The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-19-2023 ATC Agenda PacketCity of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission Agenda ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE January 19, 2023 6:00 p.m. REGULAR MEETING Council Chambers City Hall 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CA Note: Due to renovation work in the Council Hearing Room, this meeting will be held in the Council Chambers. The City has returned to in-person meetings. Virtual participation will not be supported. For those in attendance, masks are strongly recommended. PUBLIC COMMENT: Public Comment during the meeting: If you would like to provide public comment during the meeting, you must attend in person. Public Comment prior to the meeting can be submitted in the following ways: •Mail or Email Public Comment Received by 3pm on the day of meeting - Can be submitted via email to advisorybodies@slocity.org or U.S. Mail to City Clerk at: 990 Palm St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. Emails sent after 3pm on the day of meeting – Can be submitted via email to advisorybodies@slocity.org and will be archived/distributed to members of the committee the day after the meeting. Emails will not be read aloud at the meeting. •Verbal Public Comment Received by 3pm on the day of the meeting - Call (805) 781-7164; state and spell your name, the agenda item number you are calling about and leave your comment. The verbal comments must be limited to 3 minutes. All voicemails will be forwarded to committee members and saved as Agenda Correspondence. Voicemails will not be played during the meeting. During the meeting – You must attend the meeting in person All comments submitted will be placed into the administrative record of the meeting. If you have questions, contact the office of the City Clerk at cityclerk@slocity.org or (805) 781- 7100. Active Transportation Committee Agenda January 19, 2023 Page 2 MISSION: The purpose of the Active Transportation Committee (ATC) is to provide oversight and policy direction on matters related to bicycle and pedestrian transportation in San Luis Obispo and its relationship to bicycling and walking outside the City. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Russell Mills ROLL CALL: Committee Members Lea Brooks (vice chair), Jill Caggiano, Francine Levin, Russell Mills (chair), Kimmie Nguyen, and Jonathan Roberts PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Committee about items not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their name and address. Comments are limited to three minutes per person. Items raised at this time are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Committee is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 1. Minutes of the Regular Meeting on November 17, 2022 ACTION ITEMS 2. BICYCLE RIDING ON SIDEWALKS (MILLS – 25 MINUTES) Recommendation: Consider whether the Committee should investigate possible changes to the prohibition on bicycle riding on sidewalks (Municipal Code Ordinance 10.72.100) 3. MINOR BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT FUNDING (FUKUSHIMA – 60 MINUTES) Recommendation: Consider forming an ATC subcommittee to recommend project priorities for the Bicycle Facility Improvements Account and the Pedestrian Facility Improvements Account COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 4. Committee Member Updates (5 minutes) 5. Staff Updates (10 minutes) a. Community Budget Forum, January 26 b. Higuera Complete Streets Project c. Agenda Forecast Active Transportation Committee Agenda January 19, 2023 Page 3 ADJOURNMENT The next Regular Meeting of the Active Transportation Committee is scheduled for Thursday, March 16, 2023 , at 6:00 p.m. ATTACHMENTS 1. DRAFT Minutes of the November 17, 2022 Regular Meeting The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7107. Agenda related writings and documents are available online or for public inspection at the Public Works Department, 919 Palm Street, SLO. Meeting audio recordings can be found at the following web address: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=60965&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk Minutes – Active Transportation Committee Meeting of November 17, 2022 Page 1 Minutes - DRAFT ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Thursday, November 17, 2022 1 Regular Meeting of the Active Transportation Committee 2 3 CALL TO ORDER 4 5 A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Committee was called to order 6 on Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room located at 990 Palm 7 Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Mills. 8 9 ROLL CALL 10 11 Present: Committee Members Lea Brooks (vice chair), Francine Levin, Russell Mills (chair), 12 and Jonathan Roberts 13 14 Absent: Jill Caggiano and Kimmie Nguyen 15 16 Staff: Active Transportation Manager Adam Fukushima and Recording Secretary Lareina 17 Gamboa 18 19 PUBLIC COMMENT ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 20 Helene Finger 21 Heidi Harmon 22 Myron Amerine 23 24 --End of Public Comment-- 25 26 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 27 28 1. Review Minutes of the Active Transportation Committee Meeting of September 15, 2022 29 and November 3, 2022: 30 31 ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER ROBERTS, SECONDED BY 32 COMMITTEE MEMBER BROOKS, CARRIED 3-1-0 (COMMITTEE MEMBER MILLS 33 ABSTAINED), to approve the Minutes of the Active Transportation Committee Meetings of 34 September 15, 2022 and November 3, 2022, as presented. 35 36 Public Comment 37 None. 38 39 --End of Public Comment-- 40 41 INFORMATION ITEMS 42 43 Minutes – Active Transportation Committee Meeting of November 17, 2022 Page 2 2. Active Transportation Plan Performance Monitoring 44 Fukushima provided a presentation and responded to Committee inquiries. 45 46 Public Comment 47 None. 48 49 --End of Public Comment-- 50 51 No action was taken on this item. 52 53 3. Committee Recommendations for FY 2023-25 City Budget Goals 54 Fukushima provided a presentation and responded to Committee inquiries. 55 56 ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER BROOKS, SECONDED BY 57 COMMITTEE MEMBER ROBERTS, CARRIED 4-0, to approve the staff recommended list 58 of prioritized projects with the addition of the Johnson Avenue project (associated with the 59 Sydney crossing improvements) and all intersections that will help create a safe route to the 60 San Luis Obispo High School. 61 62 Public Comment 63 Myron Amerine 64 65 --End of Public Comment-- 66 67 COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 68 69 Fukushima provided an agenda forecast. 70 71 4. Committee Member Updates 72 5. Staff Updates 73 a. Halloween Pedestrian Safety Campaign and Bike Light Checkpoint Outreach 74 b. Agenda Forecast 75 76 ADJOURNMENT 77 78 The meeting was adjourned at 8:14 p.m. The next Regular Active Transportation Committee 79 meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Hearing 80 Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. 81 82 83 84 APPROVED BY THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2022 85 86 87 City of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission Active Transportation Committee AGENDA REPORT ITEM 2 DATE: January 19, 2023 FROM: Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager SUBJECT: BICYCLE RIDING ON SIDEWALKS Recommendation Consider whether the Committee should investigate possible changes to the prohibition on bicycle riding on sidewalks (Municipal Code Ordinance 10.72.100) Background San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 10.72.100 states: “No person shall ride a bicycle upon any sidewalk.” While the Police Department uses discretion when enforcing the ordinance especially in regards to children, Committee Chair Mills has expressed concerns about the potential impacts of the ordinance on bicycle safety and more vulnerable bicycle riders who may not feel comfortable riding in the roadway. Discussion This item will discuss whether the Committee should investigate possible changes to the ordinance. Committee Chair Mills has expressed that several California municipalities have less restrictive ordinances on bicycle riding depending on age and location (namely downtowns). He provides his own research on this issue (Attachment 1) as well as an article from Planetizen (Attachment 2). As the Committee considers this issue it should keep in mind that the purview of the ATC includes the possible impact any ordinance changes may have on the safety and convenience of both bicycling and walking. Next Steps If the committee recommends an investigation, staff will return at a later date with an analysis of the current ordinance including a scan of similar ordinances in other cities, gather input from the Police Department and provide a staff recommendation on possible next steps. If the committee decides at that time to recommend changes to the ordinance, it would be brought before the City Council at a later date for consideration. If there is not a majority of committee members who wish to investigate possible changes to the ordinance, then no subsequent action will be needed by the committee. Active Transportation Committee Agenda Item 2, January 19, 2022 Page 2 Recommendation Consider whether the Committee should investigate possible changes to the prohibition on bicycle riding on sidewalks (Municipal Code Ordinance 10.72.100) Attachments 1—Bicycle Riding on Sidewalks by Russell Mills 2—Planetizen Article “Bicyclists on Sidewalks: Why They’re Not Going Away, and What We Can Do About It” Bicycle Riding on Sidewalks By Russell Mills Researched 8/01/2021 Summary: There is no universal theme regarding bicycle riding on sidewalks. However, there are three common approaches: it is not allowed; it is allowed only for children (age restriction varies); it is allowed outside certain business districts. In the City of San Luis Obispo, bicycle riding on sidewalks is not allowed anywhere by anyone. State of California – not addressed There is no state-wide law restricting or allowing bicycle riding on sidewalks. According to California Vehicle Code (CVC) §21206, city and county governments are responsible for drawing up and enforcing laws of bicycles in pedestrian areas. Selected municipalities, listed alphabetically. All are municipalities that are recognized as supporting cycling. Chico - allowed outside the downtown area No person shall ride a bicycle upon any sidewalk in that portion of the central business district of the city bounded and described as follows: the area bounded on the north by the northerly property line of First Street; on the south by the southerly property line of Fifth Street; on the east by the center line of Wall Street and on the west by the center line of Salem Street; except that this restriction shall not be deemed to apply to a three-wheel or tricycle-type of bicycle being operated by a physically disabled person nor to any person operating a bicycle and desiring to access the Children’s Playground bicycle path located at West First and Broadway Streets. For the purpose of this exception, “disabled person” shall mean a person disabled by a physical disability or age. A person may ride a bicycle on a sidewalk outside of the area described in subsection A, above, provided the person yields the right-of-way to and gives an audible signal before overtaking any person standing, walking, in a wheelchair, or on a tricycle or similar three- wheeled vehicle on the sidewalk. Municipal Code 10.40.090 Davis – allowed outside the downtown area No person shall ride or propel a bicycle or skateboard upon a sidewalk or any improvements constructed or placed on a sidewalk within the central traffic district as defined in Section 16-1 of this Code, except a person may ride a bicycle or skateboard across a sidewalk only as may be necessary to enter or leave property adjacent to that sidewalk. Whenever any person is riding a bicycle upon a sidewalk, such person shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and shall give audible signal before overtaking and passing such pedestrian. Municipal Code 6.02.060 Palo Alto – allowed outside a business district No person shall ride or operate a bicycle upon any sidewalk in a business district. No person shall ride or operate a bicycle upon any sidewalk in the University Avenue undercrossing below Alma Street and the Palo Alto train station or in the California Avenue undercrossing below Alma Street and the California Avenue train station when others are present. Any person riding Item 2, Attachment 1, Page 1 of 2 or operating a bicycle upon any sidewalk shall exercise due care and shall yield the right-of-way to all pedestrians. No person riding or operating a bicycle upon any sidewalk where a bicycle lane or path has been established shall travel in a direction other than as posted. Municipal Code 10.64.130 San Francisco – allowed for children only Bicycle riding on any sidewalk is prohibited except that children under the age of 13 may ride a bicycle on any sidewalk except as otherwise posted. Transportation Code Sec. 1007 San Luis Obispo – not allowed No person shall ride a bicycle upon any sidewalk. Municipal Code Chapter 10.72 County of Santa Barbara – allowed for children only No person over the age of fifteen shall ride a bicycle vehicle upon, or along any public sidewalk in the county. Code of Ordinance Sec. 9-2 City of Santa Barbara – not allowed No person shall ride a bicycle on any sidewalk except at a driveway; provided, that a person may ride a bicycle on any area designated by the City Council as a bikeway. Municipal Code 10.52.030 Item 2, Attachment 1, Page 2 of 2 10/10/22, 3:55 PMBicyclists on Sidewalks: Why They're Not Going Away, and What We Can Do About It | Planetizen Features Page 1 of 17https://www.planetizen.com/node/84910/bicyclists-sidewalks-why-theyre-not-going-away-and-what-we-can-do-about-it Bicyclists on Sidewalks: Why They're Not Going Away, and What We Can Do About It Simply banning bikes from riding on sidewalks does more harm than good. A better understanding of why people choose to ride bikes on the sidewalk will be necessary to create safer environments for all users. If you have ever ridden a bike, chances are you have ridden it on a sidewalk at some point. If you have ever been a pedestrian in a major city, there's a good chance that you have dodged a sidewalk cyclist. And if you’ve ridden a bike in a street, it’s quite possible that a motorist has told you to ride on the Note: Some of the figures referenced in the article were not available but the absence of them should not detract from the information presented Item 2, Attachment 2, Page 1 of 17 10/10/22, 3:55 PMBicyclists on Sidewalks: Why They're Not Going Away, and What We Can Do About It | Planetizen Features Page 2 of 17https://www.planetizen.com/node/84910/bicyclists-sidewalks-why-theyre-not-going-away-and-what-we-can-do-about-it sidewalk. Despite being denounced in many an editorial and aggressively ticketed in many a jurisdiction, sidewalk cyclists are unlikely to become a thing of the past. This article examines the reasons why sidewalk riding persists, despite known safety hazards and regulatory prohibitions. We do not intend to encourage bicycling on sidewalks, which is riskier overall than riding in the street (Aultman-Hall and Adams 1998). However, we also do not advocate for the elimination of sidewalk riding altogether. Our aim is to develop a better understanding of the problem and to recommend actions for local governments that reduce the hazards caused by sidewalk cyclists—but without discouraging bicycling. Above all, jurisdiction-wide prohibitions of sidewalk bicycling are unproductive and should be avoided in favor of regulations specific to certain areas or facilities. 1.Is biking on sidewalks more dangerous, or less? Numerous studies (for example, Aultman-Hall and Adams 1998; Wachtel and Lewiston 1994) have shown that crash risk,overall, is higher for bicyclists riding on sidewalks than for bicyclists riding on streets. However, we are not aware of any studies that have examined the risks of sidewalk bicycling on different types of roadways (taking into account variables such as traffic volumes, speeds, curb cut frequency, or pedestrian density). Nor are we aware of any studies that have examined the risks of sidewalk bicycling for different cyclist types (e.g., fast, slow, more or less experienced). These factors are important to consider because on any given ride, a cyclist may ride on several different types of streets (or sidewalks) and because cyclists vary greatly in their speed and behavior. For a slow-moving cyclist, riding on a sidewalk adjacent to a high-speed street may, in some cases, be safer than riding in the street. Item 2, Attachment 2, Page 2 of 17 10/10/22, 3:55 PMBicyclists on Sidewalks: Why They're Not Going Away, and What We Can Do About It | Planetizen Features Page 3 of 17https://www.planetizen.com/node/84910/bicyclists-sidewalks-why-theyre-not-going-away-and-what-we-can-do-about-it 2.What makes bicyclists ride on sidewalks? The following factors have been identified as discouraging on-road cycling and potentially encouraging cyclists to use sidewalks: Safety (real or perceived). Multiple studies (for example, Winters et al. 2012) have found that safety concerns, above all the fear of collision with a motor vehicle, are a major deterrent to bicycling. Despite statistics showing that riding on sidewalks is less safe overall, bicyclists continue to perceive sidewalk riding as safer than street riding in many situations (Winters et al. 2012, Aultman-Hall and Adams 1998). The perception of safety comes primarily from the sidewalk's separation from motorized traffic. In reality, however, many sidewalks (those with frequent curb cuts and intersections) have many potential conflict points. Sidewalks with infrequent curb cuts and long distances between intersections manage to provide a high degree of separation from motor traffic. Regardless of crash risk, some cyclists will always be more comfortable on a sidewalk. Some cyclists behave more like pedestrians than the cars they are expected to co-exist with—riding cautiously down sidewalks and stopping to push their bikes through crosswalks. Bicycle speed. Closely related issues include the quality of the bicycle, the physical fitness of the rider, terrain, and the difference in speed between cyclists and motorists. Although stereotypes sometimes depict cyclists as affluent, spandex-clad racers, the bulk of those who bike to work are actually in lower income brackets. An estimated 49 percent of workers who commute by bicycle earn less than $25,000 per year (Keatts and Kinder Institute 2015). Cyclists at this income level are less likely to be riding lighter, speedier bicycles. They ride for transportation, not for fitness, and may not have the leg muscle development (or bicycles) necessary to reach and sustain high speeds. Such riders are less able to blend smoothly with motorized traffic, and motorists unable Item 2, Attachment 2, Page 3 of 17 10/10/22, 3:55 PMBicyclists on Sidewalks: Why They're Not Going Away, and What We Can Do About It | Planetizen Features Page 4 of 17https://www.planetizen.com/node/84910/bicyclists-sidewalks-why-theyre-not-going-away-and-what-we-can-do-about-it to pass immediately must slow down by a correspondingly greater margin. Cyclists of this type are less likely to be comfortable riding in shared traffic than faster cyclists who have the leisure time to improve their fitness and the money to purchase bicycles conducive to higher speeds. Convenience. Sidewalks may be used as a shortcut. For example, a cyclist may ride on a sidewalk to gain direct access to a building or other destination. In some locations—for example, on many university campuses—these practices are encouraged (intentionally or unintentionally) by the placement of bicycle racks directly outside buildings. Another way in which sidewalks are used as a shortcut is for travel on a one-way street in the opposite direction from that of traffic. Ignorance. In some locations, regardless of other factors, some cyclists would be comfortable riding in streets but use sidewalks because they are unaware of crash risks and/or regulations prohibiting sidewalk riding. Informal sampling of college students at a small university in Georgia (discussed in more detail later) found that at least 50 percent of students are unaware that it is illegal to bicycle on sidewalks. Some cyclists are even under the impression that they are required to ride on sidewalks. Motorists tell them to use sidewalks. As Whet Moser (2014) put it in a recent Chicago Magazine article, sidewalk cyclists are "just doing what they’ve always been told to do." 3.Where are sidewalk bicyclists problematic—and where are they not? As Moser (2014) writes, in locations with low pedestrian traffic and no bike infrastructure, "permitting cyclists to use the sidewalk is a cost-free way of preventing citizens from getting maimed." Despite the overall higher crash Item 2, Attachment 2, Page 4 of 17 10/10/22, 3:55 PMBicyclists on Sidewalks: Why They're Not Going Away, and What We Can Do About It | Planetizen Features Page 5 of 17https://www.planetizen.com/node/84910/bicyclists-sidewalks-why-theyre-not-going-away-and-what-we-can-do-about-it risk associated with sidewalk cycling, there are still many locations where riding on a sidewalk is likely to be less risky than riding in the adjacent street. The following variables contribute to the safety of all users when bicyclists travel on sidewalks: Cyclist behavior. Some cyclists ride at high speed, are less cautious, and may weave quickly among pedestrians to reach their destination more quickly. Other cyclists ride slowly and cautiously, yielding to all other users. Such behavior types could be viewed as occurring along a spectrum. To our knowledge, no studies of this spectrum of cyclist behavior have been conducted. Density of other sidewalk users. A cyclist on a sidewalk crowded with pedestrians will create a greater hazard than a cyclist on a sidewalk devoid of pedestrians. In some areas, data regarding pedestrian traffic are collected at selected locations, so there are opportunities for further research on this factor. Types of other sidewalk users. A cyclist sharing a facility with typical pedestrians may create less of a hazard than a cyclist sharing a facility with numerous small children, wheelchair users, dog walkers, visually impaired individuals, and senior citizens. As above, data regarding these different user types are collected in some areas. Sidewalk "design speed." Although sidewalks are rarely, if ever, designed with any specific travel speed in mind, there are a number of factors, including clear width, curvature, and obstacles, that will influence how quickly a sidewalk user can safely travel. Sidewalks in central business districts and other commercial areas with heavy pedestrian traffic tend to have benches, planters, outdoor restaurant seating, newspaper vending boxes, and the like. Such amenities do not normally create a hazard to pedestrians but do require caution on the part of users moving at higher speeds, such as joggers and sidewalk Item 2, Attachment 2, Page 5 of 17 10/10/22, 3:55 PMBicyclists on Sidewalks: Why They're Not Going Away, and What We Can Do About It | Planetizen Features Page 6 of 17https://www.planetizen.com/node/84910/bicyclists-sidewalks-why-theyre-not-going-away-and-what-we-can-do-about-it cyclists. By contrast, sidewalks in suburban areas tend to have more clear width and fewer obstacles. The surface quality of the sidewalk is an additional factor affecting the "design speed." Newer sidewalks in suburban areas may be very smooth, while older sidewalks in established neighborhoods may have cracks resulting from tree roots. Frequency of curb cuts and intersections. This has been the most important factor in prior studies that found sidewalk riding to be more hazardous. Curb cuts and intersections are the most common points of conflict between motorists and sidewalk cyclists. The risk may be higher or lower depending on the volume of traffic passing through the curb cuts and intersections. At one end of this spectrum are long, uninterrupted stretches of sidewalk (such as one might see running alongside a large city park or a suburban or exurban road). At the other end are sidewalks on busy commercial roads with two or more curb cuts for each business. 4.Factors that complicate the issue In addition to the factors discussed above, there are some additional factors that complicate the issue of sidewalk cycling even further: High-profile pedestrian deaths. Each year in the United States, a number of pedestrians are struck and killed by cyclists. We are not aware of any national-level data on this type of fatality. However, according to one report, 11 pedestrians were killed by cyclists in New York City between 1995 and 2006 (NYC Dept. of Health et al. 2006: 20). While the tragic nature of these events should not be understated, this fatality type represented only 0.57% of transportation-related pedestrian deaths in New York City during that timeframe. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, 0.38% of pedestrian fatalities from 1998 to 2007 involved a cyclist (UK Parliament 2009). The vast majority of pedestrian Item 2, Attachment 2, Page 6 of 17 10/10/22, 3:55 PMBicyclists on Sidewalks: Why They're Not Going Away, and What We Can Do About It | Planetizen Features Page 7 of 17https://www.planetizen.com/node/84910/bicyclists-sidewalks-why-theyre-not-going-away-and-what-we-can-do-about-it fatalities result from collisions with motor vehicles. Reckless cyclist behavior is not to be excused; however, the significant media attention paid to such cases (for example, Gellnas 2014) may encourage the perception of sidewalk cycling as a menace even in areas where it is less problematic—for example, in areas with fewer pedestrians and less bike infrastructure than New York City. Cyclists already share space with pedestrians in many places. In the hearts of many cities where sidewalk cyclists are so widely denounced, there are multi-use paths that pedestrians and cyclists use together. In some locations, the point where the multi-use path ends and the sidewalk begins may not be obvious. Some cyclists and pedestrians do not understand the difference between a sidewalk and a multi-use path. In addition, some facilities designated as multi-use paths are, in terms of design, nothing more than wide sidewalks—or even, in some cases, normal-width sidewalks. This means that on certain sidewalk-type facilities, cycling is paradoxically legal even if there is a citywide ban on sidewalk cycling. For a layperson with no technical knowledge of transportation planning, the rules may not be grasped intuitively. Some cyclists aren’t comfortable using some bike facilities. Some places provide bike facilities, but cyclists do not use them, such as the example of a high-speed arterial road with sidewalks and narrow bike lanes directly adjacent to the automobile lanes. Such road designs are common in Florida, among other places (see Figure 1). Figure 1. Arterial road in Florida with bike lane adjacent to high-speed traffic and gutter pan partly occupying bike lane. Some cyclists may perceive the sidewalk as safer. (Photo: Ariel Godwin.) Item 2, Attachment 2, Page 7 of 17 10/10/22, 3:55 PMBicyclists on Sidewalks: Why They're Not Going Away, and What We Can Do About It | Planetizen Features Page 8 of 17https://www.planetizen.com/node/84910/bicyclists-sidewalks-why-theyre-not-going-away-and-what-we-can-do-about-it 5.Case studies To illustrate the dynamics described above, we present case studies of two cities, Columbus, Ohio and Valdosta, Georgia, chosen as representatives of a typical large city and a typical small city, respectively. Each city is home to a university, which boosts bicycle culture, and each is in a state that is not known for being particularly friendly or unfriendly to bicycling (the League of American Bicyclists ranks Ohio as #16 in bike friendliness among the states, and Georgia as #25). Columbus, Ohio Columbus, Ohio (2014 population: 835,957) is home to a significant bike culture, fueled in part by the presence of the Ohio State University and its 58,000 students. While the proportion of workers who bike to work, per the 2014 American Community Survey—0.8 percent—may sound paltry, some 3,400 commuters rely on bicycles as a daily means of transportation. The Columbus Code of Ordinances prohibits riding a bicycle on any sidewalk citywide (Chapter 2173.10; notably, police officers are exempt). Undoubtedly, there are many locations in the city where sidewalk cyclists would create a safety hazard. However, the citywide prohibition of sidewalk cycling, along with the existence of certain sub-optimal bike facilities, contributes to the following circumstances: Cyclists are prohibited not only from Downtown sidewalks with high pedestrian density, but also from sidewalks alongside high-speed, high- traffic suburban arterials on which riding on the sidewalk may be far safer (even for a very fast-moving cyclist) than riding in the street. The greater Columbus area has a large (322-mile) and growing network of multi-use paths (MORPC 2012). In some places, sidewalk-type facilities are designated as part of the multi-use path system. Most of Item 2, Attachment 2, Page 8 of 17 10/10/22, 3:55 PMBicyclists on Sidewalks: Why They're Not Going Away, and What We Can Do About It | Planetizen Features Page 9 of 17https://www.planetizen.com/node/84910/bicyclists-sidewalks-why-theyre-not-going-away-and-what-we-can-do-about-it these facilities have sufficient additional width to accommodate mixed pedestrian and bicycle traffic, but some do not (see Figure 2). Figure 2. Five-foot-wide sidewalk designated as section of two-way multi- use path on Souder Ave. bridge (Columbus, OH). (Photo: Ariel Godwin.) Figure 3. Bus/taxi lane on High Street (Downtown Columbus, OH). Photo: Paul Sableman, licensed under CC BY 2.0. High Street, in Downtown Columbus, is a four-lane street that functions as the city’s main thoroughfare. In the Downtown area, the outer lanes of High Street are designated for buses and taxis only during peak commuting hours (see Figure 3). During the restricted hours, some cyclists use the sidewalks (which is illegal, and causes conflicts with pedestrians), others use the restricted lanes (which is also illegal, and causes conflicts with buses and taxis), and still others use the inner lanes of the street (causing conflicts with motorists who perceive these lanes as the "fast lanes"). There is no suitable place for cyclists to ride during peak commuting hours. Better solutions for mixed bus and bike traffic have been developed in other cities. One example is Baltimore, where the Charm City Circulator bus runs on shared bike/bus lanes and prominent signage encourages safe riding and mutual respect (see Figure 4). Figure 4. Shared bus/bike lane (Baltimore, MD). (Photo: Ariel Godwin.) Figure 5. Sign on bus instructing cyclists on use of shared bus/bike lane (Baltimore, MD). (Photo: Ariel Godwin.) Item 2, Attachment 2, Page 9 of 17 10/10/22, 3:55 PMBicyclists on Sidewalks: Why They're Not Going Away, and What We Can Do About It | Planetizen Features Page 10 of 17https://www.planetizen.com/node/84910/bicyclists-sidewalks-why-theyre-not-going-away-and-what-we-can-do-about-it Awareness of the citywide prohibition of sidewalk riding in Columbus is not widespread, and to our knowledge, no signage in the city indicates that bicycling on sidewalks is prohibited. Given these circumstances, we expect that sidewalk bicycling will persist in Columbus. Further evidence for this prediction is provided by data from the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission, which organizes biannual counts of pedestrians and cyclists. Since 2010, these counts have collected data as to whether cyclists were on streets or on sidewalks (see Figure 6). Over the years, the proportion of cyclists using sidewalks has decreased (from 53 percent in May 2010 to 31 percent in September 2015), but still remains significant. As might be expected, the percentage of cyclists on sidewalks was highest at count locations on high-speed, high-traffic suburban arterials, and lowest in the commercial areas of the central city and on low- speed, low-traffic residential streets. Figure 6. Bicyclists counted on streets and sidewalks in the Columbus metro area, 2010-2015. (Data source: MORPC bicycle and pedestrian counts.) Valdosta, Georgia Valdosta (2014 population: 56,595) is a university town and regional Item 2, Attachment 2, Page 10 of 17 10/10/22, 3:55 PMBicyclists on Sidewalks: Why They're Not Going Away, and What We Can Do About It | Planetizen Features Page 11 of 17https://www.planetizen.com/node/84910/bicyclists-sidewalks-why-theyre-not-going-away-and-what-we-can-do-about-it economic hub in southern Georgia, 14 miles north of the Florida state line. Although Valdosta lacks significant bike infrastructure as well as any comprehensive bicycle advocacy organization, the city has a significant amount of bicycle traffic, fueled in part by Valdosta State University, with a student body of about 11,000, and by an estimated 10% of households with no available motor vehicle (American Community Survey 2009-2013 estimate). Bicycles on sidewalks are prohibited in Valdosta’s Downtown area (Valdosta Code of Ordinances Sec. 94-43), although no signage exists to inform people of the prohibition. Like many central business districts, this area attracts considerable pedestrian traffic, and sidewalk cycling there would be inadvisable. However, the city’s ordinance is rendered irrelevant by Georgia code (§ 40-6-144), which prohibits bicycles on sidewalks statewide. Thus, cycling on sidewalks is illegal not only in Downtown, but also in the following locations in Valdosta, which we have chosen as illustrative examples: The Hill Avenue overpass (see Figure 7), with a 35-mph speed limit and average daily traffic (ADT) of 15,100 (GDOT 2014): On this overpass, cyclists riding uphill in the roadway are likely to go very slowly due to the steep ascent, and the 12-foot travel lanes are not wide enough to allow a motorists to pass a cyclist safely within the same lane. Due to limited visibility, cyclists riding uphill in the roadway on this overpass risk being struck from behind by motor vehicles. Bemiss Road (see Figure 8), a four-lane arterial that connects Valdosta to Moody Air Force Base, with ADT up to 29,200 (GDOT 2014), a 45- mph speed limit, 11-foot lanes, and a continuous 4-foot sidewalk on each side for approximately 8 miles, with multiple stretches of 1/3 mile or longer uninterrupted by curb cuts: While cyclists can occasionally be observed in the roadway, many are more comfortable on the sidewalk. Item 2, Attachment 2, Page 11 of 17 10/10/22, 3:55 PMBicyclists on Sidewalks: Why They're Not Going Away, and What We Can Do About It | Planetizen Features Page 12 of 17https://www.planetizen.com/node/84910/bicyclists-sidewalks-why-theyre-not-going-away-and-what-we-can-do-about-it Figure 7. Hill Avenue/US-84 overpass (Valdosta, GA). (Photo: Ariel Godwin.) Figure 8. Bemiss Road (Valdosta, GA). (Photo: Ariel Godwin.) As in many other communities, Valdosta also has some locations where infrastructure resembling a sidewalk is designated as a multi-use path. Although any construction of additional bike-friendly infrastructure should be encouraged, certain types of facilities may confuse drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. One example is Williams Street (see Figure 9), where a 10-foot- wide multi-use trail was constructed as a spur of the Azalea City Trail system. This facility provides ample protected space for non-motorized users. However, the trail includes frequent curb cuts for residential driveways and no signage designating it as a multi-use path. Consequently, some residents have expressed confusion as to why the sidewalk is so wide. An informal survey of Valdosta State University students, conducted in the fall semester of 2015, found that more than 50 percent of those surveyed were not aware of any regulations in the area prohibiting bicycling on sidewalks. Ignorance about where cyclists are supposed to ride may also extend to the local news media and/or police officers. A Valdosta Daily Times article from January 22, 2015 reported that a cyclist was “issued a citation for bicycling on roadway.” Similar confusion reigns in many places; Valdosta is just one example. Figure 9. 10-foot sidewalk on Williams St. (Valdosta, GA). There is a lack of public awareness that the reason for this facility’s generous width is its status as a multi-use path. (Photo: Ariel Godwin.) 6.Conclusions and recommendations To reduce the number of crashes and citations, and to improve public Item 2, Attachment 2, Page 12 of 17 10/10/22, 3:55 PMBicyclists on Sidewalks: Why They're Not Going Away, and What We Can Do About It | Planetizen Features Page 13 of 17https://www.planetizen.com/node/84910/bicyclists-sidewalks-why-theyre-not-going-away-and-what-we-can-do-about-it perception of cyclists, local jurisdictions should take a holistic and location- specific approach to sidewalk cycling. This could include some of the following measures: Revised ordinances. Jurisdiction-wide (and statewide) prohibitions of sidewalk bicycling are not effective because some cyclists will continue to violate them and because they discourage bicycling. Prohibitions of sidewalk bicycling could be limited only to certain areas, or to situations where riding on the sidewalk clearly endangers others. Ordinances could require cyclists to dismount when pedestrians are present. In any case, regulations should be appropriate to the transportation infrastructure and the people using it. Improved signage. Indicate clearly, with signs and pavement markings, the areas where cycling on sidewalks is prohibited. This will reduce confusion and alleviate the hazards posed to pedestrians by cyclists in certain areas. Selective enforcement. In places where an unreasonable jurisdiction- wide prohibition of sidewalk cycling continues to exist, law enforcement officers should focus on cyclists who cause the greatest safety hazard. While selective enforcement can be an acceptable tool, improving the laws would be better. Improved bike infrastructure. In many places where sidewalk cyclists are problematic, infrastructure improvements could improve safety and reduce conflict. Some infrastructure solutions are costly—for example, building multi-use paths—while others are relatively inexpensive, such as changing signage or striping bike lanes on existing pavement. Future research could examine the factors discussed in this paper in more depth, preferably using surveys to gather quantitative data. Specific questions to address might include the spectrum of cyclist behavior (fast and reckless to slow and cautious); the reasons why people ride on Item 2, Attachment 2, Page 13 of 17 10/10/22, 3:55 PMBicyclists on Sidewalks: Why They're Not Going Away, and What We Can Do About It | Planetizen Features Page 14 of 17https://www.planetizen.com/node/84910/bicyclists-sidewalks-why-theyre-not-going-away-and-what-we-can-do-about-it sidewalks; and the crash risks of sidewalk cycling on specific types of roadways and for specific cyclist behavior types. There are types of designated bike infrastructure that some cyclists simply will not use, which means that many people are simply not cyclists. Just as in other areas of transportation planning, a location-specific approach, leading to a context-appropriate outcome, is best for addressing the issue of sidewalk riding, with the goal of creating a safer, more user friendly system for all transportation modes. Author Bios Ariel Godwin, AICP is a Senior Planner at the Southern Georgia Regional Commission. He holds a master's degree in City and Regional Planning from Ohio State University and has previously worked for regional planning organizations in Florida, Massachusetts, and Ohio. Anne M. Price, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Valdosta State University. She holds a doctorate in sociology from Ohio State University. Prior to her current position, she taught at the University of South Florida. Sources American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). "Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities." 3rd edition. Washington, DC: AASHTO, 1999. Aultman-Hall, Lisa, and Michael Adams Jr. "Sidewalk Bicycling Safety Issues."Transportation Research Record1636 (1998): 71-76. Columbus, Ohio, City of. "Code of Ordinances." Item 2, Attachment 2, Page 14 of 17 10/10/22, 3:55 PMBicyclists on Sidewalks: Why They're Not Going Away, and What We Can Do About It | Planetizen Features Page 15 of 17https://www.planetizen.com/node/84910/bicyclists-sidewalks-why-theyre-not-going-away-and-what-we-can-do-about-it https://www.municode.com/library/oh/columbus/codes/code_of_ordinances? nodeId=16219 (accessed Oct. 27, 2015). Dill, Jennifer, and Nathan McNeil. "Four Types of Cyclists? Examination of Typology for Better Understanding of Bicycling Behavior and Potential."Transportation Research Record2387 (2013): 129-138. Floyd, Adam. "Bicyclist struck by car, issued citation." Valdosta Daily Times(Jan. 22, 2015). http://www.valdostadailytimes.com/news/local_news/bicyclist-struck-by- car-issued-citation/article_ea61cedc-a1df-11e4-8102-57f92d337748.html (accessed Nov. 17, 2015). Geller, Roger. "Four Types of Cyclists." Portland Bureau of Transportation, Portland, OR. 2006. http://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/264746 (accessed Oct. 27, 2015). Georgia, State of. "Georgia Code." https://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/gacode/ (accessed Oct. 27, 2015). Georgia Department of Transportation. "Traffic Counts in Georgia" (database). http://geocounts.com/gdot/ (accessed Oct. 27, 2015). Keatts, Andrew, and the Kinder Institute for Urban Research. "Most Cyclists Are Working-Class Immigrants, Not Hipsters." Governing the States and Localities(Oct. 26, 2015). http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation- infrastructure/memo-to-cities-most-cyclists-arent-urban-hipsters.html (accessed Nov. 4, 2015). League of American Bicyclists. "Bicycle Friendly America" (database). http://bikeleague.org/bfa (accessed Nov. 6, 2015). Item 2, Attachment 2, Page 15 of 17 10/10/22, 3:55 PMBicyclists on Sidewalks: Why They're Not Going Away, and What We Can Do About It | Planetizen Features Page 16 of 17https://www.planetizen.com/node/84910/bicyclists-sidewalks-why-theyre-not-going-away-and-what-we-can-do-about-it Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC). "Bicycle and Pedestrian Count Data 2009-2015" (database). http://morpc.org/transportation/bicycle- pedestrian/counts/index (accessed Oct. 27, 2015). Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC). "Interactive visualization: Miles of bikeways in central Ohio" (2012). http://www.datasourcecolumbus.org/ (accessed Nov. 4, 2015). Moser, Whet. "Have A Little Sympathy for the Sidewalk Cyclists." Chicago Magazine(July 16, 2014). http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/July- 2014/Sympathy-for-the-Sidewalk-Cyclists/ (accessed Nov. 12, 2015). National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). "Recommended Bicycle Lane Widths for Various Roadway Characteristics." NCHRP Report 766. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, 2014. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_766.pdf (accessed Oct. 27, 2015). New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, et al. "Bicyclist Fatalities and Serious Injuries in New York City 1996-2005" (2006). http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bicyclefatalities.pdf (accessed Oct. 27, 2015). Gellnas,Nicole."New York’s cycles of death: Our arrogant-biker nightmare." New York PostSept. 22, 2014. http://nypost.com/2014/09/22/new-yorks- cycles-of-death-our-arrogant-biker-nightmare/ (accessed Oct. 27, 2015). Ohio, State of. "Ohio Revised Code." http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/ (accessed Oct. 27, 2015). Ohio State University. "Statistical Summary (Autumn 2014)." https://www.osu.edu/osutoday/stuinfo.php (accessed Oct. 27, 2015). Item 2, Attachment 2, Page 16 of 17 10/10/22, 3:55 PMBicyclists on Sidewalks: Why They're Not Going Away, and What We Can Do About It | Planetizen Features Page 17 of 17https://www.planetizen.com/node/84910/bicyclists-sidewalks-why-theyre-not-going-away-and-what-we-can-do-about-it UK Parliament. Hansard Commons Debate, Column 12W. "Roads: Accidents" (Jan. 26, 2009). http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090126/t ext/90126w0003.htm#09012627000041 (accessed Oct. 27, 2015). US Census Bureau. 2009-2013 American Community Survey estimates (accessed Nov. 17, 2015). US Census Bureau. 2014 American Community Survey estimates (accessed Nov. 17, 2015). Valdosta, Georgia, City of. "Code of Ordinances." https://www.municode.com/library/ga/valdosta/codes/code_of_ordinances (accessed Oct. 27, 2015). Valdosta, Georgia, City of. "Portion of Williams Street Closed for Improvements and Expansion of Azalea Trail" (2013). http://www.valdostacity.com/Index.aspx?page=270&recordid=2460 (accessed Oct. 27, 2015). Valdosta Daily Times. "Rant & Rave for Monday, Oct. 7, 2013." http://www.valdostadailytimes.com/news/rant_and_rave/rant-rave-for- monday-oct/article_906a71dc-e531-5886-bd3a-47f8c1adff9d.html (accessed Nov. 17, 2015). Wachtel, Alan, and Diana Lewiston. "Risk Factors For Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions At Intersections."ITE Journal64.9 (1994): 30-35. Winters, Meghan, et al. "Safe Cycling: How Do Risk Perceptions Compare With Observed Risk?"Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique103.3 (2012): 42-47. Item 2, Attachment 2, Page 17 of 17 City of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission Active Transportation Committee AGENDA REPORT ITEM 3 DATE: January 19, 2023 FROM: Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager SUBJECT: FY 2022-23 MINOR ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS Recommendation: Consider forming an ATC subcommittee to recommend project priorities for the Minor Bicycle Facility Improvements Account and the Minor Pedestrian Facility Improvements Account Background The FY 2021-23 Financial Plan allocates funding for minor active transportation facility improvements. It continues the precedent from prior financial plans in allocating $100,000 per year for minor bikeway improvements. These funds were created out of a need to fund minor improvements not covered in other parts of the budget including for minor striping, short sections of bike lanes with green paint, drainage grate upgrades, advisory signs, and shared lane markings. Following the ATC recommendation, the FY 2021-23 Financial Plan also includes a new separate fund for minor pedestrian facility improvements in the amount of $100,000 per year. Discussion Staff will seek to accommodate any ATC recommendations for minor pedestrian and bicycle improvements; however, all recommendations will require further analysis including sight distance, safety, access policies, ADA and other factors to determine whether an improvement can be accommodated. Furthermore, if a project is larger in scale or complexity, it may only be possible to begin study of the work. FY 2021-22 Minor Pedestrian Facility Improvements As mentioned above, the FY 2021-23 has included a new fund for minor pedestrian facility improvements in the amount of $100,000 per year. This new fund was recommended by the ATC and is intended for minor improvements which may include new crossings or upgrades to existing crossings or minor enhancements such as rapid reflective flashing beacons (RRFBs), crosswalk striping, signs, curb ramp enhancements, and other minor improvements for pedestrian transportation that are not included in other areas of the Financial Plan. On March 17, 2022, the ATC recommended moving forward with improvements to the Johnson/Sydney intersection and to pursue a road diet as soon as possible from Bishop St to Laurel Lane, reducing the lanes from two to one in each direction including a center turn lane for a better Active Transportation Committee Agenda Item 3, January 19, 2023 Page 2 pedestrian crossing. Given that no other funding mechanism was identified for the road diet, $65,000 from this year’s minor pedestrian facility fund has been reserved for the road diet striping. If construction bids come in lower than expected these funds would go back into the minor pedestrian facility fund, but at this time the Committee should assume that a balance of $45,000 is left for this year. Possible candidate projects for this funding include those identified in the Minor Active Transportation Project Wish List (Attachment 1), containing requests submitted by ATC members and the public. The Committee may wish to also consider other projects but should consider whether a given improvement can be accommodated with other planned city improvements such as paving projects, projects recommended from the Annual Traffic Safety Report, or others where an economy of scale may make it easier and cost effective to execute. Staff also recommends consideration of the following projects: 1) Higuera and Marsh In-Ground Flasher Replacement In the downtown, Higuera and Marsh streets both feature crosswalks with in-ground flashers, which are prone to breakdown and are difficult to maintain. Staff has identified these flashers as needing replacement with Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons with flashing signs that are more reliable, easier to maintain, and more visible to drivers. 2) Pedestrian Signal Head at Higuera/Morro Most intersections in the downtown now feature Pedestrian Head Start (aka Pedestrian Lead Interval) that allows pedestrians to enter an intersection a few seconds ahead of motor vehicles. Pedestrian Head Start requires an intersection to have pedestrian signal head of which the intersection of Higuera/Morro is lacking. FY 2022-23 Minor Bikeway Facility Improvements As with the Minor Pedestrian Facility Improvements, staff is also seeking input on possible minor bikeway facility projects. These projects include minor bikeway facility improvements that are not included in other areas of the Financial Plan and in the past have included short sections of green bike lane, advisory signs, shared lane markings, and drainage grate upgrades. The Financial Plan allocates $100k for these improvements in FY 2022-23 and no projects have been reserved so far. As with the Minor Pedestrian Facility funding, staff has developed a few options that may help the Committee. Regardless of projects chosen for this funding, the Committee should consider whether a given improvement can be accommodated with other planned city improvements such as paving projects, projects recommended from the Annual Traffic Safety Report, or others where an economy of scale may make it easier to execute a project. The Committee should also keep in mind the project prioritization (Tiers 1-3) adopted in the Active Transportation Plan and whether there are minor projects which have been previously recommended by the ATC that have struggled to be funded. Types of minor improvements may include: 1) Short sections of green bike lane or other minor striping 2) Advisory signs Active Transportation Committee Agenda Item 3, January 19, 2023 Page 3 3) Shared lane markings 4) Upgrades to drainage grates near bike lanes 5) Additional bike racks 6) Bike detection improvements at intersections 7) Removal of bollards Committee Process for Prioritizing Projects Staff has identified two possible ways to prioritize projects for both of these facility improvement accounts. 1) Form a Subcommittee Given prior difficulty in finding Committee consensus on how to prioritize this funding, a subcommittee would allow time to deliberate more informally as a smaller group as well as ask questions of staff. The subcommittee would then bring a recommended list of projects back at a later date for consideration by the entire committee. According to the bylaws, the chair has the authority to form a subcommittee on his or her own. However, the committee chair may prefer to form a subcommittee only after consultation with the Committee given the importance of the funding. If the committee chooses this option, less than a quorum of the committee members may serve on the subcommittee (up to three). 2) Select Project Priorities as a Committee If the Committee finds consensus, it may decide instead to make a formal recommendation of prioritized projects at the meeting and avoid the need to bring the item back at a later date following input from a subcommittee. Next Steps Depending on the project or projects recommended by the ATC, staff will execute the project improvements or begin the work depending on project complexity. Recommendation: Consider forming an ATC subcommittee to recommend a list of project priorities to be funded by the Bicycle Facility Improvements Account and the Pedestrian Facility Improvements Account Alternatives: 1) The Committee may decide instead to make a formal recommendation of prioritized projects at the meeting and avoid the need to bring the item back at a later date. Given prior difficulty of the committee to find consensus on these priorities during an ATC meeting, this may be difficult. Active Transportation Committee Agenda Item 3, January 19, 2023 Page 4 2) The Committee may decide not to make any formal recommendation of prioritized projects. Staff does not recommend this as the ATC provides valuable insight on what projects are important to the community. Attachments: Attachment 1: Minor Active Transportation Project Wish List Project Status Notes Cost Priority drainage grate upgrades at San Luis Drive (north of Johnson), California at CHP office, 2 at Santa Barbara at Broad, Broad SB near South Street. Will be evaluated as part of future pavement upgrade projects high green bike lanes on LOVR on areas left over from the 2017 paving Several areas to be included in the protected intersections at Froom Ranch and Auto Park as well as Froom Ranch mitigation improvements high Improvements to path between Sinsheimer Park and RRST request forwarded to School District School Dist not able to bring improvements at this time medium sharrow on Monterey st by the Fremont theatre medium Actuation for Bikes on Broad and Upham crossing Included in the ATP as a Tier 2 project medium Ped and bike crossing improvements on South St at King RRFB forthcoming in 2023 with a PHB to follow medium Address car parking in bike lane on EB South St medium Consider bollard removal on Railroad Safety Trail at Bushnell / San Carlos medium pavement maintenance at Monday Club bridge over creek low install sharrows and signage on Chorro between Palm and Monterey anticipated as part of Anholm Neighborhood Greenway construction low King Street to Meadow Park ramp to be addressed with King/South crossing improvements low Remove/move side railing on Jennifer Street Bridge low drainage issues in bike lane on Orcutt near Tank Farm Complete! to be addressed as part of new roundabout design low removal of bollards on pathway at Exposition and Bridge streets Complete!low replace concrete landing on Jennifer Street Bridge complete!high 2018 summer paving plan improvements complete!high Bollard removed on the Jennifer Street Bridge driveway ramp Completed!low bike box at Chorro / Foothill Completed!medium bike lane improvements on LOVR bridge Completed!high Remove parking on California Street at Higuera to improve sight distance Completed!low green bike lanes in front of Marigold Plaza on Los Osos Valley Road Completed!high Parking removed on California Street at Higuera to improve sight distance for bike lane Completed!medium improve delination between bike lane and travel lane on Completed!medium green bike lanes on Santa Rosa at Olive completed!high Improve delineation between bike lane and travel lane on southbound S. Higuera to Madonna Rd completed!high Remove bollards on the path behind Monday Club Completed! high removal of three parking spaces on NB California Blvd at Marsh Completed!high Remove single bollard on Railroad Safety Trail at George/Jennifer Street trailhead Completed! The three bollards on the curb ramp make this single bollard on the trailhead redundant high Bollard removal on path between Exposition and Bridge Street. Path features 4 bollards. Completed!medium Last Updated: 01/13/2023 Minor Active Transportation Project Wish List Item 3, Attachment 1, Page 1 of 1