The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-07-2014 ph3 judKremke, Kate From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 6:49 PM To: Kremke, Kate RECEIVED OCT 07 2014 Subject: FW: Council Meeting October 7th, PH3, Prado Road and general comments. Attachments: REVISION SLO LUCE - 2035 or 2050 (Draft 4 Oct 14).pdf; PC Sept. 1 jpg; PC Sept 2.jpg; PC Sept 3.jpg; PC Sept 4 jpg; PC Sept 5 jpg; PC Sept 6 jpg Agenda Correspondence for 10/07/14 Item PH3. Anthony J. Mejia, MMC I City Clerk cli.N' of SAIL lull 0131SIV 990 Patin `.street San L_0s Obispo, CA 93401 t(d 1805,7817102 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date i '0- 7 -1 4 Item # P14 'D) From: Eugene H. Jud [mailto:ejud @calpoly.edu] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 6:33 PM To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony Subject: Council Meeting October 7th, PH1, Prado Road and general comments. Dear Mayor and Council Members, The writer talked to a high -level Caltrans person about the above. Caltrans feels bad about the Interchange /Overpass including the whole road concept SLO South. Blaine and myself believe, it is a gross overkill of asphalt and sends the wrong message to the public, who clearly set other priorities in the big survey at the beginning of LUCE. Our possible solutions go from "soft" to "macho" road building. They are sketched out in attachments 1 -6, which some of you may have seen before. For twenty years CP CE classes have put lots of thoughts into SLO South, including its road intersections and its urban planning design (or lack thereof!), especially in the Marigold Area. Considerable documentation with perspectives exists on our side. Tomorrow it would be helpful to inform the public how the City intends to react to the Caltrans letter of June 16th 2014. In our opinion we should immediately start the study they suggest: "live without an interchange /overpass or propose one or more compromise solutions ", such as the one sketched out in Attachment 2 for 2035. Development in smart phases must be possible, and an expanded version 2050 (Attachment 3) should remain doable. The City has no jurisdiction on the freeway, and an Interchange /Overpass is risky - also for the City (construction/operation). The City must propose an adequate solution in a long process and might later be allowed to manage construction, Caltrans has said multiple times, that they will not contribute financially. We are not the only ones, who feel a little tricked out by the LUCE process. In previous years the slogan was "Pave with Dave... ". Did we learn? Or is it now simply "Pave with Jan, John + ++ including some green wash "? The LUCE task force (we thoroughly respect their work) was more or less a subsidiary of the Chamber of Commerce. No task force member was an engineer or traffic expert. LUCE depended fully on the (sometimes one - sided) "guidance" of the road builders in the Public Works Department. Neighborhood concerns were secondary, as a minority report reveals. The slogan was "do not rock the boat ". Newer ideas, as you get them for example from the local Government Commission, were rarely mentioned. Unfortunately only very few suggestions of our attached 6 -page memo, "REVISION SLO LU ", found their way into the LUCE document. It is called Group SLO 2035/2050 of September 5, 2013 and is based on 40 signatures. However the final LUCE document, contains some good new proposals - mostly for bicycles - and does not preclude later implementation of SLO 2035/2050 ideas. We are thankful for a good spirit in all LUCE and other groups, and we hope that the enthusiasm of the first SLO 2035/2050 members continues to grow in the coming years. The color of hair in the task force was pretty gray - the writer includes himself! Unfortunately we are one or two generations older than the ones for whom we plan! No students around - we know, it is hard to bring them in. Our planning results suffer from it. Please allow the following suggestions for a final LUCE document: 1. If an interchange /overpass is drawn in a map or mentioned it in a text, there should be a highly visible arrow or note - - - -> "Warning: City has no jurisdiction in this area!" < - - - -- The applying Caltrans rules (Caltrans Design Manual etc.) should be mentioned. 2. If this is not done, we deliberately mislead the public in a crucial matter - with considerable financial consequences, which might lead to litigation or even a referendum. 3. This probably constitutes a class 1 impact under CEQA. 4. It is absolutely possible to implement another road concept - SLO has proven this flexibility multiple times since Mission Plaza was freed from cars in the 1960ies. Finally, why all the rush in the next tree weeks? Public Works has not done the homework assigned to them by Caltrans in the letter of June 16, 2014. We are still miles apart in several crucial questions, which we can not simply brush under the table. More openness and a field trip to the critical locations in SLO might bring us closer together.... If we push a half -baked LUCE through like this, we might loose credibility for years. We hope we are wrong in some points - please let us know. We thank all council and commission members as well as staff for their hard work and late night hours. Sincerely for SLO 2035/2050: Eugene Jud, Fellow Institute of Transportation Engineers ITE assisted by Blayne Morgan, M.S Civil and Environmental Engineering Eugene Jud, Fellow Institute of Transportation Engineers ITE Faculty Civil and Environmental Engineering California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 -0353 Phone: (805) 756 -1729; E -mail: ejudgcalpol htti)://ceenve3.calpoly.edu/jud Blayne Morgan (805) 540 -0313; gracewetmorekgmail.com Revision of SLO Land Use & Circulation Element 2035/2050 1. The future is not what it used to be. There is dramatic change in behavior regarding lifestyles of the younger generation and transportation. - Now 30% of people born between 1981 -2000 who are of driving age do not have a driver's license or vehicle. Many wish to not drive if possible. This is the generation for whom LUCE must plan (makes up 50% of population). - Despite economic growth, traffic volumes are now at 1995 levels in many locations. - Traffic growth could be anything from negative, flat, or positive (Diagram 1). This urgently mandates planning for different scenarios. 2. Possible Planning Objectives and Priorities for LUCE - Objective #1: climate mitigation and introduction of complete streets (Senate Bill 375). - Objective #2: financial feasibility for the city (low capital and operations cost). - Objective #3: keeping San Luis Obispo on the list of highly innovative cities (i.e. first city to ban smoking in public, ban drive thrus, and celebrate "Happiest City in North America "). Therefore the below planning priorities according to the existing SLO Circulation Element (pg 2 -11) must be applied in the following order of importance: smart land use, pedestrians, bicycles, public transit, and cars (Diagram 2). 2.1 Land Use - Cannot be decided independently of transportation. Traditionally, zoning used to be decided first, followed by a traffic study which determined the width of the roads. However, other cities have successfully implemented the opposite method. First, the acceptable width of main arterial roads was decided, followed by the zoning which is based on the acceptable vehicular trip generation along these roads (traffic overlay). Therefore, beware of heavy trip generators! Promote: - Infill Development: reduce distance to downtown. - Deferred Infrastructure: build minimum number of parking spaces first, save land for later expansion. - Symmetry of Sacrifice: reduce own vehicle miles traveled before expecting others to do so (measure it) 2.2 Pedestrians - Create a pedestrian plan for the whole city of San Luis Obispo and especially downtown by 2015. - Reach silver level of "Walk Friendly City" by 2020 (given by Walk Friendly Communities). - Plan the whole city according to the "popsicle principle:" safe for children to purchase a popsicle. - Build pedestrian /bike connections independent of roads between neighborhoods and downtown, as well as a connection between the Orcutt area and the shopping centers on Los Osos Valley Road using bridges over arterials roads and Highway 101. - Organize pedestrian only zones and "shared zones," which allow restricted traffic as done overseas. San Luis Obispo could be the first shared zone west of the Mississippi. - Do not be afraid of trial exercises, such as closing Higuera Street downtown for more occasions than just Farmer's Market. 2.3 Bicycles - Reach gold level of "Bicycle Friendly City" by 2020 (given by the League of American of Bicyclists). - Construct bicycle parking near building entrances (suggest and partially enforce). 2.4 Transit - Operate most bus lines on 15 minute intervals by 2020 with service to the airport area. - Consider a mini bus system that helps underserved neighborhoods. - Implement preferential treatment for buses on streets and at signalized intersections. - Consider an attractive future downtown transit, pedestrian, and bike plaza (Diagram 3). - Consider light rail from Cal Poly to the uptown EcoZone, downtown, Marigold /airport, and southwards to Santa Maria and Santa Barbara with multiple stations. 2.5 Cars - Give preference to persons with disabilities and others who do not have access to alternative modes. - Give preference to delivery vehicles, especially the small freight vehicles in downtown. - Forecast traffic scenarios according to newer demographic trends (radical change of input to traffic model). - Make our traffic model and its input transparent to all citizens. - Treat vehicular traffic performance (Level of Service, LOS) with more flexibility. - Design according to multi modal LOS, which gives heavy weight on pedestrians, bicycles, and transit. - Make alignment of roads sensitive to landscape, cultural heritage, health, and noise considerations. - Consider more narrowing of traffic lanes to less than 12 feet. - Avoid roads we can't afford (Ron Milam, Principal of Fehr & Peers Associates). - Apply smart parking policies (Donald Shoup) and parking charges in bigger shopping centers. - Be ready for the arrival of driverless vehicles (especially level III & IV). 3. Planning Procedures - Speed up the process for developers who respect the environment, cultural heritage, and aesthetics. - Reward cutting edge developers with incentives (i.e. bonuses). For example make uptown an "EcoZone" like the "one planet town" coming up in Rohnert Park near Santa Rosa, CA, as in other parts of the world. 4. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) - Make SLO one of the ten fastest implementers of the climate action plan in California. - A well planned transportation demand management program can reduce vehicular traffic by 30 %. This is possible in several locations of SLO. - Appoint a strong coordinator of all departments for implementation of the SLO climate action plan. - Send one city employee to the upcoming Climate Action Planning conference at Cal Poly in 2014. - Send one city employee to the annual TDM conference of the Local Government Commission. 5. Model Cities & Websites - Consider contacts and visits of cities that are strong in some of the above topics. For example: • Solvang, Davis, Palo Alto, and Arcata, CA • Boulder and Fort Collins, CO • Reston, VA • Fort Worth, TX - Local Government Commission: www.lgc.org - Victoria Transportation Policy Institute: www.vtpi.org - Urban Land Institute (ULI): www.uli.org - Walk Friendly Communities: www.walkfriendly.org - The League of American Bicyclists: www.bikeleague.org /bfa A. Diagrams Diagram 1 NOTES Aggregate Vehicle - (Wiles Traveled in the United States under Several Scenarios of future Travel Growth, 1946 -2040 5,D00,000 I 4,500,400 4,000,004 - _ _., _m�_• • 3,500,004 .Ti. • i 3,0€31,000 c 2,500,000 t ---- 2,400,000 � &wk to the Future �EndunngShift at, 1,54 D00 > Ongoing Decline 1,000,000 sActua€ .. • • Continuation of 1346 - 24{14 trend p .. ... ...... - „.n..._, vt m r� ea •d m ry v a o •o apt W ra ( as �� Source: U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), an independent agency. Publication "A New Direction” May 2013. htt us it .or sites it files re orts A %20New %2ODirection ° /®20vUS df 3 Diagram 2 Jud April 4, 2012 SUMMARY SCHEME OF SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY 'd, I� Basis :UM Eosiom" Eby ICI Three Sectors _ Planning Priorities Impact Analysis Geographic Areas 4 1. Land Use L Oil (d'uninishing reserves) L C ity 2. Pedestrians 2. Global warming 2_ C aunty �yry 3_ Blcyctes 3. Local Air Quality+ 3. C alifornia 4. Public transit 4. Less Traffic Accidents 4. C oWUV (USA) t °: + 5. Cars 5. Congestion Management 5. C osm- ofitan (World) (} Ten Principles 1. WaB( the Walk 2. Powered by People 3. Get on the Bus 4. Cruise Contrd 5. Get Reel (bicyde; etc-) (use public trap.) (p nSURPm, etc i Mi-ry, t 1 6. Meke it �� 7. Connect the Blocks 13 Fill k Ifl 9. Mix it Up 10. Deliver the Gaols ` (high hyd�r) Inanow,shortsv 1 (rata tim) (nixed land use) IsnoOerdelvery .) l � Source: Eugene Jud, Course 527 Sustainable Mobility Diagram 3 Possible Future SLO Downtown Transit Center AV 1 Description: On Santa Rosa Street on the territory of the Shell Station. The foreground is Monterey Street and in the background Higuera Street. On the right is the existing county building. This would be an exclusive pedestrian, bicycle, and bus area without cars "where downtown meets uptown ". Source: Eugene Jud, Course CE 424 "Public Transportation" Fall 2012 4 B. Terms Popsicle Principle: Your 7- year -old daughter wants to buy a popsicle in the neighborhood shopping center or further away. You are confident in sending her to the shopping center on her own due to a safe infrastructure that separates her from motor vehicles (i.e. under /overpasses). Many newer towns are built on this principle and older towns adapt to it. Shared Zones: Allow traffic in pedestrian zones, but only low volumes and at low speeds. The pedestrian has the absolute right -of -way. See special regulations, for example by the federal government of Switzerland and chapter 10 of the website titled, "Well Designed Streets for Livable Communities on the U.S. West Coast" on http://ceenve3.calpoly.edu/qL.id C. Model Cities Solvang, CA: • Pedestrian and bike oriented. Offers bike rentals and horse and buggy. • Contains strong cultural heritage and pleasing aesthetics. Palo Alto, CA: • Three bicycle boulevards with ten bridges /underpasses for bikes. • Road diets on Charleston and Arastradero Streets. • Sophisticated management of alternative transportation on campus. • Bike station in the CalTrain rail station. Davis, CA: • Most famous bicycle city in the country. Platinum award from the League of American Bicyclists. • Long pedestrian /bike overpass over Highway 80. Arcata, CA: • Does not allow shopping centers. • One of the first cities to introduce traffic calming. • Very pedestrian oriented. Has a pedestrian bridge over the freeway leading to the campus. Boulder, CO: • Best example of symbiosis between campus and town. • Excellent BRT system with fancy names and colors for the different lines. • Campus president encourages parents to not allow students to bring personal cars. • Pearl Street is pedestrian only shopping zone with a daily famer's market on four blocks. • Downtown parking garages are mixed use with offices and housing (aesthetics!). Fort Collins, CO: • Best example of symbiosis between businesses, students, and community. • Awarded best city to live in by CNN. • Complete streets with freight train, cars, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Reston, VA: • Applies the popsicle method for pedestrians and bikes between neighborhoods and downtown. • Has a 45 mile bike trail that runs through the city and connects to other towns. Fort Worth, TX: • Successful privately owned downtown with largest private security in the country. • Dramatic water features located in central area of downtown. 5 D. Supporters of this Approach 1. Eugene Jud, M.S. CE /M.S. ENVE /Licensed European Engineer /Fellow ITE (leader ad interim) 2. Grace Morgan, B.S. ASCI (secretary) 3. Peter Schwartz, Cal Poly Associate Physics Professor 4. Shahram Shariati, M.S. CE /MBA /LEED GA /EIT 5. Blayne Morgan, M.S. CE /ENVE 6. Michael Falcone, CE /EIT 7. Robin Oswald, Cal Poly Corporate Health Insurance Consultant 8. Smadar Boardman, B.S. CE /EIT 9. Kim Daum, B.S. Horticulture 10. James Cooper, B.S. CE /PE 11. Brian Nelson, B.S. CE /PE 12. Tom Nguyen, B.S. CE /EIT 13. Tony Vi, B.S. ME /EIT 14. Sasha Racu, B.S. CE /EIT 15. Shannon Gourley, M.S. English 16. Alisha Lopez, B.S. Psychology 17. Albert Toberer, B.S. Psychology 18. Bill Steen, B.S. CE /EIT 19. Lori Atwater, Sustainable Energy Expert 20, Joe Yu, M.S. CE /EIT 21. Kristina Mai, CE 22. Dee Jakes, SLO Resident 23. James Loy, MS CE /EIT 24. Kimberley Mastako, Ph.D. CE 25. Veronika Pesinova, Ph.D. ENVE Consultant 26. Anne Wyatt, Planner /Writer 27, Forrester Fringer, BUS.... Now more than 40 people are on the list! 0