Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-28-2014 ac juddGoodwin, Heather From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 12:17 PM To: Goodwin, Heather Subject: Attachments: Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk (AL), cal, SAII WIS c. Blil)0 yqo Palm Sheet San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 tel 1805,783 710-1 FW: Comments on LUCE Downtown Pedestrian Plan Letter TaskForce PedPlan 1- 15- 14.doc From: Marx, Jan Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 7:14 AM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: Comments on LUCE Downtown Pedestrian Plan Agenda correspondence for 1/28 Jan Howell Marx Mayor of San Luis Obispo (805) 781 -7120 or (805) 541 -2716 From: Eugene H. Jud [ejud @calpoly.edu] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 7:05 PM To: Mandeville, Peggy; Ashbaugh, John; Marx, Jan; Christianson, Carlyn Cc: Johnson, Derek; Anurag Pande; James Lopes Subject: Comments on LUCE Downtown Pedestrian Plan Dear Friends, RECEIVED JAN 21 2014 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE C Item# (�0 I am happy about the movement towards a pedestrian plan. Thanks for this preliminary work! I basically support the below comments of citizen James Lopes. In the coming weeks CP class "Public Transportation" will look at alternative transportation in downtown, which includes pedestrian aspects. Fortunately Community Development promised to lend some support. A public exhibition of the class work is scheduled in the downtown library for Thu March 6, — 3:30 pm. Sincerely Eugene Jud + Prof. Anurag Pande Eugene Jud, Fellow Institute of Transportation Engineers ITE At: Faculty Civil and Environmental Engineering California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 -0353 Phone: (805) 756 -1729; E -mail: ejudgcalpol edu http://ceenve3.calpoly.edu/jud Or: Jud Consultants POB 1145 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 -1145 Phone and Fax: (805) 549 -8185; E -mail: jud4eu ene e aol.com www.judcons.com 1336 Sweetbay Lane San Luis Obispo, California 93401 January 15, 2014 TO: LUCE Task Force FROM: James Lopes SUBJECT: Draft Downtown Pedestrian Plan A basic question which I think residents, applicants and staff will have is, "What is this plan — a study, a strategic plan, or a policy document ?" The plan at the beginning needs to explain what it is, how it can be used, and what subsequent documents need to be created to implement it, perhaps in priority order. Sidewalk "clear width" is the primary, basic element of a pedestrian friendly downtown. Unfortunately, City staff allowed all sorts of furniture and dining areas to reduce the narrow space we inherit from earlier days. The space needs to allow at least two couples to pass by comfortably, or it will lead to people feeling uncomfortable or even threatened by an overcrowded space. This factor perhaps leads many people to see going downtown as an unpleasant experience. The draft plan only addresses the "clear width" topic as an aside in the Inventory under "Sidewalk continuity ", p. 7), then as Strategy 1. 1.2 (p. 18), then as a Medium or Long Term Q, Priority to correct (p. 24). This clear space is the critical element for pedestrian travel, similar to lane widths for vehicles on streets, and it should be addressed thoroughly in a dedicated section. With all the other attractions to be placed on sidewalks, wider sidewalks should be addressed in text and diagrams, to guide staff and public for placing the furniture, lights and trees, so that a continuous "travel lane" for pedestrians is created. T }j JAimm turrnlu0 I pedesk Ion zcrya rontage W11 none curb XM Mal Wlh • The "clear width" should be addressed as one of a few "zones" as illustrated here by the Federal Highway Administration: (Iittp: / /www.11iwa.dot.p-4v /environment /bicycle pedestrian /publications /sidewalk2 /sidewalks204.cfm). The draft plan should highlight the gains from reducing vehicle lanes on Higuera and Marsh Streets from three to two. If this is discussed it should be pointed out that sidewalks could be expanded at least five or six feet. The plan would address how street trees could eventually be replaced (as the City plans) at wider locations. Or, the City could conceive of a large -scale installation of new trees as Santa Barbara has done. Following are comments on specific text- 1. Page 7. "Sidewalk continuity" should be divided so that "Pedestrian clear space" is a new paragraph. as follows: "u^weveF, G Sidewalk Clear sidewai k widths for pedestrian travel vary throughout the Downtown Pedestrian Planning Area. Inadequate walking space which can interfere with a pedestrian's perception of comfort, safety and the continuity of the pedestrian environment. This clear space is the most critical element for comfortable pedestrian travel. Clear sidewalk widths not meeting this plan's standards (6 to 8 ft.) are highlighted in Figure _." 2. Page 18. Strategy 1.1.2. As we know, clear widths need to be increased, not just maintained. Revise Strategy 1.1.2 to broaden the intent: • Strategy 1.1.2 — Strive to maintain or achieve a minimum clear sidewalk/paseo width of 8 feet for high use pedestrian areas and 6 feet for low use pedestrian areas. • The City needs to confront a major issue — how to achieve wider clear space. The primary strategy should be to reduce the number of vehicle lanes on Higuera and Marsh Streets. The following strategy should be added, with renumbering: Strategy 1.1.3. Give high priority to widening sidewalk clear space to this plan's recommended widths throughout the downtown, by reducing and /or relocating street furniture, street trees and outdoor din allowances and fundinq and completina a sidewalk widening pro ram which focuses on reducing the number of vehicle travel lanes on Higuera and Marsh Streets to two. 3. Page 18. Strategy 1.1.3— Prioritize improvements to the existing sidewalk network including Mission Style sidewalk infill, overhead utility undergrounding and sidewalk widening or reduced obstructions. • This strategy suggests some activity to prioritize improvements. It needs to be more proactive, at least by suggesting that projects by scheduled: "Prioritize and schedule improvement rp oiects to the existing sidewalk network including Mission Style sidewalk infill, overhead utility undergrounding and sidewalk widening or reduced obstructions 4. Page 19. Strategy 2.4.1 —Driveway exits shall provide a minimum often feet clear visibility to the sidewalk on both sides of the exit. This distance shall be measured from 8 feet behind the stop bar and two feet to the right of the centerline where a driver would be located in a stopped vehicle. 2 This strategy does not call for further action, but reads as an ordinance standard, which is unique among the other strategies. If policies such as this are wanted in the Pedestrian Plan, then a section should be created to include this and others which would at least address how and where the sidewalk clear space shall be located, and how it should be preserved and restored. 5. Page 24. Sidewalk Medium Priority, 2 "d bullet: Sidewalk clear width is listed as a Medium Term Priority, but it should be moved to a Short -Term Priority so that the easy and perhaps minor things can be done very soon to restore or create adequate sidewalk walking space, particularly along the recent Higuera Street widening near Chorro Street. • Choke points and bottle necks along the sidewalks should be identified by this plan before it leaves the Task Force. • This second bullet should be revised to clarify that the Plan is establishing a new width greater than the 4 -foot "requirement" (from City Engineering Standards ?), or just drop the mention of 4 feet: "Prioritize and improve sidewalks currently below minimum clear width requirements to meet minimum requirements (4 ft.) oF reGOMmeRded clear widths of or 8 ft. on Higuera and Marsh Streets and 6 ft. on other streets. an the pedeStFoaR use of the stFeet and 6. Page 24. Sidewalk Long -term. The bullets for improving clear widths seem to imply some capital projects to expand the sidewalks. For greater understanding, they should speak to the project(s) that are underlying the text. These should be Medium Term priorities, since overcrowding is a persistent problem. If the City is serious about walkability, it should not delay such a project for 10 or 15 years. 7. Page 25. Other Improvements Long -term. The second bullet addresses a concept that does not need implementing — the notion of "gateways" for pedestrian entering downtown. The concept sounds like the City is creating an amusement park, and it should be retracted throughout the draft plan. • Instead, the bullet should speak to adequate pedestrian crossings and safety along streets bordering downtown, as a Medium -term priority: Medium -term: "Conduct a survey study of sidewalks and streets near downtown to determine the extent of clear width obstructions, lack of streetlighting and safe crossings, as well as other issues, and prepare a schedule of recommended improvements."