/Pedestrian Access
Neighborhood Greenway
School
Park or Open Space
Rail
Trails
San Luis Obispo
Existing| Proposed
Protected Bicycle Lane
Existing Bicycle/Pedestrian Grade-Separated Crossing
Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Grade-Separated Crossing
Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing Improvement
Figure 21. Existing & Proposed Bicycle Facilities - Central
102
Islay Hill
Open Space
South Hills
Natural
Reserve
Rigetti
Hill Open
Space
Sout
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
MalvaAero
DrMeadow StSage St
Stoneridge Dr
Cll Crotalo
Caudill St
Clarion CtMcMillan AveGaribaldi Ave
Capitoli
o
W
a
y
Hopkins L
n
Farmhouse Ln
Corrida Dr
Woodside
DrFernwood DrMitchell Dr
Junipero
W
a
y Flo
r
a
S
t
Ironbark
S
t
Hansen Ln
Aug
u
s
t
a
S
t
Prado Rd
Wavertree St
Lawrence Dr
S
e
q
u
o
i
a
D
r
Tanglewood
D
r
Fuller
R
d
Goldenrod LnIndustri
al
W
a
yRo
c
k
v
i
ew
P
l Tiburon
WayLaurel LnBu
l
lo
c
k
LnJohnson AveHooverWoodbridge
S
t
Spanish Oaks Dr
S
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
D
r
Santa Fe RdP
o
i
n
s
e
t
t
i
a
S
t
Tank
F
a
rm
R
d Or
c
u
t
t
Rd
0 0.50.25 Miles
Sources:
City of San Luis Obispo
Existing & Proposed Bicycle Network - Southeast
Shared-Use Path
Bicycle Lane
Bicycle Route Bicycle/Pedestrian Access
Neighborhood Greenway
School
Park or Open Space
Rail
Trails
San Luis Obispo
Existing| Proposed
Protected Bicycle Lane
Existing Bicycle/Pedestrian Grade-Separated Crossing
Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Grade-Separated Crossing
Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing Improvement
Figure 22. Existing & Proposed Bicycle Facilities - Southeast
103
Jo h ns o n
Ra nch O pe n
S pa c e
I r i s h H i l l s
Na t u r a l
Re s er ve
S o ut h Hil l s
Na t ur al
Re s e rve
L a gun a L a ke
Na t u r a l
Re s e r ve
Stoneridge Dr
Prefu
m
o
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
d
Descanso St
Bir
c
h
Pin
e
Coral St
Quail Dr
Hind LnGu
lf
S
t
Sage St
P
e
r
e
i
r
a
D
r
El
mLaguna LnCa udill St
Long StL
im
a
D
r
Bridge St
Hopkins
L
nHu
a
s
n
a
D
rVi
c
e
n
t
e
D
r
D
a
l
i
d
i
o
D
r
Granada Dr
Corrida Dr
Mitchell DrHiguera StG
alle
o
n
Wa
yGathe DrB
a
l
b
o
a
S
t
el
M
e
r
c
a
d
oDa
l
i
d
i
o
Eto Cir
Lawrence Dr
R o y a l W a y
Margarita Ave
Devaul Ranch Rd
d
el
R
io
A
v
eDiablo DrRoc
k
v
i
e
w Pl
Meissner Ln
Suburban RdElks LnVachell LnWo o d b r i d g e S t
HooverVi
a
L
a
g
u
n
a
V
i
s
Santa Fe RdPrado Rd
L
o
s
O
s
o
s
V
alle
y
R
dOceanaire DrS Higuera StMadon
n
a
R
d
Tank Farm Rd
Buckley RdCalle Joaquin0 0.60.3 Miles
Sources:
City of San Luis Obispo
Existing & Proposed Bicycle Network - Southwest
Shared-Use Path
Bicycle Lane
Bicycle Route Bicycle/Pedestrian Access
Neighborhood Greenway
School
Park or Open Space
Rail
Trails
San Luis Obispo
Existing| Proposed
Protected Bicycle Lane
Existing Bicycle/Pedestrian Grade-Separated Crossing
Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Grade-Separated Crossing
Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing Improvement
Figure 23. Existing & Proposed Bicycle Facilities - Southwest
104
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 24 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 106 for examples
of major and minor crossing improvements.
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
Recommended Bicycle & PedestRian PRojects
105
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
106
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
107
Re se r v io r Ca ny o n
Na t u ra l Re se r v e
Ir i s h Hi l l s
Nat u r a l
Re s e r ve
La g un a L a ke
Na t u ra l
Res e r ve
Califo rnia
Polytechnic
Sta te Univ ersity
W Foothill RdF
l
o
r
a
S
t
Calle JoaquinHill StGr
o
v
e
S
t
Murray St
Guerra
Dr
Bishop StSydney StR o y a l W a y Ella StR
o
c
k
v
i
e
w
P
l
Meissner Ln Fi
x
l
in
i
S
t
Suburban Rd
Luneta Dr
Elks LnLaurel LnBranch St
B
u
ll
o
c
k
L
n
Ramona Dr
W Creek Rd
Pi
n
n
a
c
l
e
s
R
d
Woodbridge St
South StOs
o
s S
t
Augusta StPalm St
Mount Bishop Rd
Vachell LnCerro Romauldo
HooverS
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
D
r
N
i
p
o
mo
S
tPeach StHigh St Mo
r
r
o
S
tPatricia DrIslay StB
r
o
a
d
S
tValle Vista PlSanta Fe RdMill StSan Luis DrPrado Rd
Poinsettia StGrand AveW F o o th ill B lv d
Buchon StBlue Granite
Ln
Monterey St
Marsh StPism o StOceanaire
D
r
S Higuera StMadon
n
a
R
d Higuera StHig h l an d Dr Cal
i
fo
rn
ia
B
lvd
Chorro StMainini Ranch RdE Foothill BlvdFoothill Blvd
Buckley Rd
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
O
c
o
n
n
or
W
ay
Tank Farm Rd Or
c
u
t
t
R
d
L
o
s
O
s
o
s V
alle
y R
d
Fr
o
om
R
a
n
c
h
W
a
y
0 10.5 Miles
Existing Bicycle/Pedestrian
Grade-Separated Crossing
Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian
Grade-Separated Crossing
Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian
Major Crossing Improvement
Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian
Minor Crossing Improvement
Existing & Proposed Crossing Improvements
San Luis Obispo Sources:
City of San Luis Obispo
1
101
101
School
Park or Open Space
Rail
Trails
Figure 24. Proposed Crossing Improvements
108
Sidewalk and
Curb Ramp
Improvements
In addition to the shared-use paths and crossing
improvement projects identified previous in this
chapter, the City proposes 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. Figure 25 shows existing
sidewalks within the city and the locations where gaps
currently exist. As shown, approximately 27 miles of
new sidewalks 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. In lieu of identifying
the thousands of individual sidewalk and curb ramp
improvement recommended throughout the city
within this Plan, Chapter 7 (Implementation) includes
details and maps to describe how and where the City
will prioritize installation of sidewalk improvements
and repairs, curb ramps, and pedestrian lighting
throughout San Luis Obispo. This method prioritizes
investments in these improvements based on several
factors, such as safety history, existing pedestrian
activity and proximity to key destinations, such
as schools, parks, and senior living facilities.
See Chapter 7 (Implementation) for details
on how new sidewalk installation/repairs and
street light installations will be prioritized.
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
Recommended Bicycle & PedestRian PRojects
109
Re se r v io r Ca ny o n
Na t u ra l Re se r v e
Ir i s h Hi l l s
Nat u r a l
Re s e r ve
La g un a L a ke
Na t u ra l
Res e r ve
Califo rnia
Polytechnic
Sta te Univ ersity
Southw
o
o
d
D
r
Flo
r
a
S
t
Slack StFerrini RdOlive StGr
o
v
e
S
t
Murray St
Guerra
Dr
Ironbark StDa
l
id
i
o
C
a
rm
e
l
S
t
B
e
a
c
h
S
t
Bishop StMcCollum St
Sydney StTa n g l e w o o d D r
Fuller
R
d
Fredericks St
Lincoln StDiablo Dr
R
o
c
k
v
i
ew
P
l
Suburban Rd Ga
r
d
e
n
S
t
Tiburon W ayLaurel LnBu
l
l
o
c
k
L
nW
C
r
e
e
k
R
d
Vachell LnPi
n
n
a
c
l
e
s
R
d
Wo o d b r i d g e S t
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
S
t
Palm St
Mou
n
t
B
i
s
h
o
p
R
d
Loomis
S
t
S
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
D
r
High St Islay StBr
o
a
d
S
tPacific St
M ill StSan Luis DrG
ra
n
d A
v
e
Poin
s
e
t
t
i
a
S
t
W F o o th ill B lv dBlue Gran
ite
Ln
Monterey St
M arsh StPismo St
Oceanaire DrS Higuera StMadon
n
a
R
d Cal
i
forn
ia
B
lvd Mo
u
n
t
L
ow
e
R
dMainini Ranch RdE Foothill Blvd
O
c
o
n
n
o
r Wa
y
Tank Farm Rd
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
d
Or
c
u
t
t
R
d
L
o
s Os
o
s
V
a
ll
e
y
R
d
0 10.5 Miles
Sources:
City of San Luis Obispo
*This map shows the primary existing sidewalk
gaps, but there may be other short gaps within
the city not shown.
School
Park or Open Space
Rail
Trails
San Luis Obispo
Existing & Missing Sidewalks
Existing Sidewalk
Missing Sidewalk
Figure 25. Existing & Missing Sidewalks
110
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 26 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
111
Re se r v i o r Ca ny o n
Na t u r a l Re se r v e
I ri sh H i ll s
Na t ur al
Re s e r ve
L ag un a L a ke
Na tu r a l
Re se r ve
Califo rnia
Polytechnic
Sta te Univ ersity
W F o o th ill R d
Southwo
o
d
D
r
Flo
r
a
S
t
Long StD
a
l
i
d
i
o
D
r Ferrini RdOlive StBeebee StMurray St
Bishop StMargarita Ave Ella StIn d u s tr ia l W a y
R
o
c
k
v
i
ew
P
l
Meissner Ln
F
i
x
l
i
n
i
S
t
Suburban Rd Ga
r
d
e
n
S
t
Laurel LnBridge Creek RdBu
l
lo
c
k
L
n
T
o
r
o S
t
Wo o d b r i d g e S tOs
o
s
S
t
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
S
t
Palm StVachell LnCerro Romauldo
HooverS
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
D
rNi
p
om
o
S
t
Peach
St
Mo
r
r
o
S
tPatricia DrBr
o
a
d
S
t
Righetti RdP acifi c StSanta Fe RdMill St
Prado Rd
Poin
se
t
t
i
a
S
t
Buchon St
Monterey St
Marsh StPismo StS Higuera StM a d o n n a R d Higuera StHighland Dr
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
B
l
v
d
Ch
o
r
r
o
S
t
E Foothill Blvd
Foothill
Bl
v
dMainini Ranch RdBuckley Rd
Jo
hnso
n A
ve
O
c
o
n
n
o
r Wa
y
Tank Farm Rd Or
c
u
t
t
Rd
L
o
s Os
o
s Va
ll
e
y
R
d
Sources:
City of San Luis Obispo
Proposed Bikeway Level of Traffic Stress
LTS 1 (Most Comfortable)
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4 (Least Comfortable)
School
Park or Open Space
Rail
Trails
San Luis Obispo
0 10.5 Mile
1
101
101
Figure 26. Proposed Bikeway LTS
112
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
24 on page 108, 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
113
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
114
This page intentionally left blank.
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
Recommended Bicycle & PedestRian PRojects
115
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
118
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
Convenience
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
119
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
120
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.
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
EEEE
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
Bicycle & Pedestrian Programs
121
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
122
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.
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.
SLO Bicycle Kitchen
E
E
E
E
E
E
E E E
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
Bicycle & Pedestrian Programs
123
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.
Annual Traffic Safety Program
The Annual Traffic Safety Program analyzes
collision data on a yearly basis. It identifies
high collision locations citywide for driving,
bicycling and walking and actively pursues
corrective measures that may reduce collision
rates and improve safety. The program
aligns with the City’s Vision Zero Policy and
includes thorough evaluations of bicycle
and pedestrian safety, as these road users
are more vulnerable to serious injury or
death from collisions with motor vehicles.
E
E
EE
E
E
THE 6Es
Education
Encouragement
Enforcement
Engineering
Evaluation
Equity
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PROGRAMS
124
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.
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.
National Walk to School Day
E
E
E
E
E
E
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
Bicycle & Pedestrian Programs
125
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:
Teaching students the rules of the road, so
they are more prepared to navigate their
community using active transportation.
Encouraging active modes of getting to school.
Decreasing the prevalence of child obesity
though increased physical activity
Reducing 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 feature 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 increased crossing
times in areas with a high number of walking seniors.
Feedback received from the program can inform future
infrastructure improvements and other senior needs.
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PROGRAMS
126
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 to
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
127
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
128
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.
6.8 Look for opportunities to combine bike
parking with art installations as long as the art
installations are compatible with the engineering
standards and do not hinder the use of the rack
such as proper locking of bikes to the rack.
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
Bicycle & Pedestrian Programs
129
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.
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 corridors was selected. These priority
Tier 1 corridors, which are shown in Figure 27 on page 134, 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 32 on page 142, certainly improve
bicycle and pedestrian circulation, but to a lesser extent than the Tier 1 network.
PROjECT PRIORITIZATION
Tier One, Two, and Three
Projects
The following criteria were used to prioritize
the proposed bicycle and pedestrian projects:
Ridership/Usage Potential
Safety/Collisions
Equity – Ability to improve access
for Disadvantaged and Low-Income
Communities
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
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
I MPLEMENTATION
132
By implementing projects in the three tier categories, the City can
forge a strategic path in increasing the number of trips completed
by active transportation modes and supporting the City’s General
Plan and Climate Action Plan modal split objectives to reach
20% of citywide trips by bicycle and 18 percent by walking,
carpool, and other sustainable transportation options.
It should be noted that Figure 27 includes the Railroad Safety Trail and
Figure 32 also highlights 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 139 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.
The projects have been categorized into the following categories:
TIER 1
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
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
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.
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
Implementat I on
133
1
101
101
Reservior Canyon
Natural Reserve
Irish Hills
Natural
Reserve
Laguna Lake
Natural
Reserve
Southw
o
o
d
D
r
Flo
r
a
S
t
Slack StFerrini RdOlive StGr
o
v
e
S
t
Murray St
Guerra
Dr
Ironbark StDa
l
i
d
i
o
C
a
rm
e
l
S
t
B
e
a
c
h
S
t
Bishop StMcCollum St
Sydney St
Tanglewood
D
r
Fuller
R
d
Fredericks St
Lincoln StDiablo Dr
R
o
c
k
v
i
ew
P
l
Suburban Rd Ga
r
d
e
n
S
t
Tiburon
WayLaurel LnBu
l
l
o
c
k
L
nW
C
r
e
e
k
R
d
Vachell Ln
Pi
n
n
a
c
l
e
s
R
d
Woodbridge
S
t
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
S
t
Palm St
Mou
n
t
B
i
s
h
o
p
R
d
Loomis
S
t
S
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
D
r
High St Islay StBr
o
a
d
S
tPacific St
Mill
StSan Luis DrG
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
Poin
se
t
t
i
a
S
t
W
F
o
ot
hill
Bl
v
dBlue
Gran
ite
Ln
Monterey St
Marsh
StPismo St
Oceanaire DrS Higuera St
Madon
n
a
R
d Cal
i
forn
ia
B
lvd Mo
u
n
t
L
ow
e
R
dMainini Ranch RdE Foothill Blvd
O
c
o
n
n
o
r
W
a
y
Tank
F
a
r
m
R
d
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
d
Or
c
u
t
t
R
d
L
o
s
O
s
o
s
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
California
Polytechnic
State University
010.5 Miles
Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian
Grade-Separated Crossing
Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian
Major Crossing Improvement
Anholm Neighborhood Greenway
Broad St / Santa Barbra Corridor
Foothill Blvd
Higuera St/Marsh St
Los Osos Valley Rd
Madonna Rd/
Oceanaire NG/South St
Mill/Morro/
Railroad Safety Trail
Prado/Dilidio
Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian
Minor Crossing Improvement
Tier 1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project CorridorsSan Luis Obispo Sources:
City of San Luis Obispo
*See Ch. 5 for
proposed bikeway
and crossing types.
School
Park or Open Space
Rail
Trails
Tank Farm Rd
Figure 27. Tier 1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Corridors
134
Bishop
Peak Natural
Reserve
Cerro San
Luis Natural
Reserve University Dr
Mount
B
i
s
h
o
p
R
d
West
S
t
Hil
l
S
tCouper Dr
Abbott St
Daly
A
ve Stanford Dr
Oak
S
t
Hillcrest
Pl
Wilson St
Miossi
R
d
Hathway Aly
Center S
t
Phillips Ln
Bond StCollege AveOakridge DrHiguera St
Garfield St
Clover
Dr
Felton
W
a
y
Stafford
S
t
Fel Mar Dr
Los Cerros
Dr
T
o
r
o
S
t
Meinecke
A
v
e
Walnut
St
Boy
s
e
n
A
v
e
Al
b
e
rt
D
r
Henderson AveGraves Ave
Mission St
Twin
R
i
d
g
e
D
r
Montal
b
a
n
S
t Klamath
RdCasa S
t
Slack StFerrini RdCuesta DrOlive
St
Serrano Dr
P
e
p
p
e
r
S
t
Palm
St
Pinnacles
R
d
N Cho
r
ro
S
t
Gr
o
v
e
S
t
Mountai
n
Vi
e
w
St
P
a
s
a
t
i
em
p
o
D
r
Corralitos Ave
Murray St
N Perimeter Rd
S
P
o
l
y
V
i
e
w
D
r
Kentucky StVia
Ca
r
ta
McCollum StJeffrey DrHathway AvePeach St
Fredericks St
Lincoln St
S
P
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
R
d
Luneta Dr
Ramona Dr
San Luis DrMill St
Monterey StW C
ree
k
Rd
Cerro Romauldo
Broad
S
t
Ch
o
r
r
o
S
tPatricia DrG
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
Highland Dr
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
B
l
v
d
Foothill
B
l
v
d
California
Polytechnic
State University
1
101
0 0.50.25 Miles
Sources:
City of San Luis Obispo
School
Park or Open Space
Rail
Trails
San Luis Obispo
Shared-Use Path
Bicycle Lane
Protected Bicycle Lane
Neighborhood Greenway Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian
Grade-Separated Crossing
Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian
Major Crossing Improvement
Tier 1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Corridors - North
Figure 28. Tier 1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects - North
135
Terrace Hill
Open Space
Reservior Canyon
Natural Reserve
Cerro San Luis
Natural Reserve
Laguna Lake
Natural
Reserve
F
l
o
r
a
S
t
King StRu
t
h
S
t
D
a
l
i
d
i
o Story StHutton StHarris StB
i
n
n
s
C
tIris StEmily StAlrita StExposition DrWil
ding
L
n
Rachel StCa
z
a
d
e
r
o
S
t
Center St
Parker StPhillips Ln
Vi
c
to
r
i
a
A
veMeadow StDana StAr
c
h
e
r
S
t
He
l
e
n
a
S
t
Caudill
S
t
Walnut
St
Geor
ge St
Lizzie
S
t
Mission St
U p ham
StGr
o
v
e
S
t
Montal
b
a
n
S
t
Bridge St Sie
r
r
a
W
a
y
Corrida Dr Blvd del CampoLawton AveHil
l
S
t
Olive
St
Church
St
Beebee StCorralitos Ave
Mountai
n
Vi
e
w
St
Ca
rm
e
l
S
t Be
a
c
h
S
t
BishopStP
e
p
p
e
r
S
t
Sydney
St
Ella
St
Santa Barbara StLincoln StF
i
x
l
i
n
i
S
tGa
r
d
e
n
S
t Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
B
l
v
d
Sandercock St
Branch St
T
o
r
o
S
t
Woodbridge StOs
o
s
S
t
Au
g
u
s
t
a
S
t
Palm StLeff StNi
p
om
o
S
t
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
S
t
Peach
St
High St Mo
r
r
o
S
t
Islay StBr
o
a
d
S
t San Luis DrPacific St
Mill St
Buch
on
St
Monterey
St
Pism
o
St
Marsh StHiguera
St Ch
o
r
r
o
S
t
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
0 0.50.25 Miles
Sources:
City of San Luis Obispo
School
Park or Open Space
Rail
Trails
San Luis Obispo
Shared-Use Path
Bicycle Lane
Protected Bicycle Lane
Neighborhood Greenway
Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian
Grade-Separated CrossingProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian
Major Crossing Improvement
Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian
Minor Crossing Improvement
Tier 1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Corridors - Central
Figure 29. Tier 1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects - Central
136
Islay Hill
Open Space
South Hills
Natural
Reserve
Rigetti
Hill Open
Space
Sout
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
MalvaAero
DrMeadow StSage St
Stoneridge Dr
Cll Crotalo
Caudill St
Clarion CtMcMillan AveGaribaldi Ave
Capitoli
o
W
a
y
Hopkins L
n
Farmhouse Ln
Corrida Dr
Woodside
DrFernwood DrMitchell Dr
Junipero
W
a
y Flo
r
a
S
t
Ironbark
S
t
Hansen Ln
Aug
u
s
t
a
S
t
Prado Rd
Wavertree St
Lawrence Dr
S
e
q
u
o
i
a
D
r
Tanglewood
D
r
Fuller
R
d
Goldenrod LnIndustri
al
W
a
yRoc
k
v
i
ew
P
l Tiburon
WayLaurel LnBullo
c
k
L
n Johnson AveHooverWoodbridge
S
t
Spanish Oaks Dr
S
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
D
r
Santa Fe RdP
o
i
n
s
e
t
t
i
a
S
t
Tank
F
a
rm
R
d Or
c
u
t
t
Rd
0 0.50.25 Miles
Sources:
City of San Luis Obispo
School
Park or Open Space
Rail
Trails
San Luis Obispo
Shared-Use Path
Bicycle Lane
Protected Bicycle Lane
Neighborhood Greenway
Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian
Grade-Separated CrossingProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian
Major Crossing Improvement
Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian
Minor Crossing Improvement
Tier 1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Corridors - Southeast
Figure 30. Tier 1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects - Southeast
137
Johnson
Ranch Open
Space
Irish Hills
Natural
Reserve
South Hills
Natural
Reserve
Laguna Lake
Natural
Reserve
Stoneridge
D
r
Prefu
m
o
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
d
Descanso St
Bir
c
h
Pin
e
Coral St
Quail Dr
Hind LnGu
l
f
S
t
Sage St
P
e
r
e
i
r
a
D
r
El
mLaguna Ln
Caudill
S
t
Long St
L
im
a
D
r
Bridge St
Hopkins
L
nHu
a
s
n
a
D
rVi
c
e
n
t
e
D
r
D
a
l
i
d
i
o
D
r
Granada Dr
Corrida Dr
Mitchell DrHiguera StG
a
l
l
e
o
n
W
a
yGathe DrB
a
l
b
o
a
S
t
el
M
e
r
c
a
d
oDa
l
i
d
i
o
Eto Cir
Lawrence
D
r
Royal
W
ay
Margarita
A
v
e
Devaul
R
a
n
c
h
Rd
d
e
l
R
i
o
A
v
eDiablo DrRo
c
k
v
i
ew
P
l
Meissner Ln
Suburban RdElks LnVachell Ln
Woodbridge
S
t
HooverVi
a
L
a
g
u
n
a
V
i
s
Santa Fe Rd
Prado Rd
L
o
s
O
s
o
s
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
dOceanaire DrS Higuera StMadon
n
a
R
d
Tank
F
a
r
m
R
d
Buckley RdCalle Joaquin0 0.60.3 Miles
Sources:
City of San Luis Obispo
School
Park or Open Space
Rail
Trails
San Luis Obispo
Shared-Use Path
Bicycle Lane
Protected Bicycle Lane
Neighborhood Greenway
Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian
Grade-Separated CrossingProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian
Major Crossing Improvement
Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian
Minor Crossing Improvement
Tier 1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Corridors - Southwest
Figure 31. Tier 1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects - Southwest
138
CORRIDOR USER PROjECT COMPONENTS MILES
Anholm Neighborhood Greenway Bike/Ped Neighborhood Greenway
Protected Bike Lane
Shared-Use Path
Crossing Improvement (Minor)
1.83
Broad Street/Santa Barbara Corridor Bike/Ped Crossing Improvement (Major)
Protected Bike Lane
Crossing Improvement (Minor)
2.74
Foothill Blvd Bike/Ped Protected Bike Lane
Crossing Improvement (Major)
Crossing Improvement (Major)
Crossing Improvement (Major)
Crossing Improvement (Major)
Grade-Separated Crossing
1.28
Higuera Street Bike/Ped Protected Bike Lane
Crossing Improvement (Minor)
Crossing Improvement (Major)
3.82
Tier 1 Projects
A more detailed project list can be found in Appendix A.
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
Implementat I o n
139
Tier 1 Projects (cont.)
CORRIDOR USER PROjECT COMPONENTS MILES
Marsh Street Bike/Ped Shared-Use Path
Protected Bike Lane
Crossing Improvement (Major)
Crossing Improvement (Minor)
1.43
Los Osos Valley Road Bike/Ped Protected Bike Lane
Shared-Use Path
Crossing Improvement (Major)
Crossing Improvement (Minor)
Grade-Separated Crossing
2.63
Madonna Road Bike/Ped Shared-Use Path
Protected Bike Lane
Crossing Improvement (Major)
Crossing Improvement (Major)
1.02
Oceanaire Neighborhood Greenway Bike/Ped Shared-Use Path
Neighborhood Greenway
Protected Bike Lane
Crossing Improvement (Major)
Crossing Improvement (Major)
1.39
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
I M PLEMENTATION
140
CORRIDOR USER PROjECT COMPONENTS MILES
South Street Bike/Ped Protected Bike Lane
Crossing Improvement (Major)
Crossing Improvement (Minor)
0.78
Mill Street Bike/Ped Neighborhood Greenway 0.45
Morro Street Bike/Ped Neighborhood Greenway 0.27
Railroad Safety Trail Bike/Ped Protected Bike Lane
Shared-Use Path
Grade-Separated Crossing
Crossing Improvement (Major)
Crossing Improvement (Major)
1.09
Prado/Dalidio Bike/Ped Protected Bike Lane
Bike Lane
Shared-Use Path
Crossing Improvement (Major)
2.0
Tank Farm Road Bike/Ped Protected Bike Lane
Shared-Use Path
Crossing Improvement (Minor)
Crossing Improvement (Major)
2.73
Tier 1 Projects (cont.)
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
Implementat I o n
141
Re se r v io r Ca ny o n
Na t u ra l Re se r v e
Ir i s h Hi l l s
Nat u r a l
Re s e r ve
La g un a L a ke
Na t u ra l
Res e r ve
Southw
o
o
d
D
r
Flo
r
a
S
t
Slack StFerrini RdOlive StGr
o
v
e
S
t
Murray St
Guerra
Dr
Ironbark StDa
l
id
i
o
C
a
rm
e
l
S
t
B
e
a
c
h
S
t
Bishop StMcCollum St
Sydney StTa n g l e w o o d D r
Fuller
R
d
Fredericks St
Lincoln StDiablo Dr
R
o
c
k
v
i
ew
P
l
Suburban Rd Ga
r
d
e
n
S
t
Tiburon W ayLaurel LnBu
l
l
o
c
k
L
nW
C
r
e
e
k
R
d
Vachell LnPi
n
n
a
c
l
e
s
R
d
Wo o d b r i d g e S t
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
S
t
Palm St
Mou
n
t
B
i
s
h
o
p
R
d
Loomis
S
t
S
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
D
r
High St Islay StBr
o
a
d
S
tPacific St
M ill StSan Luis DrG
ra
n
d A
v
e
Poin
s
e
t
t
i
a
S
t
W F o o th ill B lv dBlue Gran
ite
Ln
Monterey St
M arsh StPismo St
Oceanaire DrS Higuera StMadon
n
a
R
d Cal
i
forn
ia
B
lvd Mo
u
n
t
L
ow
e
R
dMainini Ranch RdE Foothill Blvd
O
c
o
n
n
o
r Wa
y
Tank Farm Rd
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
d
Or
c
u
t
t
R
d
L
o
s Os
o
s
V
a
ll
e
y
R
d
Califo rnia
Polytechnic
Sta te Univ ersity
0 10.5 Miles
Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian
Grade-Separated Crossing
Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian
Major Crossing Improvement
Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian
Minor Crossing Improvement
Tier 2 and 3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects
San Luis Obispo Sources:
City of San Luis Obispo
*See Ch. 5 for
proposed bikeway
and crossing types.
1
101
101
SchoolTier 2 Projects
Tier 3 Projects
Park or Open Space
Rail
Trails
Figure 32. Tier 2 and 3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects
142
Tier 2 Projects
A more detailed project list can be found in Appendix A.
CORRIDOR USER PROjECT COMPONENT MILES
Broad Street Bike/Ped Bike Lane
Crossing Improvement (Minor)
0.3
Nipomo Neighborhood Greenway Bike/Ped Neighborhood Greenway 0.83
Orcutt Road Bike Protected Bike Lane 0.81
Grand Avenue Bike/Ped Protected Bike Lane
Crossing Improvement (Minor)
0.54
Johnson Avenue Bike/Ped Protected Bike Lane
Intersection Improvement (Major)
2.13
Monterey Street Bike/Ped Protected Bike Lane
Crossing Improvement (Major)
Crossing Improvement (Minor)
0.79
Chorro Street Bike Bike Lane 0.25
Laurel Lane Bike Protected Bike Lane 0.54
Industrial Way Bike Bike Lane 0.39
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
Implementat I o n
143
CORRIDOR USER PROjECT COMPONENT MILES
Santa Rosa Street Ped Crossing Improvement (Major)N/A
Cerro Romauldo
Neighborhood Greenway
Bike/Ped Neighborhood Greenway 0.81
Highland Drive Bike Bike Lane 0.2
Buena Vista Street Bike/Ped Protected Bike Lane 0.13
Toro Neighborhood Greenway Bike/Ped Neighborhood Greenway 0.69
Elks Lane Bike Lane Bike Bike Lane 0.12
Bob Jones Trail (Octagon
Barn to LOVR)
Bike/Ped Shared-Use Path 0.19
Islay Street Bike/Ped Neighborhood Greenway 0.59
Tier 2 Projects (cont.)
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
I M PLEMENTATION
144
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:
Existing 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.
Facility is located along one of the Tier
1, 2 or 3 routes identified in the maps
shown previously in this chapter.
Facility is located in an area with high pedestrian
demand, particularly with higher concentration
of seniors, children, or users with mobility
challenges. Figure 33 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 o n
145
Re se r v i o r Ca ny o n
Na t u r a l Re se r v e
I ri sh H i ll s
Na t ur al
Re s e r ve
L ag un a L a ke
Na tu r a l
Re se r ve
W Foot
hill
R
d
Southwo
o
d
D
r
Flo
r
a
S
t
Slack StFerrini RdOlive StGr
o
v
e
S
t
Murray St
A l r i t a S t
Guerra
Dr
Ironbark StDa
l
i
d
i
o
C
a
rm
e
l
S
t
B
e
a
c
h
S
t
Bishop StMcCollum St
Sydney StS eq u oi a D r
Ta n g l e w o o d D r
Fuller
R
d
Fredericks St
Lincoln StDiablo
Dr
R
o
c
k
v
i
ew
P
l
Suburban Rd Ga
r
d
e
n
S
t
Tiburon W ayLaurel LnBridge Creek RdBu
l
lo
c
k
L
nW
C
r
e
e
k
R
d
Vachell LnPi
n
n
a
c
l
e
s
R
d
Wo o d b ri d g e St
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
S
t
Palm St
Mou
n
t
B
i
s
h
o
p
R
d
Loomis
S
t
S
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
D
r
Righetti RdHigh St Islay StBr
o
a
d
S
t
Pacific St
M ill StSan Luis DrG
ra
n
d A
v
e
Poin
se
t
t
i
a
S
t
W F o o th ill B lv dBlue
Gran
ite
Ln
Monterey St
M arsh StPismo St
Oceanaire DrS Higuera StMadon
n
a
R
d Cal
i
forn
ia
B
lvd Mo
u
n
t
L
ow
e
R
dMainini Ranch RdE Foothill Blvd
O
c
o
n
n
o
r Wa
y
Tank Farm Rd
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
d
Or
c
u
t
t
R
d
L
o
s
O
s
o
s
V
alle
y
R
d
Califo rnia
Polytechnic
Sta te Univ ersity
Sources:
City of San Luis Obispo
Opportunity Areas Prioritized for Pedestrian Improvements
Schools
High Concentration
Low Concentration
Parks
Senior Living
Existing and Proposed Greenway
Rail
Trails
San Luis Obispo
0 10.5 Mile
Public Facilities
1
101
101
Figure 33. Prioritized Pedestrian Improvements
146
Bob Jones Trail
and Railroad
Safety Trail
The Bob Jones Trail and Railroad Safety Trail are two important
projects to the cross town shared use path network. Given the
cost and time required to acquire right of way and agency permits,
these trails will be completed over an extended time however
certain portions of it will be completed quicker than others.
For the Bob Jones Trail, the portion from the Octagon Barn to Los Osos
Valley Road is a project that will require coordination with the County
since most of it is not in the City. This project is listed as a Tier 2 project,
however, should the County acquire funding for the segment connecting
to Avila Beach, this segment will be recategorized to a Tier 1 project.
The segment along Los Osos Valley Road between Calle Joaquin to
Froom Ranch Road is a Tier 1 project and is currently proposed for
construction as part of the Froom Ranch development. The portion
of trail from Prado Road to downtown is a long range project and
will require multiple right of way easements and agency permits.
The City has been working on segments of the Railroad Safety Trail
as easements have been acquired from Union Pacific Railroad. The
most recently completed segment is in the Righetti Ranch area from
Tank Farm Road to Bullock Lane. The segment from Bullock Lane to
Orcutt Road is currently proposed for construction as a condition of
development. The segment from the existing Jennifer Street Bridge to
Pepper Street is a Tier 3 project and will be pursued if Union Pacific
grants an easement. Lastly, the segment from Pepper Street across the
railroad and connecting with Taft Street is currently in construction and
will improve connections between downtown and Cal Poly University.
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
Implementat I on
147
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 who have a stake in a project. These
include traditional, in-person outreach tools such as town hall style
forums. Non-traditional outreach tools are also growing in importance
and include online engagement tools and social media. They also
include casual, family-friendly pop-up workshops during lunch hours,
on weekends, farmers markets and other times and locations that
work better for community members who typically are not able or
comfortable attending traditional meetings such as town hall events.
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. 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 Plan 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 and 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
I MPLEMENTATION
148
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 $25,000 $406,350
Bicycle Route Mile $20,000 $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
Implementat I on
149
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:
5–10% 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
1–4% 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
0.5–1% 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 $16,842,000.00 $195,378,000.00
Tier 2 Projects $3,119,000.00 $27,533,000.00
Tier 3 Projects $30,888,000.00 $181,431,000.00
Figure 34. Total Plan Build-Out Cost Estimate Table
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
I M PLEMENTATION
150
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 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
Implementat I on
151
Quick-Build Strategies
As implementation of the active transportation
network begins, the City will be smart,
innovative, and take advantage of opportunities
to efficiently deliver projects. Quick-building
is a strategy of constructing 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:
Bike routes and neighborhood greenways
that require only striping, signage, and
low-cost traffic calming measures
Bike lanes that require striping only
Protected bike lanes that can be installed
using striping and low-cost materials, like
flex posts, and do not require significant
reconfiguration of the roadway
Short sidewalk gap closures that
provide better connectivity
Painted corner bulbouts
Crossing 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. All projects have potential for
quick-build installation, however the following
Tier 1 and 2 projects shown in Figure 35
have the highest potential to use a quick-
build strategy based on having minimal
challenges and positive community support.
The City will continue to review the projects
recommended in this Plan to determine which
can 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
I M PLEMENTATION
152
Reservior Canyon
Natural Reserve
Irish Hills
Natural
Reserve
Laguna Lake
Natural
Reserve
California
Polytechnic
State University
010.5 Miles
Sources:
City of San Luis Obispo
School
Park or Open Space
Rail
Trails
San Luis Obispo
Projects with High Quick-Build Potential
Quickbuild Potential W Foothill RdF
l
o
r
a
S
t
Calle JoaquinHill StGr
o
v
e
S
t
Murray St
Guerra
Dr
Bishop StSydneyStRoyalWay Ella StR
o
c
k
v
i
e
w
P
l
MeissnerLn
F
ix
l
in
i
S
t
Suburban
R
d
Luneta Dr
Elks LnLaurelLnBranch St
B
u
l
l
o
c
k
L
n
Ramona Dr
W
C
r
e
e
k
R
d
Pi
n
n
a
c
l
e
s
R
d
WoodbridgeSt
South StOs
o
s
S
t
Au
g
u
s
t
a
S
tPalm St
Mo
u
n
t
B
i
s
h
o
p
R
d
VachellLnCerro Romauldo
HooverS
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
D
r
N
i
p
om
o
S
tPeach St
High St Mo
r
r
o
S
tPatricia DrIslayStB
r
o
a
d
S
tValleVista PlSanta FeRd
Mill StSan Luis DrPrado
R
d
Poins
e
t
t
i
a
S
tGrandAveWFoot
hill
Bl
v
d
Buchon StBlue Granite
Ln
Monterey St
Marsh StPismo
St
Oceanaire
D
r
S Higuera StMadon
n
a
R
d Higuera StHighlandDr Cal
i
fo
rn
ia
B
lvd
Chorro StMainini Ranch RdE Foothill BlvdFoothillBlvd
Buckley Rd
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
O
c
o
n
n
o
r
W
a
y
TankFarmRd Or
c
u
t
t
R
d
L
o
s
O
s
o
s
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
Fr
o
om
R
a
n
c
h
W
a
y
Figure 35. Projects with High Quick-Build Potential
153
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:
Striping bike lanes in conjunction with roadway resurfacing projects.
Installing higher-visibility crosswalk markings and signage
to improve visibility following roadway resurfacing.
Coordinating and combining projects to leverage economies of
scale for sidewalk and curb ramp improvement projects.
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
I MPLEMENTATION
154
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.
Demonstration Projects
Demonstration projects are a way to show the impacts of changes to
the transportation network by temporarily constructing improvements
using removable materials that can be adjusted or removed entirely.
Demonstration projects, sometimes called “tactical urbanism” usually
use cones, temporary marking tape, or movable planters. Different
than quick-build projects, these are usually projects that are installed
and shown for a few hours or few days and then removed.
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
Implementat I on
155
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 34 on page 150,
the funding commitments needed to complete
all Tier 1 projects in this timeframe ($16,842,000
- $195,378,000 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 complete the following infrastructure
improvements on an annual average basis:
0.63 miles of shared-use pathways per year
1.7 miles of protected bike lanes per year
0.37 miles of bike routes and
neighborhood greenways per year
5.1 priority crossing improvements per year
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
I M PLEMENTATION
156
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
Implementat I o n
157
State and Federal Grants
State and federal competitive grants provide another
opportunity to support the study, design and construction
of large active transportation 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
I MPLEMENTATION
158
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.
Street, 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.
The 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:
Exploring the purchase and use of a sweeper designed
for narrow facilities such as protected bike lanes.
Partnering with neighborhoods, volunteers, and community
groups to coordinate volunteer groups to maintain
landscaping and/or sweep debris from bike lanes.
Using 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:
Incorporate maintenance needs into the design and planning of bicycling
and pedestrian facilities to ensure proper maintenance after construction.
Identify, regularly update, and request funding for annual
maintenance costs for bicycling and pedestrian facilities to ensure
adequate funding levels for routine maintenance are available.
Include 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
Implementat I o n
159
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:
Bicycle - 8.3%
Walk - 7.2%
Drive Alone - 67.7%
Summarize biennially (every other year) 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:
Drive Alone - 67.7%
Summarize biennially (every other year) 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 trend of zero fatal collisions by 2030.
Three-Year Total (2015-2017):
3 fatal collisions
43 severe injury collisions
City of San Luis Obispo Annual Traffic Safety Report
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
I M PLEMENTATION
160
PERFORMANCE MEASURE BASELINE TRACKING MECHANISM
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:
0% of new low-stress bikeway mileage
0% 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)
8 Strive to achieve the same demographic representation
of those using active transportation modes as those
using single occupancy motor vehicles
Baseline to be set in 2021 U.S. Census Bureau, American Communities
Survey, Citywide Transportation Survey and others
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
Implementat I o n
161
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.
7.3.1 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.
7.3.2 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.
7.4.1 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.
7.4.2 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 M PLEMENTATION
162
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
7.13.1 The City should incorporate maintenance needs into
the design and planning of bicycle and pedestrian facilities
to ensure proper maintenance after construction.
7.13.2 The City should identify and regularly update annual
maintenance costs for bicycle and pedestrian facilities to ensure
adequate funding levels for routine maintenance costs.
7.13.3 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 o n
163
Glossary of Terms
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: Citizen
advisory body that provides oversight
and policy direction to the City Council 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
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
Glossary of Terms
165
vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.
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: A set of goals determined
by the City Council that 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
166
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
167
Appendices
Appendix A: Project List
Appendix B: Project Costs
Appendix C: Design Guidelines
Appendix D: Plan Adoption Resolution
Appendix ABike/Ped Neighborhood Greenway 278 Chorro St Marsh St Palm St 0.19Bike Protected Bike Lane200Chorro St Palm StMission St0.5919Two‐way protected bikeway Requires parking removalPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway199Mission St Broad StChorro St0.1319Bike Protected Bike Lane197Broad St (SB) Mission StRamona Dr0.319Requires parking removalBike/Ped Neighborhood Greenway236Broad St (NB) Mission StRamona Dr0.319Bike Protected Bike Lane197Ramona Dr Broad StPalomar Ave0.119Two‐way protected bikeway Requires parking removalPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path196++Ramona DrFoothilll Blvd0.1119Ped/Bike Neighborhood Greenway221Ferrini Rd Foothill BlvdHighland Dr0.319Ped Crossing Improvement (Minor)J‐26Chorro St Monterey St19Potential pedestrian scrambleBike Protected Bike Lane37Broad StFarmhouse Ln South St2.4226May required some parking removal Orcutt to South St.Ped Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐43Broad StAerovista Pl26Potential signal/roundabout/hybrid beacon. Alternate solution is mid‐block crossing @ Fuller Rd.Ped Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐44Broad StFiero Lane26Potential signal/roundabout/hybrid beacon. Alternate solution is mid‐block crossing @ Fuller Rd.Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐39Broad StTank Farm Road26Potential protected intersectionPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐74Broad StRockview26Potential signal/hybrid beacon.Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐46Broad StOrcutt Road26Potential protected intersection or bike/ped scramble phasePed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐20Broad StLawrence Dr26Potential signal/hybrid beaconPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐21Broad StWoodbridge St26Potential signal/hybrid beaconPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐15Broad StSouth St26Potential protected intersection or bike/ped scramble phaseBike Protected Bike Lane228Santa Barbara St Broad StUpham St0.3226Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor)J‐57Santa Barbara St High St26Potential median, RRFB. Alternate solution is crossing mid‐block at staircase to Railroad Square parking lotFoothill BlvdBike Protected Bike Lane14Foothill Blvd Los Cerros Dr California Blvd 1.2811Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐4Foothill Blvd Patricia Dr11Potential to expand signalization to Foothill/Los Cerros. Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐3Foothill Blvd Ferrini Rd11Hybrid beaconPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐6Foothill Blvd Santa Rosa St11Potential protected intersection or bike/ped scramble phaseRequires Caltrans coordination. May require right‐of‐wayPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐7Foothill Blvd California Blvd11Potential protected intersection or ped/bike scrambleRequires UPRR coordination & right‐of‐wayATP Tier 1 Project ListCorridorUserTypeIDLocationCross Street ANotable Constraints% RidershipPotentialNotesCross Street B MilesAnholm Neighborhood GreenwayBroad Street/Santa Barbara CorridorProject ID numbers correspond to mapping in the Public Viewerhttp://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d0c9ddaa42a444bda8d5940e05891eb7Page 119
Appendix AATP Tier 1 Project ListCorridor User Type ID Location Cross Street ANotable Constraints% RidershipPotentialNotesCross Street B MilesPed/Bike Grade‐Separated Crossing I‐29 Foothill Blvd UPRR11Potential ped/bike bridge Requires UPRR coordination & right‐of‐wayBike Protected Bike Lane 242,36,26 Higuera St CITY LIMIT Pepper St 3.8240May require auto lane reduction and/or widening & right‐of‐wayPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐50 Higuera St Las Praderas Dr40Potential RRFB, median refugePed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐49 Higuera St Granada Dr40Explore adding crosswalk on south legPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐41 Higuera St Elks Ln40Potential RRFB, median refugePed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐47 Higuera St Bridge St40Potential RRFB, median refuge. Future protected intersection/roundabout with ultimate realignment of Madonna/HigueraUltimate configuration requires redevelopment of Caltrans propertyPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐40 Higuera St Madonna Rd40Potential protected intersection or ped/bike scrambleMay require right‐of‐wayPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐18 Higuera St South St40Potential protected intersection or ped/bike scrambleMay require right‐of‐wayPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐22 Higuera St Marsh St40Potential ped/bike scramble or future roundaboutMay require Caltrans coordinationPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐73 Higuera St Court St40Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐28 Higuera St Toro St40Potential RRFB, median refuge/diverterPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐60 Higuera St Johnson St Potential hybrid beaconBike Shared‐Use Path 25 Marsh St Madonna Inn Bike Path Higuera St 0.2140Alternate design strategy may include widening existing shared‐use path Requires Caltrans coordination. May require right‐of‐wayBike Protected Bike Lane 27 Marsh St Higuera St California Blvd 1.1440Requires auto lane reduction or partial street parking removalBike Protected Bike Lane 20 California Blvd Marsh St San Luis Dr 0.0440May require auto lane reduction or deferral until unless roadway is widened with future replacement of existing bridgePed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐29 Marsh St Santa Rosa St40Potential bike/ped scramblePed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐72 Marsh St Carmel40Potential RRFBPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐71 Marsh St Beach40Potential RRFBPed Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐56 Marsh St Toro St40Potential RRFB, median refuge/diverterPed Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐37 Marsh St California Blvd40Potential bike/ped scramblePed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐11 California Blvd San Luis Dr40Potential signal/compact roundaboutMay require right‐of‐wayLos Osos Valley RoadBike Protected Bike Lane 213,206,224,34 Los Osos Valley Rd Diablo Dr S Higuera St 2.3617Requires some parking removal and NB auto lane reduction between Madonna and Oceanaire.Ped/Bike Shared‐Use Path 210 Los Osos Valley Rd Descanso St Laguna Ln 0.2717May require consolidating NB protected bike lane with sidewalk‐level shared‐use pathHiguera StreetMarsh StreetProject ID numbers correspond to mapping in the Public Viewerhttp://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d0c9ddaa42a444bda8d5940e05891eb7Page 2
Appendix AATP Tier 1 Project ListCorridor User Type ID Location Cross Street ANotable Constraints% RidershipPotentialNotesCross Street B MilesPed Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐31 Los Osos Valley Rd Diablo Dr17Potential hybrid beaconPed Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐2Los Osos Valley Rd Prefumo Canyon Rd17Potential hybrid beaconPed Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐1Los Osos Valley Rd Royal Way17Explore adding crosswalk on south legPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐33 Los Osos Valley Rd Madonna Rd17Potential protected intersection or bike/ped scramble phaseRequires right‐of‐wayPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐8Los Osos Valley Rd Froom Ranch Way17Planned protected intersectionPed Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐25 Los Osos Valley Rd Auto Park Way17Planned protected intersectionPed Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐9Los Osos Valley Rd Calle Joaquin17Potential bike/ped scramble Requires Caltrans coordination. May require right‐of‐wayPed/Bike Grade‐Separated Crossing I‐42 Los Osos Valley Rd US 101 NB17Potential ped/bike tunnel Requires Caltrans coordination, right‐of‐way, and jurisdictional permits for work near creek.Shared‐Use Path 15 Madonna Rd Madonna Inn Oceanaire Dr 0.620Protected Bike Lane 225 Madonna Rd Madonna Inn Higuera St 0.4220Requires Caltrans coordinationCrossing Improvement (Major) J‐30 Madonna Rd Madonna Inn20Potential bike/ped scramble Requires Caltrans coordinationCrossing Improvement (Major) J‐61 Madonna Rd Between Oceanaire & Dalidio20Planned hybrid beacon at San Luis Ranch multifamily entryBike Shared‐Use Path 81, 5 Froom Ranch Way Los Osos Valley Rd Oceanaire Dr 0.2320Ped/Bike Neighborhood Greenway 214 Oceanaire Dr Froom Ranch Way Atascadero St 0.4120Ped/Bike Neighborhood Greenway 215 Atascadero St Oceanaire Dr Galleon Way 0.2820Ped/Bike Neighborhood Greenway 220 Galleon Way Atascadero St Oceanaire Dr 0.3120Bike Protected Bike Lane 218 Oceanaire Dr Galleon Way Los Osos Valley Rd 0.1620Two‐way protected bikeway linking to LOVR Safe Routes to School PathRequires parking removalPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐62 Froom Ranch Way Oceanaire Dr20Planned hybrid beacon Requires focused feasibility and access analysisPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐32 Madonna Rd Oceanaire Dr20Potential bike/ped scramble Requires focused feasibility and access analysisBike Protected Bike Lane 35 South St Higuera St Broad St 0.7820May require parking removal or modifying median Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐24 South St King St20Potential hybrid beacon or RRFBPed Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐48 South St Meadow St20Potential RRFBMill StreetPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway 260 Mill St Chorro St Pepper St 0.4536May be candidate for advisory bike lanesMorro StreetPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway 235 Morro St Marsh St Mill St 0.2736Ped/Bike Shared‐Use Path 169 ++ Tiburon Way Orcutt Rd 0.536May require UPRR coordination & right‐of‐way. Requires widening of existing Bullock Lane culvert, potential jurisdictional permits required for work near creek.Bike Protected Bike Lane 259 Pepper St Marsh St Phillips Ln 0.3236Ped/Bike Shared‐Use Path 75, 76 Phillips Ln Taft St 0.2736Ped/Bike Grade‐Separated Crossing I‐24 ++ Pepper St Phillips Ln 0.0436Planned ped/bike bridge.Ped/Bike Grade‐Separated Crossing I‐3 Tank Farm Road36Ped/bike bridge over Tank Farm Rd.May require UPRR coordination.Ped/Bike Grade‐Separated Crossing I‐36 Industrial Way36Ped/bike bridge over UPRR tracksRequires UPRR coordination & right‐of‐wayMadonna RoadOceanaire Neighborhood GreenwaySouth StreetRailroad Safety TrailProject ID numbers correspond to mapping in the Public Viewerhttp://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d0c9ddaa42a444bda8d5940e05891eb7Page 3
Appendix AATP Tier 1 Project ListCorridor User Type ID Location Cross Street ANotable Constraints% RidershipPotentialNotesCross Street B MilesPed/Bike Grade‐Separated Crossing I‐4Lawrence Dr or Francis36Ped/bike bridge over UPRR tracksRequires UPRR coordination & right‐of‐wayPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐17 Pepper St Monterey St36Long‐term plan is a ped/bike bridge. Interim solution may include RRFB & median refuge/diverterRequires UPRR coordination & right‐of‐wayPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐64 California Blvd Taft St36Planned roundaboutBike Protected Bike Lane 261 Dalidio/Prado Madonna Rd Elks Ln 0.4717South side of Prado (Madonna to Froom) will be a shared‐use pathBike Protected Bike Lane 261 Prado Rd Elks Ln Serra Meadows Rd 0.7117Bike Bike Lane 104 Prado Rd Serra Meadows Rd Broad St 1.0317Ped/Bike Shared‐Use Path 105 Prado Rd (North Side)Serra Meadows Rd Broad St 1.0917Ped/Bike Shared‐Use Path 106 Prado Rd (South Side)Serra Meadows Rd Broad St 0.8617Ped/Bike Shared‐Use Path 127 Dalidio Dr Madonna Rd‐0.317Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major) I‐2Prado Rd Damon‐Garcia Sports Field17Potential ped/bike undercrossingBike Protected Bike Lane 33 Tank Farm Rd S. Higuera St Horizon Ln 0.4611Ped/Bike Shared‐Use Path 64,157,267 Tank Farm Rd (North Side)Horizon Ln Santa Fe Rd 0.9411Requires roadway widening and right‐of‐wayBike Protected Bike Lane 31, 32 Tank Farm Rd Santa Fe Rd Orcutt Rd 1.3311May required auto lane reduction.Ped Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐13 Tank Farm Rd Poinsettia St11Potential RRFB & median refugePed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐65 Tank Farm Rd Orcutt Road11Planned roundaboutProject ID numbers correspond to mapping in the Public Viewerhttp://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d0c9ddaa42a444bda8d5940e05891eb7Tank Farm RoadPrado/DalidioProject ID numbers correspond to mapping in the Public Viewerhttp://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d0c9ddaa42a444bda8d5940e05891eb7Page 4
1101101Reservior CanyonNatural ReserveIrish HillsNaturalReserveLaguna LakeNaturalReserveSouthwood DrFlora StSlack StFerrini Rd Olive StGrove
St
Murray StGuerra DrIronbark StDalidi
o
Carmel St
Beach
StBishop StMcCollum StSydney StTanglewoodDrFuller RdFredericks StLincoln StDiablo DrRockvie
w PlSuburban RdGarden StTiburon WayLaurel LnBulloc
k L
n
W Creek RdVachellLnPinnacles RdWoodbridgeStAugusta StPalm StMount Bishop RdLoomis StSacramento DrHigh StIslay St
Broad
St
Pacific StMillStSan Luis DrGrandAve
Poins
etti
a
St
WFoothill BlvdBlue Gran
i
t
e
L
n Monterey StMarshStPismo StOceanaire DrSHigueraStMadonna RdCaliforni
a
Bl
v
d
Mount Lowe Rd
Mainini Ranch RdE Foothill BlvdOconnor
Way Tank Farm RdReservoir Canyon RdOrcutt
R
d
Los
Os os
Vall ey RdCaliforniaPolytechnicState University010.5 MilesProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Grade-Separated CrossingProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Major Crossing ImprovementAnholm Neighborhood GreenwayBroad St / Santa Barbra CorridorFoothill BlvdHiguera St/Marsh StLos Osos Valley RdMadonna Rd/ Oceanaire NG/South StMill/Morro/Railroad Safety TrailPrado/DilidioProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Minor Crossing ImprovementTier 1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project CorridorsSan Luis ObispoSources:City of San Luis Obispo*See Ch. 5 for proposed bikeway and crossing types. SchoolPark or Open SpaceRailTrailsTank Farm Rd
BishopPeak NaturalReserveCerro SanLuis NaturalReserveUniversity
D
r
Mount Bishop RdWest St
Hill St
Couper
D
r Abbott StDaly AveStanfor
d
D
r Oak StHillcrest PlWilson StMiossi RdHathway AlyCenter StPhillips LnBond StCollege
A
v
e
Oakridge DrHiguera StGarfield StClover DrFelton WayStafford StFel Mar DrLos Cerr
o
s
D
r
Toro
StMeinecke AveWalnut StBoysen AveAlbert DrHenderson AveGraves AveMission StTwin Ridge DrMontalban StKlamath
R
d
Casa StSlack StFerrini Rd
Cuesta DrOlive StSerrano DrPepper StPalm StPinnacles RdN Chorr
o
St
Grove StMountain View StPasatie
mpo
Dr Corralitos AveMurray StN Perimeter RdSPolyViewDrKent ucky
S
t
Via Cart
a McCollum StJeffrey DrHathway AvePeach StFredericks StLincoln StS Perimeter RdLuneta DrRamona DrSan Luis DrMill StMonterey St
W
Cr
e
e
k
R
d
Cerro RomauldoBroad
St
Chorro StPatricia DrGrand AveHighland DrCalifornia
Bl vd
Foothill BlvdCaliforniaPolytechnicState University11010 0.50.25 MilesSources:City of San Luis Obispo SchoolPark or Open SpaceRailTrailsSan Luis ObispoShared-Use PathBicycle LaneProtected Bicycle LaneNeighborhood GreenwayProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Grade-Separated CrossingProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Major Crossing ImprovementTier 1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Corridors - North
Terrace HillOpen SpaceReservior CanyonNatural ReserveCerro San LuisNatural ReserveLaguna LakeNaturalReserveFlora StKing StRuth StDalidioStory StHutton StHarris StBinns
Ct
Iris StEmily StAlrita StExposition Dr
Wil ding
L
n
Rachel StCazadero StCenter StParker StPhillips LnVictori
a
A
v
e
Meadow StDana StArcher St
Helena StCaudill StWalnut StGeorge StLizzie StMission StUpham St
Grove StMontalban StBridge StSierra
Wa
y
Corrida DrBlvd del CampoLawton Ave
Hill StOlive StChurch StBeebee StCorralitos AveMountain View StCarmel St
Beach
St BishopStPepper StSydney StElla StSanta Barbara StLincoln StFixlini
St
Garden St
California
Blvd
Sandercock StBranch StToro StWoodbridgeStOsos
St
Augusta StPalm StLeff StNipo
mo
StSanta Rosa
St
Peach StHigh StMorro StIslay StB road StSan Luis DrPacific StMill StBuchon StMonterey StPismo StMarshStHiguera StChorr
o
St Johnson
Ave
0 0.50.25 MilesSources:City of San Luis Obispo SchoolPark or Open SpaceRailTrailsSan Luis ObispoShared-Use PathBicycle LaneProtected Bicycle LaneNeighborhood GreenwayProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Grade-Separated CrossingProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Major Crossing ImprovementProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Minor Crossing ImprovementTier 1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Corridors - Central
Islay HillOpen SpaceSouth HillsNaturalReserveRigettiHill OpenSpaceSouthwood DrMalvaAero DrMeadow StSage StStoneridge DrCll CrotaloCaudill StClarion CtMcMillan AveGaribaldi AveCapitolio WayHopkins LnFarmhouseLnCorrida DrWoodside DrFernwood DrMitchell DrJunipero Way
Flora
St Ironbark StHansen LnAugusta StPrado RdWavertree StLawrence DrSequoia
Dr
Tanglewood DrFuller RdGoldenrod LnIndustrial Way
Rockvie
w
PlTiburon WayLaurel LnBullock
L
nJohnson AveHooverWoodbridge StSpanish Oaks DrSacramento
DrSanta Fe RdPoinsettia StTank Farm Rd
Orcutt
R
d 00.50.25MilesSources:City of San Luis Obispo SchoolPark or Open SpaceRailTrailsSan Luis ObispoShared-Use PathBicycle LaneProtected Bicycle LaneNeighborhood GreenwayProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Grade-Separated CrossingProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Major Crossing ImprovementProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Minor Crossing ImprovementTier 1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Corridors - Southeast
JohnsonRanch OpenSpaceIrish HillsNaturalReserveSouth HillsNaturalReserveLaguna LakeNaturalReserveStoneridge DrPrefumo Canyon RdDescanso StBirchPineCoral StQuail DrHind LnGulf
St Sage StPereira Dr ElmLaguna LnCaudill StLong St
Lima
DrBridge StHopkins LnHuasna
Dr
Vicente
DrDalidio DrGranada DrCorrida DrMitchell DrHiguera StGalleon
W ayGathe DrBalboa Stel MercadoDalidio
Eto CirLawrence DrRoyal WayMargaritaAveDevaulRanchRddel Rio AveDiablo Dr
Rockview
Pl
Meissner LnSuburban RdElks LnVachell LnWoodbridge StHooverVia Laguna VisSanta Fe RdPrado RdLos
Os osValley RdOceanaire DrS Higuera StMadonna RdTank Farm RdBuckley RdCalle Joaquin0 0.60.3 MilesSources:City of San Luis Obispo SchoolPark or Open SpaceRailTrailsSan Luis ObispoShared-Use PathBicycle LaneProtected Bicycle LaneNeighborhood GreenwayProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Grade-Separated CrossingProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Major Crossing ImprovementProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Minor Crossing ImprovementTier 1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Corridors - Southwest
Appendix ACorridorUserTypeIDLocationCross Street A Cross Street B MilesRidershipPotentialNotesNotable ConstraintsBob Jones TrailPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path70 BJTS. Higuera St Los Osos Valley Rd 0.19City/County Project. If the County is able to secure funding for the portion from Avila Beach to the Octagon Barn, this segment will be recategorized as a Tier 1 project.Requires right‐of‐way, jurisdictional permits for work near creek, potential loss of ag land.Broad StreetPed/BikeCrossing Improvement (Minor) J‐55 Broad StUpham StCerro Romauldo Neighborhood GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway123 Cerro Romauldo Ave Ferrini RdPatricia Dr0.55Cerro Romauldo Neighborhood GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway123 Patricia Dr Cerro Romauldo Ave Craig Way0.08Cerro Romauldo Neighborhood GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway123 Craig Way Patricia DrJaycee Dr0.05Cerro Romauldo Neighborhood GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway123 Jaycee Dr Craig WayBishop Peak Elementary0.13Chorro Street Bike Bike Lane 238 Chorro St Mission StMeinecke Ave 0.25Northbound bikelane onlyGrand AvenueBike Protected Bike Lane239 Grand Ave Monterey St Slack St0.54Requires auto lane reduction.Grand AvenuePed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐38 Grand Ave McCollum St0.13Potential for RRFB & median refugeGrand AvenuePed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐66 Grand Ave Mill StPotential for RRFB & median refugeHighland DriveBike Bike Lane 111 Highland Dr Cuesta DrCuesta Dr0.2May require partial parking removal on south side of Highland near FerriniIndustrial WayBikeBike Lane 51 Industrial Wy Broad StRailroad Safety Trail 0.39May require partial parking removal.Islay Street Neighborhood GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway132 Islay StSanta RosaToro St0.14Islay Street Neighborhood GreenwayPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐67 Islay StBroad StPotential for RRFBIslay Street Neighborhood GreenwayPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐68 Islay StOsos StPotential for RRFBJohnson AvenueBike Protected Bike Lane19 Johnson Ave Monterey St Orcutt Rd2.13May require parking removal and/or auto lane reductions.Johnson AvenueBike/Ped Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐63 Johnson Ave Sydney StLaurel LaneBike Protected Bike LaneLaurel Lane Johnson Ave Orcutt RdMay require parking removalMonterey StreetBike Protected Bike Lane18 Monterey St Santa Rosa St Buena Vista Ave 0.79May require parking removal and lane configurationsMonterey StreetPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐36 Monterey St Grand AvePotential protected intersection or pike/ped scramble. May require right‐of‐wayMonterey StreetPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐27 Monterey St Santa Rosa StPotential bike box, dedicated bike/ped scrambleMonterey StreetPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐16 Monterey St Toro StPotential RRFB & median/diverterNipomo‐King Neighborhood GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway24 Nipomo St/Peach St Marsh StChorro0.47May require traffic volume management north of Higuera St. Potential for diverter/turn restrictions at Peach/ChorroOrcutt RoadBike Protected Bike Lane244 Orcutt Rd Broad StJohnson Ave 0.81May require partial parking removal east of LaurelOrcutt RoadPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐69 Orcutt Rd Sacramento/DuncanPlanned traffic signalToro Neighborhood GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway131 Toro StIslay StUS 1010.69Toro Neighborhood GreenwayPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐70 Toro StBuchon StPotential neighborhood traffic circleProject ID numbers correspond to mapping in the Public Viewerhttp://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d0c9ddaa42a444bda8d5940e05891eb7ATP Tier 2 Project ListProject ID numbers correspond to mapping in the Public Viewerhttp://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d0c9ddaa42a444bda8d5940e05891eb7Page 5
Reservior CanyonNatural ReserveIrish HillsNaturalReserveLaguna LakeNaturalReserveCaliforniaPolytechnicState UniversityW Foothill RdFlora
S tCalle JoaquinG rove St
Murray StGuerra DrBishop StSydneyStRoyalWayElla StRoc kview PlMeissnerLnFix lini St
SuburbanRdLuneta DrElksLnLaurelLnBranch StBu llockL
n
Ramona DrWCreek RdPinnacles RdWoodbridgeStSouth StO so sSt AugustaStPalm StMount BishopRdVachellLnCerro RomauldoHooverSacramento
Dr
Nipo
m
o
St
High StMorr
o
St
Patricia DrIslayStBro ad St
ValleVista PlSanta FeRdMill StSan Luis DrPrado RdPoinsettiaStGrandAv e
WFoothillBlvdBuchon StBlue Grani
t
e
L
n Monterey StMarsh StPismoStOceanaire DrS Higuera StMadonna RdHiguera StHighlandDrCaliforn
ia Blvd
C horr o St
Mainini Ranch RdE Foothill BlvdFoothillBlvdBuckley RdJohns
o
n
A
ve
Oc onnorWay TankFarmRdOrcutt
Rd
Los
Os
os
Valley
R
d Froom
Ra
nc
h
Way 010.5 MilesSources:City of San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo1101101Tier 2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project CorridorsShared-Use PathBicycle LaneProtected Bicycle LaneNeighborhood GreenwayProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Grade-Separated CrossingProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Major Crossing ImprovementProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Minor Crossing ImprovementSchoolPark or Open SpaceRailTrails
BishopPeak NaturalReserveCerro SanLuis NaturalReserveUniversity
D
r
Mount Bishop RdWest St
Hill St
Couper
D
r Abbott StDaly AveStanfor
d
D
r Oak StHillcrest PlWilson StMiossi RdHathway AlyCenter StPhillips LnBond StCollege
A
v
e
Oakridge DrHiguera StGarfield StClover DrFelton WayStafford StFel Mar DrLos Cerr
o
s
D
r
Toro
StMeinecke AveWalnut StBoysen AveAlbert DrHenderson AveGraves AveMission StTwin Ridge DrMontalban StKlamath
R
d
Casa StSlack StFerrini Rd
Cuesta DrOlive StSerrano DrPepper StPalm StPinnacles RdN Chorr
o
St
Grove StMountain View StPasatie
mpo
Dr Corralitos AveMurray StN Perimeter RdSPolyViewDrKent ucky
S
t
Via Cart
a McCollum StJeffrey DrHathway AvePeach StFredericks StLincoln StS Perimeter RdLuneta DrRamona DrSan Luis DrMill StMonterey St
W
Cr
e
e
k
R
d
Cerro RomauldoBroad
St
Chorro StPatricia DrGrand AveHighland DrCalifornia
Bl vd
Foothill BlvdCaliforniaPolytechnicState University11010 0.50.25 MilesSources:City of San Luis Obispo SchoolPark or Open SpaceRailTrailsSan Luis ObispoBicycle LaneProtected Bicycle LaneNeighborhood GreenwayProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Major Crossing ImprovementProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Minor Crossing ImprovementTier 2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Corridors - North
Terrace HillOpen SpaceReservior CanyonNatural ReserveCerro San LuisNatural ReserveLaguna LakeNaturalReserveFlora StKing StRuth StDalidioStory StHutton StHarris StBinns
Ct
Iris StEmily StAlrita StExposition Dr
Wil ding
L
n
Rachel StCazadero StCenter StParker StPhillips LnVictori
a
A
v
e
Meadow StDana StArcher St
Helena StCaudill StWalnut StGeorge StLizzie StMission StUpham St
Grove StMontalban StBridge StSierra
Wa
y
Corrida DrBlvd del CampoLawton Ave
Hill StOlive StChurch StBeebee StCorralitos AveMountain View StCarmel St
Beach
St BishopStPepper StSydney StElla StSanta Barbara StLincoln StFixlini
St
Garden St
California
Blvd
Sandercock StBranch StToro StWoodbridgeStOsos
St
Augusta StPalm StLeff StNipo
mo
StSanta Rosa
St
Peach StHigh StMorro StIslay StB road StSan Luis DrPacific StMill StBuchon StMonterey StPismo StMarsh StHiguera StChorr
o
St Johnson
Ave
00.50.25MilesSources:City of San Luis Obispo SchoolPark or Open SpaceRailTrailsSan Luis ObispoProtected Bicycle LaneNeighborhood GreenwayProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Major Crossing ImprovementProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Minor Crossing ImprovementTier 2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Corridors - Central
Islay HillOpen SpaceSouth HillsNaturalReserveRigettiHill OpenSpaceSouthwood DrMalvaAero DrMeadow StSage StStoneridge DrCll CrotaloCaudill StClarion CtMcMillan AveGaribaldi AveCapitolio WayHopkins LnFarmhouseLnCorrida DrWoodside DrFernwood DrMitchell DrJunipero Way
Flora
St Ironbark StHansen LnAugusta StPrado RdWavertree StLawrence DrSequoia
Dr
Tanglewood DrFuller RdGoldenrod LnIndustrial Way
Rockvie
w
PlTiburon WayLaurel LnBullock
L
nJohnson AveHooverWoodbridge StSpanish Oaks DrSacramento
DrSanta Fe RdPoinsettia StTank Farm Rd
Orcutt
R
d 0 0.50.25 MilesSources:City of San Luis Obispo SchoolPark or Open SpaceRailTrailsSan Luis ObispoBicycle LaneProtected Bicycle LaneProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Major Crossing ImprovementTier 2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Corridors - Southeast
JohnsonRanch OpenSpaceIrish HillsNaturalReserveSouth HillsNaturalReserveLaguna LakeNaturalReserveStoneridge DrPrefumo Canyon RdDescanso StBirchPineCoral StQuail DrHind LnGulf
St Sage StPereira Dr Cll JoaquinElmLaguna LnCaudill StLong St
Lima
DrBridge StHopkins LnHuasna
Dr
Vicente
DrDalidio DrGranada DrCorrida DrMitchell DrHiguera StGalleon
W ayGathe DrBalboa Stel MercadoDalidio
Eto CirLawrence DrRoyal WayMargaritaAveDevaulRanchRddel Rio AveDiablo Dr
Rockview
Pl
Meissner LnSuburban RdElks LnVachell LnWoodbridge StHooverVia Laguna VisSanta Fe RdPrado RdLos
Os osValley RdOceanaire DrS Higuera StMadonna RdTank Farm RdBuckley Rd0 0.60.3 MilesSources:City of San Luis Obispo SchoolPark or Open SpaceRailTrailsSan Luis ObispoShared-Use PathProtected Bicycle LaneNeighborhood GreenwayTier 2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Corridors - Southwest
Appendix ACorridor User Type ID Location Cross Street ACross Street B Miles Notes Notable ConstraintsUS 101 / Marsh St UndercrossingBike Bike Lane 53 Marsh St Fernandez Ln Higuera St 0.27 Requires Caltrans coordinationAvila RanchPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 186‐Tank Farm Rd Buckley Rd 1.03A portion of path requires additional right‐of‐wayAvila RanchPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 191 Internal‐‐0.11Avila RanchPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 185 Buckley Rd S Higuera StAvila Ranch Eastern Boundary 0.78Includes ped/bike bridge over creekAvila RanchBike Bike Lane 71 Buckley Rd S Higuera StAvila Ranch Eastern Boundary 0.78Avila RanchBike Bike Lane 10 Horizon Ln Buckey Rd Suburban Rd 0.79Avila RanchBike Bike Lane 188 Earthwood Ln .2 mi east of Vachell Suburban Rd 0.54Avila RanchBike Bike Route 241 Earthwood Ln Vachell Ln .2 mi east of Vachell 0.21Avila RanchBike Bike Lane 22 Short St‐Suburban Rd 0.11Avila RanchBike Bike Lane 7Venture Ln Vachell Ln Horizon Ln 0.69Avila RanchBike Bike Lane 8 Suburban Rd S Higuera St Horizon Ln 1.04Avila RanchPed/Bike Grade‐Separated Crossing I‐13‐CreekBishop Street/ Roundhouse StreetBike Bike Lane 39 Roundhouse St Santa Barbara St Bushnell St 0.23Bishop Street/ Roundhouse StreetBike Bike Lane 39 Bishop St Bushnell St Johnson Ave 0.44Bishop Street/ Roundhouse StreetBike Grade‐Separated Crossing I‐46 Bishop St Bushnell/UPRRAuto/ped/bike bridge over UPRRRequires UPRR right‐of‐way, construction of Bishop Street ExtensionBob Jones TrailPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 21 BJT Prado Rd Brooks St 1.2Requires right‐of‐way, jurisdictional permits for work near creekBob Jones TrailPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 66 BJT South St Marsh St 0.42Requires right‐of‐way, jurisdictional permits for work near creekBob Jones TrailBike Neighborhood Greenway 223 Brooks St/South St 0.12Bob Jones TrailPed/Bike Grade‐Separated Crossing I‐9 BJT Creek Ped/bike bridgeBob Jones TrailPed/Bike Grade‐Separated Crossing I‐10 BJT Madonna Rd Ped/bike bridge/tunnelBob Jones TrailPed/Bike Grade‐Separated Crossing I‐11 BJT Creek Ped/bike bridgeBob Jones TrailPed/Bike Grade‐Separated Crossing I‐12 BJT Creek Ped/bike bridgeBroad Street Ped/Bike Shared‐Use Path 100 Broad (West Side) Prado Rockview 0.42 Requires right‐of‐wayCalifornia BoulevardBike Protected Bike Lane 20 California Blvd Marsh St Monterey St 0.12May require auto lane reductions, some parking removalCapitolio WayBike Bike Lane 139 Capitolio Way Broad St Sacramento Dr 0.15 May require parking removalCapitolio WayPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐45 Capitolo Way Sacramento Dr Potential all‐way stopEl CaptainPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 138‐El Captain Way Poinsettia St 0.04Ella Street GreenwayBike Shared‐Use Path 141‐‐Jennifer St Bridge Henry St 0.12 Requires UPRR right‐of‐wayElla Street GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway 55 Iris St Henry St Ruth St 0.09Ella Street GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway 55 Ruth St Iris St Ella St 0.08Ella Street GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway 55 Ella St Ruth St Fixlini St 0.26Elks Lane Bike LaneBike Bike Lane 159 Elks Lane Prado Rd S. Higuera 0.66Requires Prado Interchange construction. May require shoulder wideningFlora Street/Fixlini Street GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway 246 Fixlini St Lizzie St Fixlini St 0.24Flora Street/Fixlini Street GreenwayPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 63‐‐Fixlini St Bishop St 0.2Flora Street/Fixlini Street GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway 246 Flora St Bishop St Southwood Dr 1Flora Street/Fixlini Street GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway 246 Southwood Dr Flora St Sequoia Dr 0.13Flora Street/Fixlini Street GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway 246 Sequoia Dr Southwood Dr Tanglewood Dr 0.17Flora Street/Fixlini Street GreenwayPed/Bike Grade‐Separated Crossing I‐5 Tanglewood DrPed/bike bridge over creek south of TanglewoodRequires right‐of‐way, jurisdictional permits for work near creekFroom Ranch WayPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 182 West side of Froom Ranch Wy Oceanaire Dr Dalidio Dr 0.53Froom Ranch WayBike Bike Lane 183 Froom Ranch Way Oceanaire Dr Dalidio Dr 0.49ATP Tier 3 Project ListProject ID numbers correspond to mapping in the Public Viewerhttp://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d0c9ddaa42a444bda8d5940e05891eb7Page 6
Appendix ACorridor User Type ID Location Cross Street ACross Street B Miles Notes Notable ConstraintsATP Tier 3 Project ListHigh StreetPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐51 High St Beebee StHigh StreetPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐54 High St Carmel StHighland/Santa Rosa BypassPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 122 Ferrini Rd Chorro St 0.12 Requires right‐of‐way/easementHighland/Santa Rosa BypassBike Bike Lane 147 Boysen Ave Shared Use Path Santa Rosa St 0.07 May require parking removalHighland/Santa Rosa BypassPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 122 Chorro Boysen 0.07 Requires right‐of‐way/easementHwy 101 Shared Use PathPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 114 US 101 Marsh St N Broad St 0.77Hwy 101 Shared Use PathPed/Bike Grade‐Separated Crossing I‐37 US 101 Broad St Ped/bike bridge Requires Caltrans coordinationHwy 101 Shared Use PathPed/Bike Grade‐Separated Crossing I‐38 US 101 Broad St Ped/bike bridge Requires Caltrans coordinationIndustrial WayPed/Bike Intersection Improvement (Minor) J‐14 Industrial Wy Bougainvillea St Sacramento Dr Ped/bike access gateRequires coordination with Residential HOAIndustrial / Tank Farm BypassPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 144 Tank Farm Rd Industrial Wy 0.21 Requires right‐of‐wayJohnson AvenuePed/Bike Intersection Improvement (Minor) J‐12 Johnson Ave Southwood Dr Potential RRFB & median refugeJohnson AvenuePed/Bike Intersection Improvement (Major) J‐42 Johnson Ave Orcutt Rd Potential roundabout Requires right‐of‐wayLaguna Middle School BridgePed/Bike Grade‐Separated Crossing 125 Oceanaire Dr Vista del Lago 0.11 Ped/bike bridge Requires right‐of‐wayLaguna Lake PathsPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 222 Laguna Lake Park Madonna Rd City Limit 1.05Margarita Area Shared‐Use PathwaysPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path Various Varies Varies 2.97Various planne shared‐use paths throughout Margarita Specific Plan AreaMargarita Area Shared‐Use Pathway XingsPed/Bike Grade‐Separated Crossing Various Varies (2 locations) VariesPed/bike bridge/tunnel crossing creek and Prado RdMargarita Area (Acacia Creek Path)Ped/Bike Shared‐Use Path 264 West side of Acacia Creek Tank Farm RdDamon‐Garcia Sports Fields 0.29Madonna Inn PathPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 30 Madonna Shared Use Path Madonna Rd Madonna Inn 0.03Improve connection from Madonna Road shared‐use path to Madonna Inn PathRequires Caltrans coordination & right‐of‐wayOrcutt RoadPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 154‐McMillan Ave Laurel Ln 0.22 Requires UPRR coordination Orcutt RoadBike Protected Bike Lane 38 Orcutt Rd Johnson Ave Tank Farm 0.96 May require wideningOrcutt AreaBike Bike Lane 163 Ranch House Road Tiburon Orcutt Rd 0.35Orcutt AreaPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 171‐Righetti Ranch Rd Tiburon 0.48Orcutt AreaPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 172‐Tiburon South Morros 0.12May be constructed as shares street (woonerf)Orcutt AreaBike Bike Lane 161 Tiburon Rd Ranch House/Bullock Orcutt Rd 0.43Orcutt AreaBike Bike Lane 168 Imel Ranch Rd Orcutt Rd Orcutt Rd 0.21Orcutt AreaPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 175‐Righetti Ranch Ph 2 Righetti Ranch Ph 30.22Osos StreetPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐52 Osos St Leff St Potential RRFB & median refugeRailroad Safety Trail (west side)Ped/Bike Shared‐Use Path 80‐McMillan Ave Amtrak Station 1.09Parallel to UPRR tracks on west side Requires UPRR right‐of‐wayRailroad Safety Trail (west side)Ped/Bike Shared‐Use Path 153 California Blvd Murray St Foothill Blvd 0.32Parallel to UPRR tracks on west side Requires UPRR right‐of‐wayRailroad Safety Trail (west side)Ped/Bike Shared‐Use Path 178‐Francis Ave Sinsheimer Park 0.1Parallel to UPRR tracks on west side Requires UPRR right‐of‐wayRailroad Safety Trail (west side)Ped/Bike Shared‐Use Path 143 Railroad Safety Trail Marsh St Phillips Ln/Pepper St 0.32Parallel to UPRR tracks on west side Requires UPRR right‐of‐wayRailroad Safety Trail (west side)Ped/Bike Shared‐Use Path 102 Railroad Safety Trail Santa Rosa St Marsh St 0.53Parallel to UPRR tracks on west side Requires UPRR right‐of‐wayRailroad Safety TrailPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 149 Railroad Safety Trail Santa Barbara St Santa Rosa St 0.23Parallel to UPRR tracks on west side Requires UPRR right‐of‐wayRailroad Safety TrailPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐23 Railroad Ave Osos StNew ramp from Jennifer St Bridge Requires UPRR right‐of‐wayRailroad Safety TrailPed/Bike Grade‐Separated Crossing I‐19 Railroad Safety Trail Fairview St/Penny Ln Requires UPRR right‐of‐wayRailroad Safety TrailPed/Bike Grade‐Separated Crossing I‐20 Railroad Safety Trail Johnson AveRequires UPRR right‐of‐wayProject ID numbers correspond to mapping in the Public Viewerhttp://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d0c9ddaa42a444bda8d5940e05891eb7Page 7
Appendix ACorridor User Type ID Location Cross Street ACross Street B Miles Notes Notable ConstraintsATP Tier 3 Project ListRailroad Safety TrailPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 95 Railroad Safety Trail Ironbark St Tank Farm Rd 0.1 Requires UPRR right‐of‐wayRailroad Safety TrailPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 234 Railroad Safety Trail Tank Farm RdExisting Railroad Safety Trail 0.08 Requires UPRR right‐of‐wayRailroad Safety TrailPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 74 Railroad Safety Trail Railroad Safety Trail Pismo St 0.01 Requires UPRR right‐of‐wayRailroad Safety TrailPed/Bike Grade‐Separated Crossing I‐41 Railroad Safety Trail CreekRequires UPRR right‐of‐wayRailroad Safety TrailPed/Bike Grade‐Separated Crossing I‐21 Railroad Safety Trail Monterey StRequires UPRR right‐of‐wayRailroad Safety TrailPed/Bike Grade‐Separated Crossing I‐23 Railroad Safety Trail Mill St Undercrossing below Mill St Requires UPRR right‐of‐waySanta Fe RoadBike Bike Lane 46 Santa Fe Rd Tank Farm Rd Hoover Ave 0.1Santa Fe RoadBike/Ped Grade‐Separated Crossing I‐17 Santa Fe Rd CreekNew Santa Fe Bridge south of Tank FarmRequires right‐of‐way, jurisdictional permits for work near creekSanta Fe RoadBike Protected Bike Lane 107 Santa Fe Road Tank Farm Rd Prado Rd 0.34Suburban ConnectorPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 9,204‐Suburban Rd Open Space 0.07Extends from terminus of Suburban Rd to north‐south path Requires right‐of‐waySanta Rosa StreetBike Bike Lane 152 Santa Rosa St Railroad Ave Islay St 0.12Santa Rosa StreetBike Protected Bike Lane 263 Santa Rosa St Pismo St Walnut St 1.1Requires parking removal and/or auto lane reductionSerra Meadows to Tank Farm ConnectorBike Bike Lane 253‐Tank Farm Rd Meissner Ln 0.24New commercial collector between Tank Farm and GrenadaSerra Meadows to Tank Farm ConnectorPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 251‐Tank Farm Rd Meissner Ln 0.3Serra Meadows to Tank Farm ConnectorPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 255 Meissner Ln‐‐0.14Connects Meissner with new road south of Prado/Serra Meadows roundaboutSerra Meadows to Tank Farm ConnectorBike Bike Lane 177‐Prado Rd‐0.22Toro/Lemon/Casa Street GreenwayBike Shared‐Use Path 128‐Toro St Lemon St 0.08 Requires right‐of‐wayToro/Lemon/Casa Street GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway 129 Lemon St/Santa Rosa Park US 101 Murray St 0.29 Requires right‐of‐wayToro/Lemon/Casa Street GreenwayPed/Bike Grade‐Separated Crossing I‐32 Toro St US 101 Ped/bike bridge over US101 Requires Caltrans coordinationUS 101 / Broad St OvercrossingPed/Bike Grade‐Separated Crossing I‐33 Broad St US 101 Potential ped/bike bridgeRequires Caltrans coordination, closure of existing US 101/Broad ramps. Major improvements to US 101/Hwy 1 interchange required first.Vachell LaneBike Bike Lane 49 Vachell Ln Buckley Rd S. Higuera 0.52Woodbridge/Victoria GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway 248 Bridge St Higuera St Exposition Dr 0.29Woodbridge/Victoria GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway 248 Exposition Dr Bridge St Corrida Dr 0.06Woodbridge/Victoria GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway 248 Corrida Dr Exposition Dr Woodbridge St 0.29Woodbridge/Victoria GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway 248 Woodbridge St Corrida Dr Victoria Ave 0.36Woodbridge/Victoria GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway 247 Victoria Ave Woodbridge St Mutsuhito Ave 0.32Woodbridge/Victoria GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway 247 Mutsuhito Ave Broad St Victoria Ave 0.7Project ID numbers correspond to mapping in the Public Viewerhttp://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d0c9ddaa42a444bda8d5940e05891eb7Page 8
Appendix A
Buckley Road Ped/Bike Shared-Use Path 185 Buckley Rd (County)Avila Ranch boundary Edna Rd 2 Requires County coordination
Buckley Road Bike Bike Lane 71 Buckley Rd (County)Avila Ranch boundary Edna Rd 2 Requires County coordination
Buckley Road Extension Path Ped/Bike Shared-Use Path 69 S. Higuera St Vachell 0.27 Requires County coordination
Buckley Area, East Fork Bikeway Ped/Bike Shared-Use Path 72 -Buckley Rd -1.28 Requires County coordination
California Blvd Ped/Bike Shared-Use Path 82 California Blvd Spanos Stadium Sports Complex Rd 0.62 Requires Cal Poly coordination
Cuesta Park to San Luis Drive Connector Ped/Bike Grade Separated Crossing I-27 -US 101 Requires Caltrans coordination
Edna-Price Canyon Trail Ped/Bike Shared-Use Path Snapdragon Way Requires County coordination
Esperanza Lane Bike Bike Lane 54 Esperanza Ln Buckley Rd Northern Terminus 0.25 Requires County coordination
Highland/Santa Rosa Bypass Ped/Bike Shared-Use Path 56 Santa Rosa St Highland Dr 0.51 Requires Cal Poly coordination
Highland/Santa Rosa Bypass Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)I-44 Santa Rosa St Boysen Ave
Ped/bike bridge
or hybrid beacon Requires Caltrans coordination
Hoover Avenue Path Bike Shared-Use Path 176 Parallel to Hoover Santa Fe Road Buckley Road 0.94 Requires County coordination
Laguna Lake Paths Ped/Bike Shared-Use Path 155 Laguna Lake/City Limit San Jose Ct 1.81 Requires County coordination
Laguna Lake Paths Ped/Bike Shared-Use Path 222 Laguna Lake/City Limit Foothill Blvd 1.18 Requires County coordination
Laguna Lake Paths Ped/Bike Shared-Use Path 158 Los Osos Valley Rd Laguna Lake Path 0.7 Requires County coordination
Railroad Safety Trail Ped/Bike Shared-Use Path 73 RRST City Limit Sweetbay Ln 0.27 Requires County coordination
Santa Rosa / Cal Poly Ped/Bike Grade Separated Crossing I-25 California Blvd Creek Ped/bike bridge Requires Cal Poly coordination
Santa Rosa / Cal Poly Ped/Bike Grade Separated Crossing I-26 Orchard Rd Creek Ped/bike bridge Requires Cal Poly coordination
Santa Rosa Street (Highway 1)Bike Protected Bike Lane 263 Santa Rosa St Walnut St Highland Dr 0.53 Requires Caltrans coordination
Santa Rosa Street Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J-34 Santa Rosa St Murray St
Improve bike
detection Requires Caltrans coordination
Santa Rosa Street Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J-5 Santa Rosa St Highland Dr
Potential
protected
intersection
and/or bike box,
bike signal Requires Caltrans coordination
Railroad Safety Trail Ped/Bike Shared Use Path 84 -Union Pacific Railroad -0.04 Requires SLCUSD coordination
Vachell/East Fork Bikeway Bridge Ped/Bike Grade-Separated Crossing I-18 Vachell Creek Crossing Ped/bike bridge Requires County coordination
These are projects which have been identified in the Plan but are under the jurisdiction of other agencies.
Non-City Projects
Miles Notes Notable ConstraintsCorridorUserTypeIDLocationCross Street A Cross Street B
Project ID numbers correspond to mapping in the Public Viewer
http://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d0c9ddaa42a444bda8d5940e05891eb7
Page 9
Reservior CanyonNatural ReserveIrish HillsNaturalReserveLaguna LakeNaturalReserveCaliforniaPolytechnicState University010.5 MilesSources:City of San Luis Obispo Shared-Use PathBicycle LaneBicycle RouteProtected Bicycle LaneNeighborhood GreenwaySchoolPark or Open SpaceRailTrailsW Foothill RdFlora
S tCalle JoaquinHill StG rove St
Murray StGuerra DrBishop StSydneyStRoyalWayElla StRoc kview PlMeissnerLnFix lini St
SuburbanRdLuneta DrElksLnLaurelLnBranch StBu llockL
n
Ramona DrWCreek RdPinnacles RdWoodbridgeStSouth StO so sSt AugustaStPalm StMount BishopRdVachellLnCerro RomauldoHooverSacramento
Dr
Nipo
m
o
St
Peach StHigh StMor ro St
Patricia DrIslayStBro ad St
ValleVista PlSanta FeRdMill StSan Luis DrPrado RdPoinsettiaStGrandAv e
WFoothillBlvdBuchon StBlue Grani
t
e
L
n Monterey StMarsh StPismoStOceanaire DrS Higuera StMadonna RdHiguera StHighlandDrCaliforn
ia Blvd
C horr o St
Mainini Ranch RdE Foothill BlvdFoothillBlvdBuckley RdJohns
o
n
A
ve
Oc onnorWay TankFarmRdOrcutt
Rd
Los
Os
os
Valley
R
d Froom
Ra
nc
h
Way
San Luis Obispo1101101Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Grade-Separated CrossingProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Major Crossing ImprovementProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Minor Crossing ImprovementTier 3 & Non-City Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Corridors
BishopPeak NaturalReserveCerro SanLuis NaturalReserveUniversity
D
r
Mount Bishop RdWest St
Hill St
Couper
D
r Abbott StDaly AveStanfor
d
D
r Oak StHillcrest PlWilson StMiossi RdHathway AlyCenter StPhillips LnBond StCollege
A
v
e
Oakridge DrHiguera StGarfield StClover DrFelton WayStafford StFel Mar DrLos Cerr
o
s
D
r
Toro
StMeinecke AveWalnut StBoysen AveAlbert DrHenderson AveGraves AveMission StTwin Ridge DrMontalban StKlamath
R
d
Casa StSlack StFerrini Rd
Cuesta DrOlive StSerrano DrPepper StPalm StPinnacles RdN Chorr
o
St
Grove StMountain View StPasatie
mpo
Dr Corralitos AveMurray StN Perimeter RdSPolyViewDrKent ucky
S
t
Via Cart
a McCollum StJeffrey DrHathway AvePeach StFredericks StLincoln StS Perimeter RdLuneta DrRamona DrSan Luis DrMill StMonterey St
W
Cr
e
e
k
R
d
Cerro RomauldoBroad
St
Chorro StPatricia DrGrand AveHighland DrCalifornia
Bl vd
Foothill BlvdCaliforniaPolytechnicState University11010 0.50.25 MilesSources:City of San Luis Obispo SchoolPark or Open SpaceRailTrailsSan Luis ObispoShared-Use PathBicycle LaneProtected Bicycle LaneNeighborhood GreenwayProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Grade-Separated CrossingTier 3 & Non-City Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Corridors
Terrace HillOpen SpaceReservior CanyonNatural ReserveCerro San LuisNatural ReserveLaguna LakeNaturalReserveFlora StKing StRuth StDalidioStory StHutton StHarris StBinns
Ct
Iris StEmily StAlrita StExposition Dr
Wil ding
L
n
Rachel StCazadero StCenter StParker StPhillips LnVictori
a
A
v
e
Meadow StDana StArcher St
Helena StCaudill StWalnut StGeorge StLizzie StMission StUpham St
Grove StMontalban StBridge StSierra
Wa
y
Corrida DrBlvd del CampoLawton Ave
Hill StOlive StChurch StBeebee StCorralitos AveMountain View StCarmel St
Beach
St BishopStPepper StSydney StElla StSanta Barbara StLincoln StFixlini
St
Garden St
California
Blvd
Sandercock StBranch StToro StWoodbridgeStOsos
St
Augusta StPalm StLeff StNipo
mo
StSanta Rosa
St
Peach StHigh StMorro StIslay StB road StSan Luis DrPacific StMill StBuchon StMonterey StPismo StMarsh StHiguera StChorr
o
St Johnson
Ave
00.50.25MilesSources:City of San Luis Obispo SchoolPark or Open SpaceRailTrailsSan Luis ObispoShared-Use PathBicycle LaneProtected Bicycle LaneNeighborhood GreenwayProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Grade-Separated CrossingProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Major Crossing ImprovementProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Minor Crossing ImprovementTier 3 & Non-City Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Corridors
Islay HillOpen SpaceSouth HillsNaturalReserveRigettiHill OpenSpaceSouthwood DrMalvaAero DrMeadow StSage StStoneridge DrCll CrotaloCaudill StClarion CtMcMillan AveGaribaldi AveCapitolio WayHopkins LnFarmhouseLnCorrida DrWoodside DrFernwood DrMitchell DrJunipero Way
Flora
St Ironbark StHansen LnAugusta StPrado RdWavertree StLawrence DrSequoia
Dr
Tanglewood DrFuller RdGoldenrod LnIndustrial Way
Rockvie
w
PlTiburon WayLaurel LnBullock
L
nJohnsonAve
HooverWoodbridge StSpanish Oaks DrSacramento
DrSanta Fe RdPoinsettia StTank Farm Rd
Orcutt
R
d 00.50.25MilesSources:City of San Luis Obispo SchoolPark or Open SpaceRailTrailsSan Luis ObispoShared-Use PathBicycle LaneProtected Bicycle LaneNeighborhood GreenwayProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Grade-Separated CrossingProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Major Crossing ImprovementProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Minor Crossing ImprovementTier 3 & Non-City Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Corridors
JohnsonRanch OpenSpaceIrish HillsNaturalReserveSouth HillsNaturalReserveLaguna LakeNaturalReserveStoneridge DrPrefumo Canyon RdDescanso StBirchPineCoral StQuail DrHind LnGulf
St Sage StPereira Dr ElmLaguna LnCaudill StLong St
Lima
DrBridge StHopkins LnHuasna
Dr
Vicente
DrDalidio DrGranada DrCorrida DrMitchell DrHiguera StGalleon
Way
Gathe DrBalboa Stel MercadoDalidio
Eto CirLawrence DrRoyal WayMargaritaAveDevaulRanchRddel Rio AveDiablo Dr
Rockview
Pl
Meissner LnSuburban RdElks LnVachell LnWoodbridge StHooverVia Laguna VisSanta Fe RdPrado RdLos
Osos Valley RdOceanaire DrS Higuera StMadonna RdTank Farm RdBuckley RdCalle Joaquin00.60.3MilesSources:City of San Luis Obispo SchoolPark or Open SpaceRailTrailsSan Luis ObispoShared-Use PathBicycle LaneProtected Bicycle LaneNeighborhood GreenwayProposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Grade-Separated CrossingTier 3 & Non-City Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Corridors
CorridorUserTypeIDLocationCross Street ACross Street B Miles Cost Low Cost Low Rounded Cost HighCost High RoundedAnholm Neighborhood GreenwayBike/Ped Neighborhood Greenway 278 Chorro St Marsh St Palm St 0.19 57,855.00$ 58,000.00$ 203,490.00$ 204,000.00$ Bike Protected Bike Lane200 Chorro StPalm StMission St0.59192,664.50$ 193,000.00$ 1,180,000.00$ 1,180,000.00$Ped/Bike Neighborhood Greenway199 Mission StBroad StChorro St0.1339,585.00$ 40,000.00$ 139,230.00$ 140,000.00$ Bike Protected Bike Lane197 Broad St (SB)Mission StRamona Dr0.397,965.00$ 98,000.00$ 600,000.00$ 600,000.00$ Bike/Ped Neighborhood Greenway236 Broad St (NB)Mission StRamona Dr0.391,350.00$ 92,000.00$ 321,300.00$ 322,000.00$ Bike Protected Bike Lane197 Ramona DrBroad StPalomar Ave 0.132,655.00$ 33,000.00$ 200,000.00$ 200,000.00$ Ped/Bike Shared‐Use Path196 ++Ramona DrFoothilll Blvd 0.1186,625.00$ 87,000.00$ 429,000.00$ 429,000.00$ Ped/Bike Neighborhood Greenway221 Ferrini RdFoothill BlvdHighland Dr0.391,350.00$ 92,000.00$ 321,300.00$ 322,000.00$ Ped Crossing Improvement (Minor)J‐26 Chorro StMonterey St20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 131,250.00$ 132,000.00$ Broad Street/Santa Barbara CorridorBike Protected Bike Lane 37 Broad St Farmhouse Ln South St 2.42 790,251.00$ 791,000.00$ 4,840,000.00$ 4,840,000.00$Ped Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐43 Broad St Aerovista Pl20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Ped Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐44 Broad StFiero Lane20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐39 Broad StTank Farm Road20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐74 Broad StRockview20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐46 Broad StOrcutt Road20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐20 Broad StLawrence Dr20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐21 Broad StWoodbridge St20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐15 Broad StSouth St20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Bike Protected Bike Lane228 Santa Barbara St Broad StUpham St0.32104,496.00$ 105,000.00$ 640,000.00$ 640,000.00$ Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor)J‐57 Santa Barbara St High St20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 131,250.00$ 132,000.00$ Foothill BlvdBike Protected Bike Lane14 Foothill BlvdLos Cerros DrCalifornia Blvd 1.28417,984.00$ 418,000.00$ 2,560,000.00$ 2,560,000.00$Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐4 Foothill BlvdPatricia Dr20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐3 Foothill BlvdFerrini Rd20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐6 Foothill BlvdSanta Rosa St20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐7 Foothill BlvdCalifornia Blvd20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Ped/Bike Grade‐Separated CrossingI‐29 Foothill BlvdUPRR750,000.00$ 750,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$Higuera StreetBike Protected Bike Lane242,36,26 Higuera StCITY LIMITPepper St3.82 1,247,421.00$ 1,248,000.00$ 7,640,000.00$ 7,640,000.00$Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor)J‐50 Higuera StLas Praderas Dr20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 131,250.00$ 132,000.00$ Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor)J‐49 Higuera StGranada Dr20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 131,250.00$ 132,000.00$ Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor)J‐41 Higuera StElks Ln20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 131,250.00$ 132,000.00$ Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor)J‐47 Higuera StBridge St20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 131,250.00$ 132,000.00$ Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐40Higuera St Madonna Rd 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐18 Higuera StSouth St20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐22 Higuera StMarsh St20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor)J‐28 Higuera StToro St20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 131,250.00$ 132,000.00$ Bike/Ped Crossing Improvement (Minor)J‐73 Higuera StCourt St20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 131,250.00$ 132,000.00$ Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐60 Higuera StJohnson St20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Marsh StreetBike Shared‐Use Path25 Marsh StMadonna Inn Bike Path Higuera St0.21165,375.00$ 166,000.00$ 819,000.00$ 819,000.00$ Bike Protected Bike Lane27 Marsh StHiguera StCalifornia Blvd 1.14372,267.00$ 373,000.00$ 2,280,000.00$ 2,280,000.00$Bike Protected Bike Lane[20]* California BlvdMarsh StSan Luis Dr0.0413,062.00$ 14,000.00$ 80,000.00$ 80,000.00$ Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐29 Marsh St Santa Rosa St 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Ped Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐56 Marsh St Toro St 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 131,250.00$ 132,000.00$ Ped Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐37 Marsh StCalifornia Blvd20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Bike/Ped Crossing Improvement (Minor)J‐72 Marsh StCarmel St20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 131,250.00$ 132,000.00$ Bike/Ped Crossing Improvement (Minor)J‐71 Marsh StBeach St20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 131,250.00$ 132,000.00$ Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐11 California BlvdSan Luis Dr20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Los Osos Valley RoadBike Protected Bike Lane213,206,224,34 Los Osos Valley Rd Diablo DrS Higuera St 2.36770,658.00$ 771,000.00$ 4,720,000.00$ 4,720,000.00$Ped/Bike Shared‐Use Path210 Los Osos Valley Rd Descanso StLaguna Ln0.27212,625.00$ 213,000.00$ 1,053,000.00$ 1,053,000.00$Ped Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐31 Los Osos Valley Rd Diablo Dr 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Ped Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐2Los Osos Valley Rd Prefumo Canyon Rd 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Ped Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐1Los Osos Valley Rd Royal Way 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 131,250.00$ 132,000.00$ Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐33 Los Osos Valley Rd Madonna Rd20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐8Los Osos Valley Rd Froom Ranch Way20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Ped Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐25 Los Osos Valley Rd Auto Park Way20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Ped Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐9Los Osos Valley Rd Calle Joaquin20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Ped/Bike Grade‐Separated CrossingI‐42 Los Osos Valley Rd US 101 NB750,000.00$ 750,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$Madonna RoadShared‐Use Path15 Madonna RdMadonna InnOceanaire Dr 0.6472,500.00$ 473,000.00$ 2,340,000.00$ 2,340,000.00$ATP Tier 1 Project CostsAppendix B
Protected Bike Lane 225 Madonna Rd Madonna Inn Higuera St 0.42 137,151.00$ 138,000.00$ 840,000.00$ 840,000.00$ Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐30 Madonna RdMadonna Inn20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐61 Madonna RdBetween Oceanaire & Dalidio20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Oceanaire Neighborhood GreenwayBike Shared‐Use Path81, 5 Froom Ranch Way Los Osos Valley RdOceanaire Dr 0.23181,125.00$ 182,000.00$ 897,000.00$ 897,000.00$ Ped/Bike Neighborhood Greenway214 Oceanaire DrFroom Ranch WayAtascadero St 0.41124,845.00$ 125,000.00$ 439,110.00$ 440,000.00$ Ped/Bike Neighborhood Greenway215 Atascadero StOceanaire DrGalleon Way 0.2885,260.00$ 86,000.00$ 299,880.00$ 300,000.00$ Ped/Bike Neighborhood Greenway220 Galleon WayAtascadero StOceanaire Dr 0.3194,395.00$ 95,000.00$ 332,010.00$ 333,000.00$ Bike Protected Bike Lane218 Oceanaire DrGalleon WayLos Osos Valley Rd 0.1652,248.00$ 53,000.00$ 320,000.00$ 320,000.00$ Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐62 Froom Ranch Way Oceanaire Dr 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐32 Madonna RdOceanaire Dr20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$South StreetBike Protected Bike Lane35 South StHiguera StBroad St0.78254,709.00$ 255,000.00$ 1,560,000.00$ 1,560,000.00$Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐24 South StKing St20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Ped Crossing Improvement (Minor)J‐48 South StMeadow St20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 131,250.00$ 132,000.00$ Mill StreetPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway260 Mill StChorro StPepper St0.45137,025.00$ 138,000.00$ 481,950.00$ 482,000.00$ Morro StreetPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway235 Morro StMarsh StMill St0.2782,215.00$ 83,000.00$ 289,170.00$ 290,000.00$ Railroad Safety TrailPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path169 ++Tiburon WayOrcutt Rd0.5393,750.00$ 394,000.00$ 1,950,000.00$ 1,950,000.00$Bike Protected Bike Lane259 Pepper StMarsh StPhillips Ln0.32104,496.00$ 105,000.00$ 640,000.00$ 640,000.00$ Ped/Bike Shared‐Use Path75, 76Phillips LnTaft St0.27212,625.00$ 213,000.00$ 1,053,000.00$ 1,053,000.00$Ped/Bike Grade‐Separated CrossingI‐24 ++Pepper StPhillips Ln0.04750,000.00$ 750,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$Ped/Bike Grade‐Separated CrossingI‐3 Tank Farm Road750,000.00$ 750,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$Ped/Bike Grade‐Separated CrossingI‐36Industrial Way750,000.00$ 750,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$Ped/Bike Grade‐Separated CrossingI‐4Lawrence Dr or Francis750,000.00$ 750,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐17 Pepper StMonterey St20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐64 California BlvdTaft St20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Prado/DalidioBike Protected Bike Lane261 Dalidio/PradoMadonna RdElks Ln0.47153,478.50$ 154,000.00$ 940,000.00$ 940,000.00$ Bike Protected Bike Lane261 Prado RdElks LnSerra Meadows Rd 0.71231,850.50$ 232,000.00$ 1,420,000.00$ 1,420,000.00$Bike Bike Lane104 Prado RdSerra Meadows RdBroad St1.0325,750.00$ 26,000.00$ 418,540.50$ 419,000.00$ Ped/Bike Shared‐Use Path105 Prado Rd (North Side) Serra Meadows RdBroad St1.09858,375.00$ 859,000.00$ 4,251,000.00$ 4,251,000.00$Ped/Bike Shared‐Use Path106 Prado Rd (South Side) Serra Meadows RdBroad St0.86677,250.00$ 678,000.00$ 3,354,000.00$ 3,354,000.00$Ped/Bike Shared‐Use Path 127 Dalidio DrMadonna Rd‐0.3236,250.00$ 237,000.00$ 1,170,000.00$ 1,170,000.00$Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)I‐2Prado RdDamon‐Garcia Sports Field20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$Tank Farm RoadBike Protected Bike Lane33 Tank Farm RdS. Higuera StHorizon Ln0.46150,213.00$ 151,000.00$ 920,000.00$ 920,000.00$ Ped/Bike Shared‐Use Path64,157,267 Tank Farm Rd (North Side) Horizon LnSanta Fe Rd0.94740,250.00$ 741,000.00$ 3,666,000.00$ 3,666,000.00$Bike Protected Bike Lane31, 32 Tank Farm RdSanta Fe RdOrcutt Rd1.33434,311.50$ 435,000.00$ 2,660,000.00$ 2,660,000.00$Ped Crossing Improvement (Minor)J‐13 Tank Farm RdPoinsettia St20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 131,250.00$ 132,000.00$ Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major)J‐65 Tank Farm RdOrcutt Road20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$TOTAL:16,084,261.00$ 16,085,000.00$ 192,105,480.50$ 192,106,000.00$ Appendix B
CorridorUserTypeIDLocationCross Street A Cross Street B Miles Cost Low Cost Low Rounded Cost High Cost High RoundedBob Jones TrailPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path70 BJTS. Higuera St Los Osos Valley Rd 0.19 149,625.00$ 150,000.00$ 741,000.00$ 741,000.00$ Broad StreetPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐55 Broad StUpham St20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 131,250.00$ 132,000.00$ Cerro Romauldo Neighborhood GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway 123 Cerro Romauldo Ave Ferrini RdPatricia Dr0.55 167,475.00$ 168,000.00$ 589,050.00$ 590,000.00$ Cerro Romauldo Neighborhood GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway 123 Patricia DrCerro Romauldo Ave Craig Way0.08 24,360.00$ 25,000.00$ 85,680.00$ 86,000.00$ Cerro Romauldo Neighborhood GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway 123 Craig WayPatricia DrJaycee Dr0.05 15,225.00$ 16,000.00$ 53,550.00$ 54,000.00$ Cerro Romauldo Neighborhood GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway 123 Jaycee DrCraig WayBishop Peak Elementary0.13 39,585.00$ 40,000.00$ 139,230.00$ 140,000.00$ Chorro Street Bike Bike Lane 238 Chorro StMission StMeinecke Ave 0.256,250.00$ 7,000.00$ 101,587.50$ 102,000.00$ Grand AvenueBike Protected Bike Lane239 Grand AveMonterey St Slack St0.54 176,337.00$ 177,000.00$ 1,080,000.00$ 1,080,000.00$ Grand AvenuePed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐38 Grand AveMcCollum St0.13 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 131,250.00$ 132,000.00$ Grand AvenuePed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐66 Grand AveMill St20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 131,250.00$ 132,000.00$ Highland DriveBike Bike Lane 111 Highland Dr Cuesta DrCuesta Dr0.25,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 81,270.00$ 82,000.00$ Industrial WayBike Bike Lane 51Industrial Wy Broad StRailroad Safety Trail0.399,750.00$ 10,000.00$ 158,476.50$ 159,000.00$ Islay Street Neighborhood GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway 132 Islay StSanta Rosa StToro St0.14 179,655.00$ 180,000.00$ 631,890.00$ 632,000.00$ Islay Street Neighborhood GreenwayPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐67 Islay StBroad St20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 131,250.00$ 132,000.00$ Islay Street Neighborhood GreenwayPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐68 Islay StOsos St20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 131,250.00$ 132,000.00$ Johnson AvenueBike Protected Bike Lane19 Johnson Ave Monterey St Orcutt Rd2.13 695,551.50$ 696,000.00$ 4,260,000.00$ 4,260,000.00$ Johnson AvenueBike/Ped Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐63 Johnson Ave Sydney St20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ Laurel LaneBike Protected Bike LaneLaurel Lane Johnson Ave Orcutt Rd176,337.00$ 177,000.00$ 1,080,000.00$ 1,080,000.00$ Monterey StreetBike Protected Bike Lane18 Monterey St Santa Rosa St Buena Vista Ave 0.79 257,974.50$ 258,000.00$ 1,580,000.00$ 1,580,000.00$ Monterey StreetPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐36 Monterey St Grand Ave20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ Monterey StreetPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐27 Monterey St Santa Rosa St20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ Monterey StreetPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐16 Monterey St Toro St20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 131,250.00$ 132,000.00$ Nipomo‐King Ped/Bike Neighborhood Greenway24 Nipomo St/Peach St Marsh StChorro0.47 143,115.00$ 144,000.00$ 503,370.00$ 504,000.00$ Orcutt RoadBike Protected Bike Lane244 Orcutt RdBroad StJohnson Ave 0.81 264,505.50$ 265,000.00$ 1,620,000.00$ 1,620,000.00$ Orcutt RoadPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Major) J‐69 Orcutt RdSacramento/Duncan20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ Toro Neighborhood Ped/Bike Neighborhood Greenway 131 Toro StIslay StUS 1010.69 210,105.00$ 211,000.00$ 738,990.00$ 739,000.00$ Toro Neighborhood Ped/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐70 Toro StBuchon St20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 131,250.00$ 132,000.00$ TOTAL2,740,850.50$ 2,741,000.00$ 26,362,844.00$ 26,363,000.00$ ATP Tier 2 Project CostsAppendix B
CorridorUserTypeIDLocationCross Street A Cross Street B Miles Cost Low cost low rounded Cost High cost high roundedUS 101 / Marsh St UndercrossingBike Bike Lane53 Marsh StFernandez Ln Higuera St0.276,750.00$ 7,000.00$ 109,714.50$ 110,000.00$ Avila RanchPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 186‐Tank Farm Rd Buckley Rd1.03 811,125.00$ 812,000.00$ 4,017,000.00$ 4,017,000.00$ Avila RanchPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path191 Internal‐‐0.11 86,625.00$ 87,000.00$ 429,000.00$ 429,000.00$ Avila RanchPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path185 Buckley RdS Higuera StAvila Ranch Eastern Boundary0.78 614,250.00$ 615,000.00$ 3,042,000.00$ 3,042,000.00$ Avila RanchBike Bike Lane 71 Buckley RdS Higuera StAvila Ranch Eastern Boundary0.78 19,500.00$ 20,000.00$ 316,953.00$ 317,000.00$ Avila RanchBike Bike Lane 10 Horizon LnBuckey RdSuburban Rd 0.79 19,750.00$ 20,000.00$ 321,016.50$ 322,000.00$ Avila RanchBike Bike Lane 188 Earthwood Ln.2 mi east of Vachell Suburban Rd 0.54 13,500.00$ 14,000.00$ 219,429.00$ 220,000.00$ Avila RanchBikeBike Route241 Earthwood LnVachell Ln.2 mi east of Vachell 0.214,200.00$ 5,000.00$ 7,717.50$ 8,000.00$ Avila RanchBike Bike Lane 22 Short St‐Suburban Rd 0.112,750.00$ 3,000.00$ 44,698.50$ 45,000.00$ Avila RanchBike Bike Lane 7 Venture LnVachell LnHorizon Ln0.69 17,250.00$ 18,000.00$ 280,381.50$ 281,000.00$ Avila RanchBike Bike Lane 8 Suburban RdS Higuera StHorizon Ln1.04 26,000.00$ 26,000.00$ 422,604.00$ 423,000.00$ Avila RanchPed/Bike Grade‐Separated CrossingI‐13‐Creek750,000.00$ 750,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ Bishop Street/ Roundhouse StreetBike Bike Lane39 Roundhouse StSanta Barbara St Bushnell St0.235,750.00$ 6,000.00$ 93,460.50$ 94,000.00$ Bishop Street/ Roundhouse StreetBike Bike Lane39 Bishop StBushnell StJohnson Ave 0.44 11,000.00$ 11,000.00$ 178,794.00$ 179,000.00$ Bishop Street/ Roundhouse StreetBike Grade‐Separated CrossingI‐46 Bishop StBushnell/UPRR750,000.00$ 750,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ Bob Jones TrailPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 21 BJT Prado RdBrooks St1.2 945,000.00$ 945,000.00$ 4,680,000.00$ 4,680,000.00$ Bob Jones TrailPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 66 BJTSouth StMarsh St0.42 330,750.00$ 331,000.00$ 1,638,000.00$ 1,638,000.00$ Bob Jones TrailBike Neighborhood Greenway223 Brooks St/South St0.12 36,540.00$ 37,000.00$ 128,520.00$ 129,000.00$ Bob Jones TrailPed/Bike Grade‐Separated CrossingI‐9 BJTCreek750,000.00$ 750,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ Bob Jones TrailPed/Bike Grade‐Separated CrossingI‐10 BJTMadonna Rd750,000.00$ 750,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ Bob Jones TrailPed/Bike Grade‐Separated CrossingI‐11 BJTCreek750,000.00$ 750,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ Bob Jones TrailPed/Bike Grade‐Separated CrossingI‐12 BJTCreek750,000.00$ 750,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ Broad Street Ped/Bike Shared‐Use Path 100 Broad (West Side)PradoRockview0.42 330,750.00$ 331,000.00$ 1,638,000.00$ 1,638,000.00$ California BoulevardBike Protected Bike Lane20 California BlvdMarsh StMonterey St 0.12 39,186.00$ 40,000.00$ 240,000.00$ 240,000.00$ Capitolio WayBike Bike Lane 139 Capitolio WayBroad StSacramento Dr 0.153,750.00$ 4,000.00$ 60,952.50$ 61,000.00$ Capitolio WayPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐45 Capitolo WaySacramento Dr20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 131,250.00$ 132,000.00$ El CaptainPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 138‐El Captain Way Poinsettia St 0.04 31,500.00$ 32,000.00$ 156,000.00$ 156,000.00$ Ella Street GreenwayBike Shared‐Use Path 141‐‐Jennifer St Bridge Henry St0.12 94,500.00$ 95,000.00$ 468,000.00$ 468,000.00$ Ella Street GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway55 Iris StHenry StRuth St0.09 27,405.00$ 28,000.00$ 96,390.00$ 97,000.00$ Ella Street GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway55 Ruth StIris StElla St0.08 24,360.00$ 25,000.00$ 85,680.00$ 86,000.00$ Ella Street GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway55 Ella StRuth StFixlini St0.26 79,170.00$ 80,000.00$ 278,460.00$ 279,000.00$ Elks Lane Bike LaneBike Bike Lane 159 Elks LanePrado RdS. Higuera0.66 16,500.00$ 17,000.00$ 268,191.00$ 269,000.00$ Flora Street/Fixlini Street GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway246 Fixlini StLizzie StFixlini St0.24 73,080.00$ 74,000.00$ 257,040.00$ 258,000.00$ Flora Street/Fixlini Street GreenwayPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path63‐‐Fixlini StBishop St0.2 157,500.00$ 158,000.00$ 780,000.00$ 780,000.00$ Flora Street/Fixlini Street GreenwayPed/BikeNeighborhood Greenway246 Flora StBishop StSouthwood Dr 1 304,500.00$ 305,000.00$ 1,071,000.00$ 1,071,000.00$ Flora Street/Fixlini Street GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway246 Southwood DrFlora StSequoia Dr0.13 39,585.00$ 40,000.00$ 139,230.00$ 140,000.00$ Flora Street/Fixlini Street GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway246 Sequoia DrSouthwood Dr Tanglewood Dr 0.17 51,765.00$ 52,000.00$ 182,070.00$ 183,000.00$ Flora Street/Fixlini Street GreenwayPed/Bike Grade‐Separated CrossingI‐5 Tanglewood Dr750,000.00$ 750,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ Froom Ranch WayPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 182 West side of Froom Ranch Oceanaire Dr Dalidio Dr0.53 417,375.00$ 418,000.00$ 2,067,000.00$ 2,067,000.00$ Froom Ranch WayBike Bike Lane 183 Froom Ranch Way Oceanaire Dr Dalidio Dr0.49 12,250.00$ 13,000.00$ 199,111.50$ 200,000.00$ High StreetPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐51 High StBeebee St20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 131,250.00$ 132,000.00$ High StreetPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor)J‐54 High StCarmel St20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 131,250.00$ 132,000.00$ Highland/Santa Rosa BypassPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 122Ferrini RdChorro St0.12 94,500.00$ 95,000.00$ 468,000.00$ 468,000.00$ Highland/Santa Rosa BypassBike Bike Lane 147 Boysen AveShared Use Path Santa Rosa St 0.071,750.00$ 2,000.00$ 28,444.50$ 29,000.00$ Highland/Santa Rosa BypassPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 122ChorroBoysen0.07 55,125.00$ 56,000.00$ 273,000.00$ 273,000.00$ Hwy 101 Shared Use PathPed/BikeShared‐Use Path 114 US 101Marsh StN Broad St0.77 606,375.00$ 607,000.00$ 3,003,000.00$ 3,003,000.00$ Hwy 101 Shared Use PathPed/Bike Grade‐Separated CrossingI‐37 US 101Broad St750,000.00$ 750,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ ATP Tier 3 Project CostsAppendix B
Hwy 101 Shared Use PathPed/Bike Grade‐Separated CrossingI‐38 US 101Broad St750,000.00$ 750,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ Industrial WayPed/Bike Intersection Improvement (Minor) J‐14 Industrial WyBougainvillea St Sacramento Dr20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 131,250.00$ 132,000.00$ Industrial / Tank Farm BypassPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 144Tank Farm Rd Industrial Wy 0.21 165,375.00$ 166,000.00$ 819,000.00$ 819,000.00$ Johnson AvenuePed/Bike Intersection Improvement (Minor) J‐12 Johnson AveSouthwood Dr20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 131,250.00$ 132,000.00$ Johnson AvenuePed/Bike Intersection Improvement (Major) J‐42 Johnson AveOrcutt Rd20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ Laguna Middle School BridgePed/Bike Grade‐Separated Crossing125Oceanaire Dr Vista del Lago 0.11 750,000.00$ 750,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ Laguna Lake PathsPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path222 Laguna Lake ParkMadonna Rd City Limit1.05 826,875.00$ 827,000.00$ 4,095,000.00$ 4,095,000.00$ Margarita Area Shared‐Use PathwaysPed/BikeShared‐Use Path Various VariesVaries2.97 2,338,875.00$ 2,339,000.00$ 11,583,000.00$ 11,583,000.00$ Margarita Area Shared‐Use Pathway XingsPed/Bike Grade‐Separated CrossingVarious Varies (2 locations) Varies750,000.00$ 750,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ Margarita Area (Acacia Creek Path)Ped/Bike Shared‐Use Path 264 West side of Acacia Creek Tank Farm Rd Damon‐Garcia 0.29 228,375.00$ 229,000.00$ 1,131,000.00$ 1,131,000.00$ Madonna Inn PathPed/BikeShared‐Use Path 30 Madonna Shared Use Path Madonna Rd Madonna Inn 0.03 23,625.00$ 24,000.00$ 117,000.00$ 117,000.00$ Orcutt RoadPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 154‐McMillan Ave Laurel Ln0.22 173,250.00$ 174,000.00$ 858,000.00$ 858,000.00$ Orcutt RoadBike Protected Bike Lane38 Orcutt RdJohnson Ave Tank Farm0.96 313,488.00$ 314,000.00$ 1,920,000.00$ 1,920,000.00$ Orcutt AreaBike Bike Lane 163 Ranch House Road TiburonOrcutt Rd0.358,750.00$ 9,000.00$ 142,222.50$ 143,000.00$ Orcutt AreaPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 171‐Righetti Ranch Rd Tiburon0.48 378,000.00$ 378,000.00$ 1,872,000.00$ 1,872,000.00$ Orcutt AreaPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 172‐TiburonSouth Morros 0.12 94,500.00$ 95,000.00$ 468,000.00$ 468,000.00$ Orcutt AreaBike Bike Lane 161 Tiburon RdRanch House/Bullock Orcutt Rd0.43 10,750.00$ 11,000.00$ 174,730.50$ 175,000.00$ Orcutt AreaBike Bike Lane 168 Imel Ranch RdOrcutt RdOrcutt Rd0.215,250.00$ 6,000.00$ 85,333.50$ 86,000.00$ Orcutt AreaPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 175‐Righetti Ranch Ph 2 Righetti Ranch Ph 3 0.22 173,250.00$ 174,000.00$ 858,000.00$ 858,000.00$ Osos StreetPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐52 Osos StLeff St20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 131,250.00$ 132,000.00$ Railroad Safety Trail (west side)Ped/Bike Shared‐Use Path 80‐McMillan Ave Amtrak Station 1.09 858,375.00$ 859,000.00$ 4,251,000.00$ 4,251,000.00$ Railroad Safety Trail (west side)Ped/Bike Shared‐Use Path153 California BlvdMurray StFoothill Blvd 0.32 252,000.00$ 252,000.00$ 1,248,000.00$ 1,248,000.00$ Railroad Safety Trail (west side)Ped/Bike Shared‐Use Path 178‐Francis AveSinsheimer Park 0.178,750.00$ 79,000.00$ 390,000.00$ 390,000.00$ Railroad Safety Trail (west side)Ped/Bike Shared‐Use Path143 Railroad Safety Trail Marsh StPhillips Ln/Pepper St 0.32 252,000.00$ 252,000.00$ 1,248,000.00$ 1,248,000.00$ Railroad Safety Trail (west side)Ped/BikeShared‐Use Path102 Railroad Safety Trail Santa Rosa St Marsh St0.53 417,375.00$ 418,000.00$ 2,067,000.00$ 2,067,000.00$ Railroad Safety TrailPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 149 Railroad Safety Trail Santa Barbara St Santa Rosa St 0.23 181,125.00$ 182,000.00$ 897,000.00$ 897,000.00$ Railroad Safety TrailPed/Bike Crossing Improvement (Minor) J‐23 Railroad AveOsos St20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 131,250.00$ 132,000.00$ Railroad Safety TrailPed/BikeGrade‐Separated CrossingI‐19 Railroad Safety Trail Fairview St/Penny Ln750,000.00$ 750,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ Railroad Safety TrailPed/Bike Grade‐Separated CrossingI‐20 Railroad Safety Trail Johnson Ave750,000.00$ 750,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ Railroad Safety TrailPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 95 Railroad Safety Trail Ironbark StTank Farm Rd 0.178,750.00$ 79,000.00$ 390,000.00$ 390,000.00$ Railroad Safety TrailPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 234 Railroad Safety TrailTank Farm Rd Existing Railroad 0.08 63,000.00$ 63,000.00$ 312,000.00$ 312,000.00$ Railroad Safety TrailPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path74 Railroad Safety Trail Railroad Safety Trail Pismo St0.017,875.00$ 8,000.00$ 39,000.00$ 39,000.00$ Railroad Safety TrailPed/Bike Grade‐Separated CrossingI‐41 Railroad Safety Trail Creek750,000.00$ 750,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ Railroad Safety TrailPed/Bike Grade‐Separated CrossingI‐21 Railroad Safety Trail Monterey St750,000.00$ 750,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ Railroad Safety TrailPed/Bike Grade‐Separated CrossingI‐23 Railroad Safety Trail Mill St750,000.00$ 750,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ Santa Fe RoadBike Bike Lane 46 Santa Fe RdTank Farm Rd Hoover Ave0.12,500.00$ 3,000.00$ 40,635.00$ 41,000.00$ Santa Fe RoadBike/Ped Grade‐Separated CrossingI‐17 Santa Fe RdCreek750,000.00$ 750,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ Santa Fe RoadBikeProtected Bike Lane107 Santa Fe RoadTank Farm Rd Prado Rd0.34 111,027.00$ 112,000.00$ 680,000.00$ 680,000.00$ Suburban ConnectorPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 9,204‐Suburban Rd Open Space0.07 55,125.00$ 56,000.00$ 273,000.00$ 273,000.00$ Santa Rosa StreetBike Bike Lane152 Santa Rosa StRailroad Ave Islay St0.123,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 48,762.00$ 49,000.00$ Santa Rosa StreetBike Protected Bike Lane263 Santa Rosa StPismo StWalnut St1.1 359,205.00$ 360,000.00$ 2,200,000.00$ 2,200,000.00$ Serra Meadows to Tank Farm ConnectorBike Bike Lane 253‐Tank Farm Rd Meissner Ln0.246,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 97,524.00$ 98,000.00$ Serra Meadows to Tank Farm ConnectorPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 251‐Tank Farm Rd Meissner Ln0.3 236,250.00$ 237,000.00$ 1,170,000.00$ 1,170,000.00$ Serra Meadows to Tank Farm ConnectorPed/Bike Shared‐Use Path 255 Meissner Ln‐‐0.14110,250.00$ 111,000.00$ 546,000.00$ 546,000.00$ Serra Meadows to Tank Farm ConnectorBike Bike Lane177‐Prado Rd‐0.22 71,841.00$ 72,000.00$ 440,000.00$ 440,000.00$ Toro/Lemon/Casa Street GreenwayBike Shared‐Use Path 128‐Toro StLemon St0.08 63,000.00$ 63,000.00$ 312,000.00$ 312,000.00$ Toro/Lemon/Casa Street GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway129 Lemon St/Santa Rosa Park US 101Murray St0.29 88,305.00$ 89,000.00$ 310,590.00$ 311,000.00$ Toro/Lemon/Casa Street GreenwayPed/Bike Grade‐Separated CrossingI‐32 Toro StUS 101750,000.00$ 750,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ US 101 / Broad St OvercrossingPed/Bike Grade‐Separated CrossingI‐33 Broad StUS 101750,000.00$ 750,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000.00$ Vachell LaneBike Bike Lane 49 Vachell LnBuckley RdS. Higuera0.52 13,000.00$ 13,000.00$ 211,302.00$ 212,000.00$ Woodbridge/Victoria GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway248 Bridge StHiguera StExposition Dr 0.29 88,305.00$ 89,000.00$ 310,590.00$ 311,000.00$ Woodbridge/Victoria GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway248 Exposition DrBridge StCorrida Dr0.06 18,270.00$ 19,000.00$ 64,260.00$ 65,000.00$ Woodbridge/Victoria GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway248 Corrida DrExposition Dr Woodbridge St 0.29 88,305.00$ 89,000.00$ 310,590.00$ 311,000.00$ Woodbridge/Victoria GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway248 Woodbridge StCorrida DrVictoria Ave0.36 109,620.00$ 110,000.00$ 385,560.00$ 386,000.00$ Woodbridge/Victoria GreenwayPed/Bike Neighborhood Greenway247 Victoria AveWoodbridge St Mutsuhito Ave 0.32 97,440.00$ 98,000.00$ 342,720.00$ 343,000.00$ Woodbridge/Victoria GreenwayPed/BikeNeighborhood Greenway247 Mutsuhito AveBroad StVictoria Ave0.7 213,150.00$ 214,000.00$ 749,700.00$ 750,000.00$ TOTAL $ 28,485,872.00 $ 28,486,000.00 $ 170,066,128.00 $ 170,067,000.00
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
Protected 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
•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 making
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) 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
•The California Bicycle Coalition's Quick-Build Guide
and other resources
•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.
2.4 Continue to require development and
redevelopment projects to construct, improve or
maintain existing pedestrian infrastructure adjacent
to roadways. If construction of new pedestrian
infrastructure at the time of development does not
connect with existing pedestrian infrastructure,
those pedestrian improvements may need to be
deferred. Require deferred pedestrian improvements
to be installed when those new improvements will
connect to existing pedestrian infrastructure.
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. (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 Guidelines3.4 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.
3.5 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 high-visibility
warning signage and pavement markings, median
15SLO Design GuidelinesDesign Policies
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)
pushbuttons and other features consistent with
current ADA Standards.
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. Pushbutton 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, pushbuttons 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.
Design Policies
16SLO Design Guidelines5.3 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.
5.4.2 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 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) feet
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 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
17SLO Design GuidelinesDesign Policies
and other street murals, installing wayfinding
signage pointing pedestrians to popular destinations,
and 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/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.
Design Policies
18SLO Design Guidelines6.4 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.
BICYCLE 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
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.
19SLO Design GuidelinesDesign Policies
BIKEWAY FACILITY CRITERIA
Type Paved Width Notes & Additional Guidance
Minimum Preferred
Shared-Use
Path (Class I
Bikeway)
10'12'- 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
Minimum Preferred
Bike Lanes
(Class II
Bikeway)
5'
(meet 1
criterion)
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.
6.5'
(meet 1
criterion)
8'Yes ≥ 10,000 ≥ 35mph ≥ 4%
8'
(meet 2
criterion)
Yes ≥ 10,000 ≥ 45mph > 4%
Striped Bike
Lane Buffer
1.5'3'- 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)
5'6'- 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
Minimum Preferred
Protected Bike
Lane (Class IV
Bikeway)
8'12' (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.
5'8' (on-
street)
5'7'
(elevated)
Protected Bike
Lane Buffer
Area
1.5'3'- 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 Guidelines6.18 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.
BIKEWAY 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 such as their higher
speeds as well as 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.
21SLO Design GuidelinesDesign Policies
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.
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 since they do not provide for secure parking
without a kickstand and can be more difficult to lock
when other bikes are present. 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.
Design Policies
22SLO Design Guidelinese. 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.
g. Be 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.
g. To the extent possible, interior bicycle storage
areas should be on the ground floor, feature a
wider door, and endeavor to have automatic
door openers to accommodate better ingress
and egress.
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 shared-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, high-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 PEDESTRIANTHROUGH 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 pushbuttons to
ensure accessibility.
FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS
•When pushbuttons 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. Pushbuttons 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 pushbutton 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, and 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 at 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 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
z `
P
z `
P
z `
P
z `
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 so all bicyclists can quickly clear
the intersection, minimizing conflict and delay to
transit or other traffic.
•Pedestrians 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 country.
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, increases the visibility of the corridor and
adjacent landmarks and properties, 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 greenways 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 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.
Appendix D
Plan Adoption Resolution
R 11222
RESOLUTION NO. 11222 (2021 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
PLAN AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT (EID 0496-2020)
WHEREAS, the Climate Action Plan includes a goal of reaching adopted mode share
targets related to carbon neutrality by 2030 and the Circulation Element of the General Plan
establishes a goal of reducing motor vehicle use and reaching 20% of all citywide trips by bicycle
and 18% by walking, carpooling and other forms of transportation; and
WHEREAS, the Circulation Element of the General Plan establishes a goal to consolidate
the Bicycle Transportation Plan with a citywide Pedestrian Plan (an “Active Transportation Plan”);
and
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impact of the Active Transportation Plan has
been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant
to an initial environmental study (EID 0496-2020) and an Initial Study/Negative Declaration of
environmental impact has been prepared and circulated for public review and comment period
from November 19, 2020 to December 31, 2020; and
WHEREAS, an outreach strategy known as the “Roll and Stroll” Campaign was conducted
consisting of both online and in-person activities, including six pop-up workshops in the
community, an open house workshop, an online interactive mapping tool, a project webpage, a
citywide survey, as well as a statistically valid survey distributed to a randomly generated list of
4,500 city residents to invite participation in the survey; and
WHEREAS, the Active Transportation Committee provided input on the Active
Transportation Plan in over 19 meetings over the course of two years and at the hearing of
December 3, 2020 conducted via a virtual, online, meeting platform reviewed the Active
Transportation Plan and unanimously recommended approval of the Active Transportation Plan;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at the hearing on December 9, 2020, conducted
via a virtual, online, meeting platform, reviewed the Active Transportation Plan and unanimously
recommended approval of the Plan and adoption of the Initial Study / Negative Declaration for the
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council at the study session on December 8, 2020 via a virtual,
online, meeting platform, reviewed the Active Transportation Plan and provided input in
anticipation of the final draft of the Plan; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
Resolution No. 11222 (2021 Series) Page 2
R 11222
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
to adopt the Initial Study / Negative Declaration, approve the Active Transportation Plan, and
authorize the Public Works Director to update the Active Transportation Plan with administrative,
non-policy amendments as necessary and appropriate. This resolution is based on the following
California Environmental Quality Act findings, with associated findings:
SECTION 1. Environmental Review. The City Council finds and determines that the
Initial Study / Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of
the project as defined by CEQA, finds that approval of the Active Transportation Plan would not
result in any significant environmental impacts, and hereby approves the Negative Declaration and
directs staff to prepare and file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk within five
working days of the approval of the Active Transportation Plan.
SECTION 2. Findings. This Council, after consideration of the Active Transportation
Plan, as recommended by the Active Transportation Committee and Planning Commission, staff
recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings:
1. The proposed Active Transportation Plan will promote the public health, safety, and
welfare of persons working, living, or travelling in the City by providing a network of
convenient pedestrian and bicycle facilities and programs.
2. The proposed Active Transportation Plan is consistent with the General Plan (including
Circulation Element Policies 1.7.1, 1.7.2, 1.75, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2 among others) and will
further General Plan goals to reduce single-occupancy motor vehicle use by
implementing planned projects or programs that both support and promote sustainable
alternatives to motorized transport such as walking, using transit and bicycles.
3. The proposed Active Transportation Plan will provide new and improved bicycle and
pedestrian facilities which furthers existing General Plan policies and objectives to
complete a network of safe and convenient bikeways and walkways that connect
neighborhoods with major activity centers and routes outside of the city.
Resolution No. 11222 (2021 Series) Page 3
R 11222
SECTION 3. Approval. The Active Transportation Plan is hereby approved by the City
Council and Resolution Number 10471 (2013 Series) approving the 2013 Bicycle Transportation
Plan is hereby repealed and superseded.
Upon motion of Council Member Christianson, seconded by Council Member Pease, and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Member Christianson, Marx, Pease, Vice Mayor Stewart, and
Mayor Harmon
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 2nd day of February 2021.
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, on ____________________________.
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk