HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-12-2024 ATC Agenda Packet
Active Transportation Committee
AGENDA
Thursday, December 12, 2024, 6:00 p.m.
Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
The Active Transportation Committee holds in-person meetings. Zoom participation will not be
supported. Attendees of City Council or Advisory Body meetings are eligible to receive one hour of
complimentary parking; restrictions apply, visit Parking for Public Meetings for more details.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT:
Public Comment prior to the meeting (must be received 3 hours in advance of the meeting):
Mail - Delivered by the U.S. Postal Service. Address letters to the City Clerk's Office at 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, 93401.
Email - Submit Public Comments via email to advisorybodies@slocity.org. In the body of your
email, please include the date of the meeting and the item number (if applicable). Emails will not
be read aloud during the meeting.
Voicemail - Call (805) 781-7164 and leave a voicemail. Please state and spell your name, the
agenda item number you are calling about, and leave your comment. Verbal comments must be
limited to 3 minutes. Voicemails will not be played during the meeting.
*All correspondence will be archived and distributed to members, however, submissions received
after the deadline ma not be processed until the following day.
Public Comment during the meeting:
Meetings are held in-person. To provide public comment during the meeting, you must be
present at the meeting location.
Electronic Visual Aid Presentation. To conform with the City's Network Access and Use Policy,
Chapter 1.3.8 of the Council Policies & Procedures Manual, members of the public who desire
to utilize electronic visual aids to supplement their oral presentation must provide display-ready
material to the City Clerk by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Contact the City Clerk's
Office at cityclerk@slocity.org or (805) 781-7114.
Pages
1.CALL TO ORDER
Chair Garrett Otto will call the Regular Meeting of the Active Transportation
Committee to order.
2.PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
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.
3.BUSINESS ITEMS
3.a VISION ZERO ACTION PLAN 5
Receive an update on the Vision Zero Action Plan; and1.
Review and provide comment as it relates to active
transportation.
2.
4.ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Meeting of the Active Transportation Committee meeting is
scheduled for January 16, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room at
City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.
LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES are available -- see the Clerk
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) 781-7114 at least
48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the
Deaf (805) 781-7410.
Agenda related writings or documents provided to the Active Transportation
Committee are available for public inspection on the City’s website:
https://www.slocity.org/government/mayor-and-city-council/agendas-and-
minutes. Meeting recordings may be found on the City’s website:
https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=60965
Page 4 of 30
City of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission
Active Transportation Committee
AGENDA REPORT ITEM 3A
DATE: December 12, 2024
FROM: Luke Schwartz, Transportation Manager
Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager
Justin Wong, Transportation Planner/Engineer
Dana Ebe, Transportation Planner/Engineer
SUBJECT: Vision Zero Action Plan
Recommendation:
1. Receive an update on the Vision Zero Action Plan; and
2. Review and provide comment as it relates to active transportation.
Background
The U.S. is in the midst of a traffic safety crisis, with more than 40,000 people killed annually in
traffic crashes. This concerning trend is mirrored locally, with 21 community members killed on
City of San Luis Obispo streets since 2019 – the highest year-over-year total since the City’s
Traffic Safety Program was initiated more than two decades ago. For comparison, there have been
three homicides in San Luis Obispo since 2019. While the City has successfully reduced overall
traffic collisions by nearly 70% over the past two decades through its ongoing Traffic Safety
Program, further action is needed to prevent the most severe types of collisions—those that result
in life-altering injury or death. The San Luis Obispo City Council formally adopted the goal of
“Vision Zero” in 2016, affirming that no loss of life or severe injury is acceptable on city roadways.
The City’s first Vision Zero Action Plan lays out a comprehensive blueprint of priority actions
needed to accomplish this ambitious, yet crucially important goal.
The Vision Zero Action Plan represents an evolution of the City’s traditional Traffic Safety
Program and Annual Traffic Safety Report, shifting focus to a more proactive “Safe Systems”
approach, with a target of not just reducing overall collisions, but cultivating a more forgiving
transportation system where human error and collisions may be inevitable, but catastrophic injury
or death is exceedingly rare. If “Vision Zero” is the goal, “Safe Systems” are how we get there.
Through use of data-driven analysis, review of proven transportation safety countermeasures, and
valuable public input from the local community1, this Action Plan enables City staff and other
1 Community members shared more than 400 comments on citywide traffic safety observations, concerns and
priorities via an online Vision Zero Public Input Map distributed in early 2024. These comments informed
development of the Action Plan and can be viewed on the City’s Traffic Safety website
(www.slocity.org/trafficsafety).
Page 5 of 30
Active Transportation Committee Page 2
stakeholders to more effectively identify common risk factors, target high-risk areas and user
behaviors, and prioritize resources towards interventions.
The graphic below compares the traditional approach to traffic safety to a Vision Zero/Safe
Systems approach.
The draft Vision Zero Action Plan, which includes analysis of existing trends and
recommendations for priority engineering, education/encouragement, and enforcement strategies,
is now available for public review on the City’s Traffic Safety webpage:
www.slocity.org/trafficsafety
The purpose of this staff report and corresponding presentation is to present the relevant findings
and recommendations of the draft plan to the Active Transportation Committee (ATC) to invite
input on the plan, particularly on topics that pertain to active transportation. Community members
are also invited to provide feedback on the draft Vision Zero Action Plan through the Open City
Hall platform.
City staff will review all comments submitted by January 15, 2025, revise the plan based on input
from the ATC and the community, and present the updated plan to City Council for final
consideration on March 18, 2025.
Navigating the Vision Zero Action Plan
The Vision Zero Action Plan is structured into the following sections:
Executive Summary: Overview of key findings and recommendations.
Chapter 1 – Introduction: Background on Vision Zero and the plan’s goals and
performance measures.
Chapter 2 – Current Trends: Analysis of traffic safety trends over the past five-year
period (2019-2023), identifying where the most severe collisions are occurring, what road
users are most directly affected, and what factors contribute to these collisions.
Chapter 3 – Safer Streets: Introduces the toolbox of engineering safety countermeasures,
recommendations for systematic street design improvements, and specific engineering
Source: Vision Zero Network
Page 6 of 30
Active Transportation Committee Page 3
recommendations to address collision trends on the streets and intersections with the
highest concentration of severe collisions (the “High Injury Network”).
Chapter 4 – Safer People: Public education, encouragement and enforcement
recommendations.
Chapter 5 Post-Crash Care: Importance of efficient post-crash medical care.
Chapter 6 Safer Vehicles: Relationship of vehicle design on traffic safety outcomes.
Appendix A - High Collision Rate (“Hot Spot”) Locations: Street segments and
intersections within the City with the highest collision rates, including locations both on
and off the designated “High Injury Network”. See first two tables in this section for High
Collision Rate locations for bicycles and pedestrians (also included in Appendix B of this
staff report)
Discussion
Current Traffic Safety Trends
In the recent five-year history (2019-2023), the City of San Luis Obispo has seen generally a flat
trend in overall collisions and a slight decline in injury collisions. However, there has been a
concerning increase in fatal crashes, with 17 fatalities between 2019 and 2023 alone, and an
additional 4 fatalities to date in 2024. Overall totals for pedestrian collisions have remained
relatively stable, while bicycle collision totals increased slightly in 2023, but remain below historic
levels.
Total Collisions (All Travel Modes)
Fatal Collision Victims (All Travel Modes)
Page 7 of 30
Active Transportation Committee Page 4
Fatal and Severe Injury Collision Victims (All Travel Modes)
Pedestrian Collisions
Bicycle Collisions
Page 8 of 30
Active Transportation Committee Page 5
Fatal and Severe Injury Pedestrian Collisions
Fatal and Severe Injury Bicycle Collisions
Attachment A includes key figures from the action plan, including pedestrian and bicycle collision
maps.
Key Takeaways on Citywide Collision Trends
Most severe collisions occur on a small number of our streets
75% of fatal and severe injury collisions in San Luis Obispo occur on just 10% of San Luis
Obispo roadways (the “High-Injury Network”).
60% of fatal collisions occur on multi-lane arterial streets with posted speeds ≥40 mph.
Most traffic deaths involve a victim traveling outside of a motor vehicle
80% of fatal collisions involve a victim traveling on foot or by bicycle.
Page 9 of 30
Active Transportation Committee Page 6
People traveling by motorcycle or motorized scooter account for 7% of fatal collisions and
18% of fatal and severe injury collisions, despite accounting for only 1% of citywide trips.
The majority (72%) of the City’s ATP Tier 1 Network aligns with the High-Injury Network.
Unhoused community members are disproportionately affected by traffic violence
Unhoused persons account for 1.1% of the citywide population but are involved in roughly
40% of fatal traffic crashes.
Speed Kills
56% of fatal and severe injury collisions, and 80% of fatal collisions, occurred on streets with
a speed limit of 35 mph or higher, with prevailing speeds often exceeding the posted limit by
5 to 10 mph.
Impaired driving is a significant problem
More than 1 in 4 fatal collisions (27%) involved a person driving under the influence of drugs
or alcohol.
Extra vigilance is needed when traveling at night
42% of fatal and severe injury collisions, and 53% of fatal collisions, occur between sunset
and sunrise, despite less than 10% of travel occurring at night on average.
Based on this analysis, the City’s High Injury Network was identified – this represents the
limited number of roadways where the vast majority of fatal and severe injuries are occurring, and
where City safety resources should be prioritized.
Table 1: High Injury Network
High Injury Network
Segment
Length
(mi)
Street
Classification
Total
Collisions
Fatal &
Severe
Injury
Collisions
Ped
Collisions
Bike
Collisions
Broad (Upham to City Limits) 2.95 Highway/
Arterial 124 10 7 9
California (Foothill to San
Luis) 0.98 Arterial 62 3 7 12
Chorro (Peach to Marsh) 0.34 Arterial/
Collector 43 4 3 4
Foothill (City Limits to
California 1.28 Arterial 97 8 9 10
Grand (Fredericks to US 101
NB Ramps) 0.11 Arterial 12 1 0 4
Higuera (Marsh to LOVR) 2.38 Arterial 171 11 10 22
LOVR (City Limits to
Higuera) 2.50 Arterial 173 6 3 15
Madonna (Oceanaire to
Higuera) 1.00 Arterial 83 2 5 7
Monterey (Santa Rosa to
Buena Vista) 0.79 Arterial 66 3 9 8
Santa Rosa (Highland to
Monterey) 1.38 Highway/
Arterial 147 11 21 10
Tank Farm (Higuera to City
Limits) 0.60 Arterial 24 3 1 3
Page 10 of 30
Active Transportation Committee Page 7
High-Injury Network
(See Attachment A for enlarged map)
Page 11 of 30
Active Transportation Committee Page 8
Not All Community Members are Impacted Equally
Community members traveling on foot and bike are disproportionately involved in fatal and severe
injury collisions, with this disparity being even more pronounced in fatal collisions. These road
users account for 80% of fatal collisions (2019-2023), despite making up a much smaller
percentage of citywide trips (26%2).
Pedestrian Fatal & Severe Injury Collision Trends
Party at Fault: Pedestrians were found to be at fault in the majority of collision reports prepared
for fatal and severe injury collisions, often due to pedestrians crossing mid-block outside of a
marked crosswalk, where they do not have right-of-way per the state vehicle code, or entering the
roadway at unsafe times or locations. Additionally, the chart below excludes collisions in which
the police department was unable to determine fault due to insufficient data.
Table 2: Pedestrian Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions by Type
Pedestrian Collision Type %
Pedestrian Violation: Unsafe Crossing or Entering Roadway 50%
Pedestrian Violation: Crossing Against Signal 14%
Unsafe Motorist Left-Turn 9%
Unsafe Motorist Permissive Left-Turn at Signal 9%
Motorist Failed to Yield to Pedestrian in Crosswalk 9%
Reckless Driving on the Sidewalk 5%
Unsafe Vehicle Speed 5%
No fatal or severe injury collisions were reported involving a bicycle vs. pedestrian.
2 2024 Citywide Household Transportation Survey.
Page 12 of 30
Active Transportation Committee Page 9
Street Context: Fatal and severe injury pedestrian collisions are evenly split between intersections
and mid-block roadway segments, with the majority of intersection collisions occurring at
locations with traffic signals. No fatal or severe pedestrian collisions recorded at roundabouts,
crossings with pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs), or unsignalized intersections with all-way stop
signs.
Time of Day: Pedestrian fatal and severe injury collisions at night are disproportionally high
compared to the number of pedestrian trips that occur at night (generally, less than 10% of travel
occurs during evening hours).
Bicycle Fatal & Severe Injury Collision Trends
Party at Fault: The party at fault in bicycle vs. vehicle collisions was generally equally divided
between drivers and bicyclists. When community members traveling by bicycle were found at
fault, common causes included losing control due to excessive speed or unsafe roadway crossings
(often involving unhoused individuals). When drivers were at fault, collisions typically involved
failing to maintain a safe distance, such as encroaching or swerving into the bike lane, or
performing an unsafe turn vs a bicycle. Additionally, the chart below excludes bicycle-only
collisions (20% of bicycle fatal and severe injury collisions) and those in which the police
department was unable to determine fault due to insufficient data (10% of bicycle fatal and severe
injury collisions).
Page 13 of 30
Active Transportation Committee Page 10
Table 3: Bicycle Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions by Type
Bicycle Collision Type %
Cyclist Lost Control 20%
Motorist Failed to Drive at Safe Distance 15%
Motorist Right-Turn 10%
Motorist Left-Turn 10%
Bicycle Violation: Unsafe Crossing or Entering Roadway 10%
Cyclist Failed to Stop 10%
Unknown 10%
Bicycle Violation: Red Light Violation 5%
Motorist Under the Influence 5%
Wrong-Way Cyclist 5%
Helmet Usage:
Street Context: Most fatal and severe injury bicycle collisions occur at intersections, with the
majority of intersection collisions occurring at locations with traffic signals. No fatal or severe
bicycle collisions were recorded at roundabouts, pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs), or signalized
intersections with bike signals.
Page 14 of 30
Active Transportation Committee Page 11
The majority of severe injury and fatal bicycle collisions occur on streets with on-street bike lanes
with striping only. No severe bicycle collisions were recorded on streets with protected bike lanes,
while two severe injury bicycle collisions occurred on shared-use paths. The two bicycle severe
injury collisions that occurred on Shared-Use Paths are as follows:
1. Oceanaire/LOVR: A cyclist traveling eastbound on the LOVR shared -use path failed to
stop at the stop sign and yield to an oncoming Oceanaire driver, resulting in a Bike right-
of-way violation.
2. Bob Jones/LOVR: A cyclist stopped on the Bob Jones Trail was struck by another cyclist
in low visibility conditions. Neither cyclist had lights or helmets, and both sustained
severe injuries.
Time of Day: Bicycle fatal and severe injury collisions at night are disproportionally high
compared to the number of bicycle trips that occur at night. (Again, generally <10% of trips occur
during the evening for all modes, and typically even fewer bicycle trips on average.)
Action Plan Recommendations
The Vision Zero Action Plan outlines priority recommendations in the areas of engineering,
education, enforcement, post-crash care and vehicle safety. As shown in the plan, there is
generally more emphasis on actions that involve engineering/infrastructure. The Hierarchy of
Controls (shown below) can help explain this. This hierarchy is a standard method for identifying
and prioritizing strategies to safeguard workers and/or the public from safety hazards, with
measures arranged from top to bottom in a general order of most to least effective.
Page 15 of 30
Active Transportation Committee Page 12
As shown in the hierarchy, measures that physically eliminate the hazard or separate users from
the hazard are generally more effective at improving safety than strategies that focus primarily on
changing user behavior through education, encouragement and enforcement. This is not to say
that non-engineering strategies should not be part of an effective Vision Zero program, but that
City resources would be most effective when prioritized on engineering solutions.
Below is a summary of key recommendations from the plan for ATC review, with a focus on items
pertaining to walking and bicycling.
Safer Streets: Engineering Recommendations
The plan identifies several Systematic engineering recommendations—these recommendations
are not necessarily location-specific but represent proven safety countermeasures and best
practices that the City should proactively implement citywide as resources and opportunities
allow to prevent severe traffic collisions. Key systematic engineering recommendations with
specific relevance to bicycle and pedestrian safety are summarized below:
Key Systematic Safety Recommendations
Post-Crash Audit
City Transportation Engineering and SLO PD should meet within 30 days after any fatal collision to
assess collision details, contributing factors, and whether there are any viable opportunities for short -
term safety improvements. Consider dedicating an annual funding amount specifically to support
design and implementation of reasonable quick-build safety improvements where warranted. Any
quick-build safety improvements should be advanced as pilot projects, with the intent to evaluate
efficacy after 1-2 years to determine whether improvement should be removed, refined, or
recommended for permanent installation.
Reduce Posted Speed Limits
Evaluate opportunities to reduce posted speed limits where appropriate and allowed per the vehicle
code, specifically utilizing the recent vehicle code amendments that allow for 5 mph reductions to
posted speeds on designated safety corridors and areas within proximity of high ped/bike demand
generators. Supplement any speed limit reductions with measures outlined in Action Item #3 to
increase visibility and community awareness of posted limits. Prioritize street segments on the High
Page 16 of 30
Active Transportation Committee Page 13
Injury Network and arterials with multiple lanes in each direction and/or existing limits posted at 40
mph or higher.
Install speed feedback signs and additional speed limit signs and markings to increase awareness of
posted speed limits address illegal speeding.
Bicyclist Safety Recommendations
Evaluate the feasibility of bicycle left turn boxes at high-speed signalized intersections.
Install protected bike lanes, shared use paths, and buffered bike lanes pursuant to the City’s Active
Transportation Plan (ATP).
Install green pavement markings and warning signage where bike lanes cross high-traffic
driveways and intersections.
Explore bicyclist crossing improvements, such as dedicated bicycle signals, and high-visibility
crossings with flashing beacon systems, when appropriate, on high-speed streets with roadway
sections that have a long distance between controlled crossing opportunities and/or high levels of
bicycle crossing demand.
Install “WRONG WAY” bicycle lane signage at locations along the corridor with a history of
illegal/unsafe behavior by cyclists and where crossing improvements are not feasible/appropriate.
Install right/left turn yield to bikes signage when appropriate.
Pedestrian Safety Recommendations
Install high-vis crosswalks at all marked crosswalks and advance limit lines at stop signs and
signalized intersections.
Explore pedestrian crossing improvements, such as traffic signals or Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons
(PHBs) when appropriate, on high-speed streets with roadway sections that have a limited presence
of controlled intersection crossings for large distances.
Enhance unsignalized crosswalks with Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) with median
refuge islands.
Install “NO PEDESTRIAN CROSSING” signage at locations with a history of illegal/unsafe
behavior by pedestrians and consider the installation of safer alternatives at nearby locations.
Evaluate right-turn on red blank out signs or restrictions at signalized intersections.
Implement leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) at signalized intersections.
Refine the City crosswalk policy to conform with latest industry standards and best practices.
Install right/left turn yield to peds signage when appropriate.
Intersection Daylighting
Evaluate sight distance at unsignalized intersections and crosswalks. Implement minor parking
restrictions and trim vegetation as needed.
The action plan also includes High Injury Network Engineering Recommendations, which
outline engineering strategies for specific streets and intersections located on the High-Injury
Network, the 10% of city road miles where 75% of all severe injury and fatal collisions occur.
By targeting attention and staffing/financial resources on the High-Injury Network, the City can
make the most progress with eliminating severe collisions.
Safer People: Public Education and Enforcement Recommendations
The Vision Zero Action Plan recommends focus points for future public safety education and
traffic enforcement efforts to address the most prevalent high-risk behaviors and locations
contributing to the most severe types of collisions, as well as vulnerable road users, such as
pedestrians and bicyclists, and other overrepresented populations.
Key Education and Enforcement Recommendations
Page 17 of 30
Active Transportation Committee Page 14
Target focused road user education on topics which address the driver, pedestrian, and
bicycle user behavior identified in collision data and citation analysis that contribute to the
most severe collision types.
Target traffic safety education and outreach to unhoused community members, who are
overrepresented in roadway fatalities and severe injuries.
Implement “Focus on the Five”, a targeted enforcement initiative addressing the five most
prevalent behaviors that contribute to fatal and severe injury collisions. Track and evaluate
the citations related to these identified dangerous behaviors, both citywide and across the
High Injury Network:
1. Speeding
2. Impaired or Distracted Driving: focus on anti-DUI enforcement (publicized sobriety
checkpoints) to encourage voluntary adherence to traffic laws.
3. Failing to yield or provide right of way to bicycles or pedestrians while turning.
4. Pedestrians and Bicycles entering the roadway or crossing at unsafe locations.
5. Dangerous driving behaviors at night: prioritize enforcement during nighttime hours
as resources allow.
Measuring Progress
As currently proposed, it is recommended that the City update the Vision Zero Action Plan no less
than once every five years. However, it is recommended that the City continue publishing annual
updates on general traffic safety trends and progress updates on priority Vision Zero projects and
programs. The action plan identifies specific performance measures that will be used to track
progress towards the City’s Vision Zero goal, with metrics that include bicycle and pedestrian
collision rates, consistent with the performance measures identified in the ATP. In addition, the
plan recommends that the City create and maintain an online collision dashboard, which provides
transparent information to City decision-makers and the general public. This collision dashboard
is now live and available via the City’s Traffic Safety webpage.
Potential Vision Zero Priorities for 2025-27 Financial Plan
The Vision Zero Action Plan emphasizes the need to prioritize City staffing and funding resources
on the High-Injury Network. As shown in the plan, the High-Injury Network includes several
streets with current ATP Tier 1 projects in various levels of planning, design or construction. The
ATC recently approved a list of budget priorities for the upcoming 2025-27 Financial Plan,
including several ATP projects that would also align with Vision Zero Action Plan
recommendations, including construction of the Higuera Complete Street project, the
California/Taft Roundabout, and continued development of the Foothill Boulevard and South
Broad Street Complete Street projects.
Outside of these ATP-related projects, staff intends to request funding to advance other Vision
Zero Action Plan recommendations. The following list identifies potential funding priorities to
support Vision Zero Action Plan Implementation over the next few years:
1. Speed Limit Reductions and Visibility Enhancements: Leveraging recent amendments
to the state vehicle code, accelerate engineering studies required to support reductions to
posted speed limits on streets location on the High-Injury Network, arterial and collector
streets with high crash rates, and other streets with higher numbers of vulnerable road users
(schools, parks, senior living facilities). Fund new speed limit sign installations as well as
Page 18 of 30
Active Transportation Committee Page 15
other measures to increase visibility/awareness of posted limits (additional speed limit
signs, safety corridor signage, pavement markings, and radar speed feedback signs).
2. Intersection Daylighting: Fund installation of curb markings, signage and vegetation
trimming needed to provide adequate line-of-sight (“daylighting”) at city intersections and
crosswalks, prioritizing locations on the High-Injury Network, with high pedestrian and
bicycle crash rates, on routes to schools, and on designated ATP Tier 1-3 corridors.
3. Traffic Signal Improvements: Fund installation of traffic signal modifications, where
recommended in the action plan. Potential short-term projects include addition of protected
left turn arrows at several signalized intersections, addition of hi-visibility retroreflective
traffic signal head backplates, addition of countdown pedestrian signals and ADA-
compliant signal equipment, addition of lead pedestrian intervals, signal timing audits to
ensure timings are up-to-date with current standards and safety best practices, addition of
illuminated warning signs for added visibility (i.e. no left/right turn, yield to peds, etc.)
4. Post-Crash Audit and Emergency Safety Project Funding: Allocate set of funds
reserved only if needed to support rapid analysis/investigation for a post-crash audit
following a fatal collision. These funds would also be reserved to support engineering and
construction costs associated with advancing potential low-cost, quick-build emergency
safety projects recommended for pilot project installation as a recommendation of post-
crash audit.
5. Emergency Response Investments: Fund measures to help improve response times for
local emergency response providers, such as data analysis of emergency response routes,
challenges and priorities, expansion and modernization of traffic signal emergency vehicle
preemption equipment and systems, street design modifications at intersection pinch-points
on priority emergency response routes.
6. Vision Zero Education Campaign: Initiate a SLO Vision Zero education campaign, with
messaging strategies that increase community awareness of the current traffic safety crisis
and City’s adopted Vision Zero initiative, increase visibility of the High-Injury Network to
road users, reinforce the safety benefit certain road design strategies, report on progress
and efficacy of priority Vision Zero projects, and highlight the most common areas of
correctable road user behavior contributing to severe traffic safety outcomes.
7. Supplemental Safety Action Plans and Pilot/Demonstration Projects for High-Injury
Network: Advance more detailed analysis and concept plan development for specific
locations on the High-Injury Network as recommended in the action plan. Seek
opportunities to implement low-cost, quick-build safety improvements as
demonstration/pilot projects.
Next Steps
After the ATC meeting, community members are invited to provide feedback on the draft Vision
Zero Action Plan through the Open City Hall platform. City staff will review all comments
submitted by January 15, 2025, make necessary revisions based on input from the ATC and the
community, and then present the updated plan to City Council for final adoption in March 2025.
Questions for ATC Discussion
Page 19 of 30
Active Transportation Committee Page 16
While staff welcomes questions and input from the ATC and community on any components of
the Vision Zero Action Plan, staff has prepared the following optional questions to help guide the
ATC’s discussion:
1) Is there any information not covered sufficiently in the current draft plan that the
committee thinks should be included in the final draft?
2) Are there any questions about how the data is presented or recommendations to make it
easier for the public to digest the plan content?
3) Are there other engineering, education or enforcement recommendations not considered
in the current draft plan that the committee would like to see in the final draft?
4) Are there any questions about the implementation of this Plan?
Attachments:
The draft Vision Zero Action Plan is available on the City Traffic Safety website at
www.slocity.org/trafficsafety.
Attachment A: Vision Zero Action Plan Figures
Attachment B: Pedestrian and Bicycle “Hot Spot” High Collision Locations
Page 20 of 30
B
r
o
a
d
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
C
alif
o
r
n
i
a
Hig u e r a
C
h
o
rr
o
Foothill
South Higuera
Tank Farm
L
os O
sos V
alley
Grand
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
M o n t e r e y
M a r s h
Highland
O
rc
u
tt
M a d o n n a
City Limit Fatal Collisions Severe Injury Collisions
Figure 2: Severe Injury and Fatal Collisions
San Luis Obispo, CA
¯
NTS
2019-2023
Attachment A - Vision Zero Action Plan Figures
Page 21 of 30
B
r
o
a
d
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
C
alif
o
r
n
i
a
Hig u e r a
C
h
o
rr
o
Foothill
South Higuera
Tank Farm
L
os O
sos V
alley
Grand
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
M o n te re y
M a rs h
Highland
O
rc
u
tt
M a d o n n a
All Other CollisionsInjury (Severe)FatalCity Limit
Figure 3: Pedestrian Collisions
San Luis Obispo, CA
¯
NTS
2019-2023
Attachment A - Vision Zero Action Plan Figures
Page 22 of 30
B
r
o
a
d
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
C
alif
o
r
n
i
a
Hig u e r a
C
h
o
rr
o
Foothill
South Higuera
Tank Farm
L
os O
sos V
alley
Grand
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
M o n t e r e y
M a rs h
Highland
O
rc
u
tt
M a d o n n a
Figure 4: Bicycle Collisions
San Luis Obispo, CA
¯
NTS
All Other CollisionsInjury (Severe)FatalCity Limit 2019-2023
Attachment A - Vision Zero Action Plan Figures
Page 23 of 30
B
r
o
a
d
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
C
alif
o
r
n
ia
Hig u e r a
C
h
o
rr
o
Foothill
South Higuera
Tank Farm
Los O
sos V
alle
y
Grand
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
M o n t e r e y
M a rs h
Highland
O
rc
u
tt
M a d o n n a
City Limit High Injury Network
Figure 5: High Injury Network Map
San Luis Obispo, CA
¯
NTS
2019-2023
Attachment A - Vision Zero Action Plan Figures
Page 24 of 30
B
r
o
a
d
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
C
alif
o
r
n
i
a
Hig u e r a
C
h
o
rr
o
Foothill
South Higuera
Tank Farm
Los O
sos V
alley
Grand
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
M o n t e r e y
M a rs h
Highland
O
rc
u
tt
M a d o n n a
Tier 1 ATP NetworkHigh Injury NetworkCity Limit
Figure 17: High Injury Network Compared to ATP Tier 1 Network
San Luis Obispo, CA
¯
NTS
South
Mill
G
a
l
l
e
o
n
O
c
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
Attachment A - Vision Zero Action Plan Figures
Page 25 of 30
Page 26 of 30
City of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission
Appendix B
Pedestrian and Bicycle “Hot Spot” High Collision Locations
For purposes of listing/ranking pedestrian and bicycle crash “hot spots”, locations listed in the
tables below are limited to intersections, as most pedestrian and bicycle collisions within the City
occurred at an intersection or are reported based on the nearest intersection. All collision data
below reflects most recent available five-year period (2019-2023).
Pedestrian High Crash Locations (Ranked by Crash Rate)
Rank Intersection Total Ped
Collisions
Ped Fatal &
Severe Injury
Collisions
Crash
Rate1
High
Injury
Network
1* Los Osos Valley & Calle Joaquin 1 1 542 Yes
1 Foothill & Casa 1 1 542 Yes
1 Broad & Woodbridge 1 1 542 Yes
4* Santa Rosa & Olive 3 1 41 Yes
5* Foothill & Santa Rosa 2 1 40 Yes
5 California & Monterey 2 1 40 Yes
7* Santa Rosa & Montalban 3 0 32 Yes
8 Santa Rosa & Higuera 3 1 31 -
9 Islay & Garden 1 1 29 -
9* Los Osos Valley & US 101 NB Ramps 1 1 29 Yes
9 Monterey & Johnson 1 1 29 Yes
12 Santa Rosa & Monterey 3 0 27 Yes
13 Foothill & Chorro 3 0 23 Yes
13 Santa Rosa & Palm 3 0 23 Yes
15 Broad & Higuera 3 0 18 No
* = Location under Caltrans jurisdiction (or with LOVR/Calle Joaquin, requires Caltrans approval of proposed
changes).
1. Crash rates are weighted by frequency and severity (see calculation methodology in Vision Zero Action Plan
Report Appendix A – High Collision Rate (“Hot Spot”) Locations). Crash rates in this table include only
collisions involving bicycles.
Page 27 of 30
Pedestrian High Crash Locations (Ranked by Total Pedestrian Crashes)
Rank1 Intersection Total Ped
Collisions
Ped Fatal & Severe
Injury Collisions
Crash
Rate2
High Injury
Network
1* Santa Rosa & Olive 3 1 41 Yes
1* Santa Rosa & Montalban 3 0 32 Yes
1 Santa Rosa & Higuera 3 1 31 -
1 Santa Rosa & Monterey 3 0 27 Yes
1 Foothill & Chorro 3 0 23 Yes
1 Santa Rosa & Palm 3 0 23 Yes
1 Broad & Higuera 3 0 18 -
8* Foothill & Santa Rosa 2 1 40 Yes
8 California & Monterey 2 1 40 Yes
8 Santa Rosa & Peach 2 0 21 Yes
8 Santa Rosa & Mill 2 0 21 Yes
8 Monterey & Toro 2 0 12 Yes
8 Marsh & Osos 2 0 12 -
8* Madonna & 101 N/B On/Off Ramp 2 0 7 Yes
* = Location under Caltrans jurisdiction (requires Caltrans approval of proposed changes).
1. This list excludes intersections with less than two pedestrian collisions.
2. Crash rates are weighted by frequency and severity (see calculation methodology in Vision Zero Action Plan
Report Appendix A – High Collision Rate (“Hot Spot”) Locations). Crash rates in this table include only
collisions involving bicycles.
Page 28 of 30
Bicycle High Crash Locations (Ranked by Crash Rate)
Rank Intersection Total Bike
Collisions
Bike Fatal &
Severe Injury
Collisions
Crash
Rate1
High
Injury
Network
1* Los Osos Valley & Calle Joaquin 2 1 552 Yes
1 Higuera & Prado 2 1 552 Yes
3 Higuera & Suburban 2 1 548 Yes
3 Grand & Fredericks/Hope 2 1 548 Yes
5 Foothill & Broad 1 1 542 Yes
6 Santa Rosa & Monterey 2 1 40 Yes
6 Higuera & Margarita 2 1 40 Yes
8 California & Taft 6 0 35 Yes
9 Johnson & Buchon 2 1 35 -
10 Buchon & Toro 3 0 32 -
11 Broad & Ramona 1 1 29 -
11 Fredericks & Albert 1 1 29 -
11 Los Osos Valley & Oceanaire 1 1 29 Yes
11 Marsh & Broad 1 1 29 -
15 California & Monterey 3 0 27 Yes
* = Location under Caltrans jurisdiction (or with LOVR/Calle Joaquin, requires Caltrans approval of proposed
changes).
1. Crash rates are weighted by frequency and severity (see calculation methodology in Vision Zero Action Plan
Report Appendix A – High Collision Rate (“Hot Spot”) Locations). Crash rates in this table include only
collisions involving bicycles.
Page 29 of 30
Bicycle High Crash Locations (Ranked by Total Bicycle Crashes)
Rank1 Intersection Total Bike
Collisions
Bike Fatal & Severe
Injury Collisions
Crash
Rate2
High Injury
Network
1 California & Taft 6 0 35 Yes
2 Buchon & Toro 3 0 32 -
2 California & Monterey 3 0 27 Yes
2 Johnson & Lizzie 3 0 23 -
5* Los Osos Valley & Calle Joaquin 2 1 552 Yes
5 Higuera & Prado 2 1 552 Yes
5 Higuera & Suburban 2 1 548 Yes
5 Grand & Fredericks/Hope 2 1 548 Yes
5 Santa Rosa & Monterey 2 1 40 Yes
5 Higuera & Margarita 2 1 40 Yes
5 Johnson & Buchon 2 1 35 -
5* Santa Rosa & Olive 2 0 21 Yes
5* Santa Rosa & Murray 2 0 21 Yes
5 Los Osos Valley & Royal 2 0 21 Yes
5 Monterey & Pepper 2 0 21 Yes
5 Higuera & South 2 0 17 Yes
5* Madonna & 101 S/B On/Off Ramp 2 0 17 Yes
5 Morro & Buchon 2 0 17 -
5 Augusta & Sydney 2 0 17 -
5 Los Osos Valley & Froom Ranch 2 0 12 Yes
5 Higuera & High 2 0 12 Yes
5 Monterey & Johnson 2 0 7 Yes
* = Location under Caltrans jurisdiction (or with LOVR/Calle Joaquin, requires Caltrans approval of proposed
changes).
1. This list excludes intersections with only one bicycle collision.
2. Crash rates are weighted by frequency and severity (see calculation methodology in Vision Zero Action Plan
Report Appendix A – High Collision Rate (“Hot Spot”) Locations). Crash rates in this table include only
collisions involving bicycles.
Page 30 of 30