Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Reading File - Broad Street Bicycle Boulevards Alternatives Screening Analysis    Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Alternatives Screening Analysis 1 Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard Alternatives Screening Analysis Revision 1 (Updated 6/1/17) I. Introduction As part of the project development process for the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard, a planned project to develop a low-stress bicycle route connecting the San Luis Obispo downtown core north to Foothill Boulevard, three distinct concept alternatives have been developed. Concept alternatives were developed based on review of existing transportation conditions and through input provided by the community through ongoing stakeholder outreach efforts. The intent of this assessment is to analyze each concept alternative based on relevant quantitative and qualitative criteria in order to communicate the relative benefits, disadvantages and challenges associated with each alternative to the community and local decision-makers. Ultimately, the findings of this analysis will be shared with the community for review, and a preferred alternative will be selected for further development. Each section below provides a summary evaluating the three primary concept alternatives, other improvement recommendations not specific to the individual concept alternatives, and a “No Project” option. The following topics are considered in this analysis:  Traffic Impacts – Page 6  Parking Considerations – Page 17  Construction Costs & Feasibility of Implementation – Page 18  Bicycling Environment – Page 21  Benefits to Pedestrian/Streetscape Environment – Page 25  Overall Ability to Achieve Project Goals & Objectives – Page 27 For a condensed summary of this detailed analysis, see Attachment 1 (Alternatives Screening Summary Matrix). For additional background materials on the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard Project, including information on existing conditions, project goals, objectives & design guidelines, short-term and long-term bicycle boulevard routing and community meeting summaries, visit the project website (https://www.peakdemocracy.com/portals/189/Issue_3444). II. Project Description Key project features included in this assessment are described as follows. Concept Alternative 1 This alternative represents a traditional bicycle boulevard, with the addition of speed and volume management treatments along Broad Street between Lincoln and Ramona with the goal of reducing vehicular speeds and volumes along Broad Street to levels conducive of a low-stress bicycling environment. Traffic diverters are proposed at the intersections of Broad/Meinecke, Branded Signage and Pavement Markings  Identify a Priority Route for Bicyclists       Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Alternatives Screening Analysis 2 Diverters shift through auto traffic to other routes     Speed cushions allow emergency vehicles to pass  through, while reducing passenger car speeds   Broad/Mission and Broad/Center to shift vehicular through traffic from Broad Street to other alternate routes—predominantly Chorro Street. New speed cushions1 are proposed between Mission and Mountain View and a new neighborhood traffic circle is proposed at Broad/Mountain View to further reduce vehicle speeds. Existing speed humps are retained along Broad Street between Meinecke and Mission, with the potential to be replaced with speed humps to reduce impacts to emergency vehicles and improve speed reduction effectiveness. Currently, some cyclists, particularly riders with school-age children, prefer to use alternate routes to Broad Street traveling northbound between Lincoln and Mission in order to avoid the slight uphill grade on Broad Street. Even with proposed bicycle facility improvements on Broad Street, some cyclists are anticipated to continue using this alternate route. To better facilitate connectivity between this alternate northbound route and the bicycle boulevard, additional bicycle facility enhancements are proposed on Chorro Street to provide directional guidance and legitimize this route. These enhancements—which are informally referred to herein as the Almond Street “Wiggle”—include striping modifications along Chorro Street between Lincoln and Center to provide a dedicated northbound bike lane, and additional pavement markings/wayfinding signage to mark a formal route connecting northbound Chorro Street to Broad Street via Center/Almond/Mission Street. In the long-term, the City and Caltrans have proposed the closure of the US 101 ramps at Broad Street and construction of a pedestrian/bicycle bridge over the highway. Until those changes are realized, the bicycle boulevard alignment will follow Chorro Street between Lincoln and downtown. Concept Alternative 1 includes striping enhancements to extend the existing buffered bike lanes on Chorro Street between Lincoln and Walnut to improve this connection.  Branded bicycle boulevard directional signage and pavement markings are proposed along the entirety of the corridor for wayfinding purposes and to clearly define the route as a priority                                                                1 Speed cushions provide vertical deflection, similar to speed humps, with the purpose of reducing vehicle speeds.  However, speed cushions include wheel cutouts to allow large emergency vehicles to pass by unimpeded. These  devices can provide the traffic calming benefits of speed humps without significantly impeding emergency vehicle  response efficiency.      Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Alternatives Screening Analysis 3 Two‐Way Parking‐Protected Cycle Track BROAD STREET TYPICAL CROSS SECTION (ONE-WAY SB FROM MEINECKE TO LINCOLN) bicycle corridor. Accessible curb ramps and sidewalk improvements are proposed along the extent of the bicycle boulevard alignment. Attachment 2 illustrates the detailed design elements for Concept Alternative 1. Concept Alternative 2 This alternative is ultimately not a bicycle boulevard. The proposed concept includes conversion of Broad Street and Chorro Street to a one-way couplet system. Broad Street would be converted to one-way southbound and Chorro Street would be converted to one-way northbound between Meinecke and Lincoln. Elimination of the northbound vehicular traffic lane on Broad Street provides width to provide a single southbound vehicle lane, retain on-street parking on both sides of the street, and add a dedicated buffered bike lane in the southbound direction. No bicycle facility is provided on this segment of Broad Street in the northbound direction. Elimination of the southbound vehicular lane on Chorro Street provides width to maintain one northbound vehicle lane, on-street parking on both sides of the street, and add a parking-buffered, two-way protected bikeway (“cycle track”). This configuration provides low-stress bicycle connections in the northbound and southbound directions and improves route options for bicyclists traveling between downtown and Foothill Boulevard. Existing speed humps are retained along Broad Street north of Mission, and new speed cushions are proposed between Mission and Mountain View to calm southbound vehicular traffic along this segment of the corridor. Buffered Bike Lane       Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Alternatives Screening Analysis 4 Chicanes are an effective traffic calming  strategy on low‐speed residential streets   CHORRO STREET TYPICAL CROSS SECTION (ONE-WAY NB FROM MEINECKE TO LINCOLN) Similar to Alternative 1, this alternative includes directional signage and pavement markings for wayfinding purposes and to clearly define each route as a priority bicycle corridor. Additional signage and pavement markings are provided at side-street intersections along Broad Street and Chorro Street between Meinecke and Lincoln to restrict vehicular access to the appropriate one-way direction and to increase visibility of vehicle/bicycle conflict areas. Accessible curb ramps and sidewalk improvements are proposed along Broad and Chorro where ramps do not exist currently.  Attachment 3 illustrates the detailed design elements for Concept Alternative 2.  Concept Alternative 3 Based on public input provided upon preliminary review of this Alternatives Analysis, a third concept alternative, Alternative 3, has been added for consideration. This alternative represents a traditional bicycle boulevard on Broad Street, like Concept Alternative 1, but without traffic diversion that shifts auto traffic off Broad Street. Instead, this concept includes additional focus on traffic calming features to further reduce vehicle speeds on Broad Street and Chorro Street. The intent of this alternative is to work towards developing an ideal, low-stress bicycle boulevard through speed reduction treatments in the short-term, and volume reductions in the long-term in conjunction with Caltrans’ ultimate plans to close the US 101 ramps at Broad Street. This option develops an ideal bicycle boulevard over time without the potential challenges associated with significant traffic circulation changes, as proposed in Alternatives 1 and 2. As with Alternative 1, new speed cushions are proposed on Broad Street between Mission and Mountain View and a new neighborhood traffic circle is proposed at Broad/Mountain View to reduce vehicle speeds. The existing speed humps on Broad between Meinecke and Serrano will be retained and chicanes will be installed between Serrano and Mission to provide further traffic calming along this     Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Alternatives Screening Analysis 5 stretch of Broad. In addition, speed cushions are proposed along Chorro Street between Meinecke and Lincoln to improve the bicycling and pedestrian environment and neighborhood quality for users that will continue to travel and reside along Chorro Street. As with Alternative 1, Alternative 3 includes the Almond Street “Wiggle”, which provides an alternate northbound bypass route for bicyclists via Chorro/Center/Almond/Mission to avoid the uphill grade on the southern segment of Broad Street, which can be challenging for some riders. Until the long-term plans for closure of the US 101 ramps and construction of a pedestrian/bicycle bridge over the highway are realized, the bicycle boulevard alignment will follow Chorro Street between Lincoln and the downtown core. As with Alternative 1, branded bicycle boulevard directional signage and pavement markings are proposed along the entirety of the corridor for wayfinding purposes and to identify the route as a priority bicycle corridor. Accessible curb ramps and sidewalk improvements are proposed along the extent of the bicycle boulevard alignment. Attachment 4 illustrates the detailed design elements for Concept Alternative 3.  No Build Alternative A “No Build” alternative is considered in this screening assessment for the purposes of comparing the proposed project components to a scenario where no improvements are implemented. This scenario assumes existing roadway features and traffic characteristics will remain as exist currently. Other Project Components Additional features not specific to Concept Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 are proposed as part of the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard Project. These components can ultimately be omitted, or included as part of a preferred project, regardless of which alternative is recommended for further development. These ancillary features are discussed in the assessment below for informational purposes, but are not considered when directly comparing the three primary concept alternatives in the screening analysis summary (Attachment 1). Broad Street to Foothill Connection To bridge the link between the northern terminus of the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard and the Foothill Boulevard corridor, two potential options are being investigated. Option A: Ramona Cycle Track & Class I Path through LDS Church Property This option includes a proposed two-way Class I Bicycle/Pedestrian Path extending through the eastern edge of the undeveloped field within Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) property between Ramona Drive and Foothill Boulevard. A protected bikeway (“cycle track”) would also be considered along the north side of Ramona Drive to provide a continuous bicycle connection between this new Class I path and Class I Bicycle/Pedestrian Path       Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Alternatives Screening Analysis 6 Broad Street. The northern terminus of the Class I path would align nicely with a proposed enhanced pedestrian/bicycle crossing at the Foothill/Ferrini intersection, which is being explored as part of a parallel Safe Routes to School (SRTS) planning effort. Together, these improvements would provide a low-stress, dedicated connection between the bicycle boulevard and the neighborhoods north of Foothill. Implementation of this option would require an agreement with the church to utilize a portion of their property for the Class I path, as well as potential removal of some on-street parking along the north side of Ramona Drive. Option B: Broad Street & Foothill Boulevard Bike Box This option includes the addition of a bike lane and bike box2 at the northbound approach to the Broad Street/Foothill Boulevard intersection to improve the bicycle connection from northbound Broad to westbound Foothill. Currently, there is insufficient width along Broad Street between Ramona and Foothill to provide these features. Implementation of these improvements would require utility relocation and tree removal, as well as an easement or right-of- way acquisition to widen of the east side of Broad Street approaching the Broad/Foothill intersection.  Attachments 5 - 6 illustrate the design elements associated with the Broad Street to Foothill Boulevard connection options described above. Street Lighting Improvements Community members have expressed concerns regarding the lack of adequate street lighting along Broad and Chorro Streets north of the downtown core. The existing street lighting along the corridor does not meet the spacing recommendations specified in current City Engineering Standards. To improve the comfort and perceived safety of the pedestrian environment along the bicycle boulevard, additional street light installations are recommended along Broad Street and Chorro Street between Meinecke and Lincoln Streets. Attachment 7 illustrates the street lighting improvements proposed for the Broad Street corridor.   III. Traffic Impacts In order to assess potential vehicular traffic impacts associated with the proposed project, several criteria were evaluated for “No Build” conditions and for each concept alternative. Traffic                                                                2 A bike box is a designated area at the head of a traffic lane at a signalized intersection that provides bicyclists  with a safe and visible way to get ahead of queuing traffic during a red signal phase. This treatment helps prevent  right‐hook conflicts with turning vehicles by increasing visibility of bicyclists and facilitating bicyclist left‐turn  positioning at intersections.  Bike Boxes improve visibility and comfort for  cyclists at intersections       Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Alternatives Screening Analysis 7 impacts are assessed in terms of roadway segment and intersection congestion/delays (levels of service3), neighborhood quality of life (per City neighborhood traffic thresholds), convenience of property access, and potential impacts to emergency services. Traffic Volumes Existing (2016) roadway segment and intersection traffic volumes were collected for streets within the vicinity of the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes were collected for roadway segments, while AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes were organized for segments and intersections. All traffic data was collected during typical weekdays, avoiding school holidays, construction impacts, inclement weather or other unusual events. To evaluate traffic conditions for each concept alternative, existing traffic volumes were redistributed to reflect anticipated traffic diversion in conjunction with proposed roadway modifications that would shift traffic from, or limit access to Broad Street and Chorro Street. For example, with Concept Alternative 1, the proposed traffic diverters at Broad/Meinecke, Broad/Mission and Broad/Center, would shift traffic from Broad parallel routes—predominantly Chorro Street. Similarly, for Concept Alternative 2, conversion of Broad Street and Chorro Street to one-way between Meinecke and Lincoln would shift all northbound auto traffic to Chorro Street and all southbound auto traffic to Broad Street. While the traffic calming elements proposed in Alternative 3 may persuade a few drivers to consider alternate routes to Broad Street, under Alternative 3, traffic volumes are assumed to essentially remain similar to existing, or “No Build” levels. Estimated traffic volumes for each concept alternative are shown on maps in Attachment 8.   Roadway Segment Levels of Service Roadway segment levels of service were calculated for AM and PM peak hour conditions along Broad Street and Chorro Street based on Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) 2012 Generalized Service Volume Thresholds. FDOT service volume thresholds are developed based on planning applications of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and provide a convenient planning-level tool for assessing roadway segment operations. This methodology is consistent with the segment analysis included in the City’s 2014 General Plan Circulation Element. Impacts for study roadway segments are evaluated based on the City’s adopted performance target of LOS D or better for streets outside of the Downtown Core. Roadway segment levels of service are summarized in Table 1 and results for existing “No Build” conditions, Concept Alternative 1, 2 and 3 are discussed below.                                                                3 Level of Service (LOS) is a standard qualitative measure used to describe traffic conditions in terms of speed,  travel time, delays and driver convenience. LOS is defined using letter grades “A” through “F”, with LOS A  representing free‐flow conditions, and LOS F representing heavy congestion with traffic demands exceeding  capacity.      Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Alternatives Screening Analysis 8 No Build Alternative As shown in Table 1, all study roadway segments currently operate at acceptable LOS D or better. Concept Alternative 1 As shown in Table 1, all study roadway segments are projected to operate at acceptable LOS D or better under Concept Alternative 1. It should be noted that the segments of Chorro Street between Meinecke and Mission are projected to degrade from acceptable LOS A/B to acceptable LOS C/D in the northbound direction with the diversion of traffic from Broad to Chorro Street under this alternative. Concept Alternative 2 As shown in Table 1, all study roadway segments are projected to operate at acceptable LOS D or better under Concept Alternative 2. As with Alternative 1, the segments of Chorro Street between Meinecke and Mission are projected to degrade from acceptable LOS A/B to acceptable LOS C/D in the northbound direction under this alternative. Concept Alternative 3 As shown in Table 1, all study roadway segments are projected to operate at acceptable LOS D or better under Concept Alternative 3, with volumes similar to No Build conditions. Other Project Components Other proposed project features (as described in the Project Description section) would have a negligible impact on roadway segment operations.   Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Alternatives Screening Analysis 9 Table 1: Roadway Segment Levels of Service Volume LOS Volume LOS Volume LOS Volume LOS Volume LOS Volume LOS Volume LOS Volume LOSNB 185A179A83A81A83A81A185A179ASB 153A199A69A90A241A279A153A199ANB 228A163A39A31A0A0A228A163ASB 114A126A20A20A290A285A114A126ANB 232A178A19A30A0A0A232A178ASB 119A165A19A49A304A348B119A165ANB 70A114A39A39A0A0A70A114ASB 222A169A10A10A407C352B222A169ANB 70A114A40A61A0A0A70A114ASB 222A169A22A23A434C362B222A169ANB 253A301A336B382B336B382B253A301ASB 196A177A265A267A88A80A196A177ANB 253A301A458D448C458D448C253A301ASB 196A177A299A290A0A0A196A177ANB 275A340B484D500D484D500D275A340BSB 206A203A313A352B0A0A206A203ANB 275A340B307A391B338B443C275A340BSB 206A203A406C355B0A0A206A203ANB 262A386B294A437C294A437C262A386BSB 236A214A436C366B0A0A236A214AConcept Alternative 3AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourAM Peak Hour PM Peak HourConcept Alternative 2PM Peak HourNotes:‐ Roadway volumes collected in January 2016 and represent the average of two typical weekdays.‐ Peak Hours: AM (7:30‐8:30); PM (4:45‐5:45)‐ Segment Levels of Service calculated based on 2012 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Quality/Level of Service Volumes Thresholds.‐ Segments that exceed the City's adopted target of LOS D are highlighted in Orange  (LOS E) or Red (LOS F).No Build Concept Alternative 1AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourChorro Street (Meinecke ‐ Murray)Chorro Street (Murray ‐ Mission)Chorro Street (Mission ‐ Center)SegmentBroad Street (Center ‐ Lincoln)Dir.Chorro Street (Center ‐ Lincoln)AM Peak HourBroad Street (Foothill ‐ Ramona)Chorro Street (Foothill ‐ Meincecke)Broad Street (Meinecke ‐ Murray)Broad Street (Murray ‐ Mission)Broad Street (Mission ‐ Center)     Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Alternatives Screening Analysis 10 Intersection Levels of Service Intersection levels of service were calculated for AM and PM peak hour conditions at key intersections along and within the vicinity of the Broad Street corridor. Levels of service were calculated based on 2010 HCM methodologies using Synchro 9 traffic analysis software. This methodology is consistent with the methods recommended in the City’s Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. Impacts for study intersections are evaluated based on the City’s adopted performance target of LOS D or better for streets outside of the downtown core. Intersection levels of service are summarized in Table 2 and results for existing “No Build” conditions, Concept Alternative 1, 2 and 3 are discussed below. No Build Alternative As shown in Table 2, all study intersections currently operate at acceptable LOS D or better. Concept Alternative 1 As shown in Table 2, all study intersections are projected to operate at acceptable LOS D or better under Concept Alternative 1. It should be noted that the intersection of Chorro Street & Lincoln Street is projected to degrade from acceptable LOS C to acceptable LOS D during the AM peak hour under this alternative. Concept Alternative 2 As shown in Table 2, all study intersections are projected to operate at acceptable LOS D or better under Concept Alternative 2. As with Alternative 1, it should be noted that the intersection of Chorro Street & Lincoln Street is projected to degrade from acceptable LOS C to acceptable LOS D during the AM peak hour under this alternative. Concept Alternative 3 As shown in Table 2, intersections would operate similar to existing, or “No Build” conditions, with LOS D or better at all study intersections. Other Project Components Other proposed project features (as described in the Project Description section) would have a negligible impact on intersection operations.   Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Alternatives Screening Analysis 11 Table 2: Intersection Levels of Service Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOSChorro Street & Foothill Boulevard Signal 35.0D34.5CSignal 35.4D36.3DSignal 39.9D43.0DSignal 35.0D34.5CChorro Street & Meinecke Avenue AWSC 10.5B9.8AAWSC 15.1C14.0BAWSC 13.3B13.2BAWSC 10.5B9.8AChorro Street & Murray Avenue AWSC 10.4B11.4BAWSC 15.2C18.0CAWSC 13.1B20.5CAWSC 10.4B11.4BChorro Street & Mission Street AWSC 10.3B11.0BAWSC 15.0C15.3CAWSC 12.1B15.6CAWSC 10.3B11.0BChorro Street & Center Street AWSC 9.9A10.8BAWSC 13.7B14.5BAWSC 11.3B14.5BAWSC 9.9A10.8BChorro Street & Mountain View Street SSSC 14.1B15.1CSSSC 18.7C20.6CSSSC 12.7B14.9BSSSC 14.1B15.1CChorro Street & Lincoln Street AWSC 15.5C12.6BAWSC 33.1D17.1CAWSC 29.7D24.2CAWSC 15.5C12.6BBroad Street & Foothill Boulevard Signal 19.8B12.6BSignal 20.4C12.8BSignal 20.7C11.3BSignal 19.8B12.6BBroad Street & Meinecke Avenue SSSC 9.7A10.1BSSSC 8.7A9.0ASSSC 9.1A9.7ASSSC 9.7A10.1BBroad Street & Murray Avenue SSSC 10.1B10.0BSSSC 8.9A9.2ASSSC 12.0B12.4BSSSC 10.1B10.0BBroad Street & Mission Street AWSC 8.1A7.9ASSSC 8.5A8.8AAWSC 10.1B9.3AAWSC 8.1A7.9ABroad Street & Center Street AWSC 8.4A8.0ASSSC 8.5A8.5ASSSC 11.5B10.9BAWSC 8.4A8.0ABroad Street & Mountain View Street SSSC 10.9B10.4BSSSC 9.3A9.1ASSSC 12.5B11.8BSSSC 10.9B10.4BBroad Street & Lincoln Street AWSC 10.5B10.2BAWSC 11.5B12.6BAWSC 14.3B11.3BAWSC 10.5B10.2BTrafficControlAlternative 3AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourNotes:‐ Signal ‐ Signalized Control; SSSC ‐ Side‐Street Stop Control; AWSC ‐ All‐Way Stop Control‐ Intersection levels of service calculated using 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. For locations where HCM methodology does not support lane/signal configuration, Synchro methodology used. ‐ For signalized and AWSC intersections, delay and LOS based on intersection average. For SSSC intersections, delay and LOS reported for worst approach. ‐ Traffic data collected in 2016.Concept Alternative 1AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourConcept Alternative 2AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourIntersectionTrafficControlAM Peak Hour PM Peak HourNo BuildTrafficControlTrafficControl      Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Alternatives Screening Analysis 12 Neighborhood Impacts Potential neighborhood impacts were evaluated by comparing the estimated ADT volumes along Residential Collector and Local Streets within the vicinity of the project with the maximum ADT targets established in the City General Plan Circulation Element. Project impacts would be considered significant if proposed improvements cause a street to exceed the applicable maximum neighborhood ADT threshold, or if the project further increases traffic volumes on a street that already exceeds the maximum ADT thresholds under existing conditions. Neighborhood traffic impacts are summarized in Table 3 and results for existing “No Build” conditions, Concept Alternative 1, 2 and 3 are discussed below. Table 3: Neighborhood Traffic Impact Assessment  No Build ADT ADT ∆ADT ∆ADT ∆ADT ∆ Broad Street (Meinecke ‐ Mission)Res. Collector 5,000 4,211 725 ‐3,486 4,609 398 4,211 0 2,745 ‐1,466 Broad Street (Mission ‐ Lincoln)Res. Collector 5,000 3,428 695 ‐2,733 4,550 1,122 3,428 0 1,962 ‐1,466 Chorro Street (Meinecke ‐ Center)Res. Collector 5,000 5,816 9,702 3,886 5,095 ‐721 5,816 0 4,816 ‐1,000 Chorro Street (Center ‐ Lincoln)Res. Collector 5,000 6,315 9,845 3,530 5,162 ‐1,153 6,315 0 5,315 ‐1,000 Meinecke  Street (Broad ‐ Chorro)Local  Res. 1,500 1,277 2,926 1,649 2,894 1,617 1,277 0 Mission  Street (Broad ‐ Chorro)Local  Res. 1,500 477 906 429 775 298 477 0 Center Street (Broad ‐ Chorro)Local  Res. 1,500 217 513 296 403 186 217 0 Mountain  View Street (Broad ‐ Chorro)Local  Res. 1,500 170 275 105 293 123 170 0 Lincoln Street (Broad ‐ Chorro)Res. Collector 3,000 4,589 6,406 1,818 5,979 1,390 4,589 0 Alternative  3 w/ Ramp ClosureAlternative 3Alternative 1Alternative 2 Notes: ‐ Maximum ADT Thresholds  established in SLO City General  Plan Circulation Element. ‐ Existing ADT Volumes  collected in 2016.  ‐ Locations  that exceed  the City's  Maximum ADT Thresholds  are highlighted. Segment Street Type Max ADT No Build Alternative As shown in Table 3, the volumes along the segments of Chorro Street north of Lincoln Street currently exceed the City’s established maximum neighborhood ADT threshold of 5,000 vehicles/day. In addition, the existing volumes along Lincoln Street between Broad and Chorro currently exceeds the maximum neighborhood ADT threshold of 3,000 vehicles/day. Concept Alternative 1 As shown in Table 3, the shift in traffic associated with the traffic diverters proposed in Concept Alternative 1 is anticipated to result in the following neighborhood traffic impacts:     Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Alternatives Screening Analysis 13  Chorro Street (Meinecke to Center and Center to Lincoln) – Traffic volumes are anticipated to increase along Chorro Street to approximately 9,700-9,800 vehicles/day (≈60% increase), worsening neighborhood traffic issues where existing volumes already exceed the established neighborhood ADT threshold volume of 5,000 vehicles/day.  Meinecke Street (Broad to Chorro) – Traffic volumes are anticipated to increase to approximately 2,900 vehicles per day, which exceeds the maximum neighborhood ADT threshold of 1,500 vehicles/day.  Lincoln Street (Broad to Chorro) – Traffic volumes are anticipated to increase to approximately 6,400 vehicles per day, worsening neighborhood traffic issues where existing volumes already exceed the established neighborhood ADT threshold volume of 3,000 vehicles/day. Concept Alternative 2 As shown in Table 3, the street modifications proposed in Concept Alternative 2 are anticipated to result in the following neighborhood traffic impacts:  Chorro Street (Meinecke to Center and Center to Lincoln) – Traffic volumes are anticipated to decrease slightly along Chorro Street to approximately 5,100 vehicles/day (≈15% decrease). This would slightly worsen neighborhood traffic issues where existing volumes already exceed the established neighborhood ADT threshold volume of 5,000 vehicles/day.  Meinecke Street (Broad to Chorro) – Traffic volumes are anticipated to increase to approximately 2,900 vehicles per day, which exceeds the maximum neighborhood ADT threshold of 1,500 vehicles/day.  Lincoln Street (Broad to Chorro) – Traffic volumes are anticipated to increase to approximately 6,000 vehicles per day, worsening neighborhood traffic issues where existing volumes already exceed the established neighborhood ADT threshold volume of 3,000 vehicles/day. Daily volumes on Broad Street would increase by approximately 20% on average under Concept Alternative 2; however, these volumes would remain below the established maximum ADT threshold for this street. Projected daily volumes for Broad and Chorro Streets under each concept alternative are summarized in the chart below. Concept Alternative 3 As shown in Table 3, in the near-term, traffic volumes are anticipated to remain generally similar to existing (No Build), conditions under Alternative 3. Under this scenario, volumes along the segments of Chorro Street north of Lincoln Street, and along Lincoln Street between Broad and Chorro are expected to continue to exceed the City’s established maximum neighborhood ADT thresholds. For reference purposes, Table 3 includes a summary of projected daily traffic volumes on Broad and Chorro under Alternative 3 with the ultimate closure of the Highway 101/Broad Street     Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Alternatives Screening Analysis 14 ramps. Under these conditions, traffic volumes on Broad Street would be anticipated to drop below 3,000 vehicles/day, within the acceptable range for a bicycle boulevard. In addition, traffic volumes on Chorro would be anticipated to drop by about 16%. Other Project Components Other proposed project features (as described in the Project Description section) would have a negligible impact on neighborhood traffic levels. Property Access This section describes the potential for each concept alternative to negatively impact the convenience of accessing private properties along the proposed bicycle boulevard. No Build Alternative No change from existing. Concept Alternative 1 Concept Alternative 1 includes proposed traffic diverters at the intersections of Broad/Meinecke, Broad/Mission and Broad/Center. At each of these locations, vehicular through traffic on Broad Street is restricted to right- or left-turn only movements in order to divert auto trips from Broad Street to other routes. With these measures, many drivers with destinations along Broad Street will need to travel via Chorro Street and the cross street nearest to their destination. In most instances, this will require drivers to travel an additional 2-4 blocks beyond the shortest route currently available, which could be described as a moderate inconvenience to these individuals.     Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Alternatives Screening Analysis 15 Further, residents on Chorro Street may have more difficulty entering/exiting their driveways during peak traffic periods with the increased volumes on Chorro Street. In addition to affecting some residents that live along this segment of Broad Street, the proposed access modifications are likely to add some confusion for visitors and drivers unfamiliar with the local street network, leading to some circuitous traffic maneuvers and inconvenience to these motorists. Concept Alternative 2 Concept Alternative 2 includes conversion of Broad and Chorro Streets to a one-way couplet system between Lincoln and Meinecke. Broad Street would be converted to a single lane with one-way southbound vehicular traffic, while Chorro Street would include a single lane with one- way vehicular access in the northbound direction. At each side street along the corridor, vehicles would be restricted to access Broad and Chorro Streets from their respective one-way direction only. With these modifications, many drivers with destinations along Broad Street will need to travel northbound via Chorro Street before connecting to Broad at the nearest cross street north of their destination. The same would be true for drivers with destinations along Chorro Street, who will need to travel southbound on Broad Street before connecting to Chorro at the nearest downstream cross street. Typically, this will require drivers with destinations on the affected street segments to travel an additional 2-4 blocks beyond the shortest route currently available. This could reasonably be described as a moderate inconvenience to these individuals. In addition to affecting some residents that live along these segments of Broad and Chorro Streets the proposed access modifications are likely to add some initial confusion for visitors and drivers unfamiliar with the local street network, leading to some circuitous traffic maneuvers and inconvenience to these motorists. A continuous one-way street segment is likely to create less confusion among motorists than traffic diverters placed at several locations along a corridor, as proposed in Concept Alternative 1. With this alternative, residents will need to become accustomed to parking and entering/exiting their driveways with the proposed street modifications. For example, on Chorro Street, it may take some targeted outreach to residents to reinforce the need to look both ways for bicyclists when backing out of driveways, as well as to communicate the correct locations to park adjacent to the cycle track buffer area. Concept Alternative 3 Concept Alternative 3 would essentially have no change from existing conditions in terms of impacts to property access. The proposed traffic calming features would be designed in a way that maintains access to private properties along the affected streets. Other Project Components Other proposed project features (as described in the Project Description section) would have a negligible impact on access to properties along the bicycle boulevard. Emergency Services Access This section describes the potential for each concept alternative to negatively impact access for emergency services. Although Chorro Street is designated as the primary north-south emergency response route through this area of town, maintaining access to Broad Street for     Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Alternatives Screening Analysis 16 emergency services remains important—particularly considering the proximity of the Villages senior community and open space to the west. No Build Alternative No change from existing. Concept Alternative 1 The proposed volume and speed management treatments included in this alternative would be designed to minimize impacts to emergency services. The configuration of the traffic diverters would allow emergency vehicles to bypass the diverters by briefly maneuvering into the opposing travel lane, as they would if passing a vehicle on the left. The proposed speed cushions are specifically designed with wheel cutouts that allow designated large-axle vehicles, such as City fire trucks, to pass through unimpeded. The proposed neighborhood traffic circle at Broad/Mountain View is similar to the devices currently installed along the South Chorro Street corridor, which have proven to pose negligible impacts to emergency services. Concept Alternative 2 The street modifications proposed in this alternative would restrict traffic circulation to one-way southbound along Broad Street and one-way northbound along Chorro Street between Meinecke and Lincoln. Emergency service providers would need to adapt to the modified one- way couplet configuration. When accessing destinations along Broad or Chorro Streets from Fire Station #2 on North Chorro Street, emergency service vehicles may need to connect between Broad and Chorro at the nearest upstream cross street, which will likely add 1-2 blocks, and additional time, to their route compared to existing conditions. With the proposed modifications to Broad Street, a minimum 20-foot clear width would be maintained (including the southbound travel lane and buffered bike lane), allowing sufficient width for southbound emergency vehicles to pass other vehicles when needed. As with Concept Alternative 1, the proposed speed cushions on Broad Street are specifically designed with wheel cutouts that allow designated large-axle vehicles, such as City fire trucks, to pass through unimpeded. With the proposed modifications to Chorro Street, emergency vehicles would have the ability to utilize the 11- to 12-foot clear width of the cycle track as an emergency bypass lane to pass vehicles in the northbound travel lane, when needed. The physical separation protecting the two-way cycle track from the adjacent vehicular travel lane would be designed with adequate gaps and/or mountable curbs so that emergency vehicles can easily enter this area at intersections, or mid-block to bypass traffic. Based on discussions with the San Luis Obispo City Fire Department, Alternative 2 is the least desirable concept alternative from an emergency response standpoint. Concept Alternative 3 The proposed speed management treatments included in this alternative would be designed to minimize impacts to emergency services. The proposed speed cushions are specifically designed with wheel cutouts that allow designated large-axle vehicles, such as City fire trucks, to pass through unimpeded. The chicanes proposed on Broad Street between Serrano and Mission would be designed to accommodate emergency response vehicles, but would require these vehicles reduce speeds to navigate this stretch of Broad Street. The proposed neighborhood traffic circle at Broad/Mountain View is similar to the devices currently installed     Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Alternatives Screening Analysis 17 along the South Chorro Street corridor, which have proven to pose negligible impacts to emergency services. Other Project Components Other proposed project features (as described in the Project Description section) would have a negligible impact on access to properties along the bicycle boulevard. IV. Parking Considerations Potential parking impacts are considered for the proposed project based on the estimated net loss in on-street parking. Impacts were evaluated based on survey of existing parking supply and demand, and review of planning-level concept designs for the proposed roadway improvements. The ultimate number of on-street parking spaces eliminated may change as project designs are refined. Parking impacts would be studied in further detail and communicated to affected neighborhoods prior to implementation of the final project. On-Street Parking Loss Existing parking supply and parking loss under each concept alternative are summarized below. Table 4: On‐Street Parking Assessment  EXISTING  CONDITIONS ALT 1ALT 2ALT 3 Supply Parking Loss Parking Loss Parking Loss West 9 ‐2 ‐2 East 7 ‐2 ‐2 ‐2 West 11 ‐3 ‐2 East 10 ‐3 ‐4 ‐4 West 26 ‐2 East 34 ‐1 ‐1 West 9 ‐2 ‐1 East 15 ‐6 West 2 East 4 West 6 ‐2 ‐2 ‐2 East 14 Subtotal Broad Street 147 ‐16 ‐9 ‐20 West 8 ‐4 East 8 West 11 ‐4 East 12 West 11 ‐2 East 10 West 11 ‐1 East 10 West 15 ‐4 East 10 West 9 ‐2 East 10 West 12 ‐5 East 13 Subtotal Chorro Street 150 0 ‐22 0Chorro StreetLincoln to Mountain View Mountain View to Center Center to Venable Venable to Mission Mission to West West to Murray Murray to MeineckeBroad StreetLincoln to Mountain View Mountain View to Center Center to Mission St Mission to Serrano Serrano to Murray Murray to Meinecke STREET SEGMENT Side of Street       Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Alternatives Screening Analysis 18   No Build Alternative No change from existing. Concept Alternative 1 Based on review of preliminary designs, implementation of Concept Alternative 1 is anticipated to result in a net loss of 16 on-street parking spaces on Broad Street. Eight (8) of these spaces are lost with the proposed traffic circle at the intersection of Broad Street/Mountain View. This represents about 11% of the existing on-street parking on Broad Street. Concept Alternative 2 Based on review of preliminary designs, implementation of Concept Alternative 2 is anticipated to result in a net loss of 9 on-street parking spaces on Broad Street and 22 on-street parking spaces on Chorro Street. Many of the net parking spaces lost on Chorro Street are the result of additional parking restrictions to provide adequate sight distance at driveways. This represents approximately 10%-11% of the existing combined on-street parking on Broad and Chorro Streets.      Concept Alternative 3 Based on review of preliminary designs, implementation of Concept Alternative 3 is anticipated to result in a net loss of 20 on-street parking spaces on Broad Street. Eight (8) of these spaces are lost with the proposed traffic circle at the intersection of Broad Street/Mountain View, while seven (7) of these spaces are lost with the proposed chicanes on Broad between Serrano and Mission. This represents about 14% of the existing on-street parking on Broad Street. Other Project Components For the Broad Street to Foothill Connection Option A, on-street parking would need to be eliminated along the north side of Ramona Drive. At the access point to the proposed Class I path, approximately 3-4 on-street parking spaces would need to be eliminated to provide adequate access and clear sight lines. Approximately 14-15 on-street parking spaces would need to be eliminated to provide width for the proposed two-way cycle track between Broad Street and the Class I Path access. In addition, a 40-foot loading that currently exists on Ramona near the Broad Street intersection would need to be eliminated/relocated. In total, approximately 17-19 on-street parking spaces would be lost on the north side of Ramona. On- street parking is well-utilized in this neighborhood; thus, potential parking impacts would need to be studied in further detail prior to project implementation. For the Broad Street to Foothill Connection Option B, no loss of on-street parking is anticipated. However, an existing 60-foot on-street commercial loading zone on northbound Broad Street would need to be eliminated/relocated. V. Costs Planning-level order-of-magnitude construction cost estimates were developed for each project component. For each corridor concept alternative, the full project costs are presented, as well as the minimum costs needed to install the primary features of the alternative. Ultimate project cost estimates would need to be refined in with preparation of final project designs.     Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Alternatives Screening Analysis 19 Costs & Feasibility of Implementation Table 5 below summarizes the planning-level cost estimates for each project concept alternative, as well as for other proposed project components. These totals represent preliminary estimates of project costs for the purposes of comparing project alternatives and are conservative in nature. Table 5: Preliminary Project Cost Estimates*  Item Minimum Initial Installation Cost Concept Alternative 1 $98,000 Concept Alternative 2 $148,000 Concept Alternative 3 $154,000 Broad to Foothill Connection Option A $175,000 ‐$547,000 Option B Street Lighting Improvements Broad  Street Chorro Street $8,500 $879,000 $1,109,000 $206,500 $10,000 $1,125,500 Full Project Cost *DISCLAIMER: It should be noted that the preliminary Full Project Cost totals include costs for all improvements shown for each project alternative or component. Ultimately, improvements would likely be implemented in phases, and some elements may be excluded from the final project, depending on constructability challenges and/or availability of funds. Further, some project elements can be implemented for an interim basis using lower-cost temporary materials to reduce project costs and allow for testing and refinement of the project elements. No Build Alternative No change from existing. Concept Alternative 1 As shown in Table 5, the full improvements identified in Concept Alternative 1 are anticipated to cost approximately $879,000. About 60%-70% of the total costs are related to the proposed civil improvements, such as construction of curb ramps, drainage improvements, sidewalks and corner bulbouts. The total costs include design, materials, traffic control and construction. Further advancement of the project designs would be needed to more accurately determine the constructability challenges and costs associated with these features. The minimum initial installation costs for this alternative are estimated at $98,000. This figure represents the minimal investment needed to implemented the primary features of the project, which includes striping modifications, signage and installation of traffic diverters, speed cushions and the proposed traffic circle using lower-cost temporary materials. It would be relatively easy to test the features proposed in this alternative as a temporary “pilot project” to test and refine project designs.     Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Alternatives Screening Analysis 20 Concept Alternative 2 As shown in Table 5, the full improvements identified in Concept Alternative 1 are anticipated to cost approximately $1,109,000. About 50% of the total costs are related to the proposed civil improvements, such as construction of curb ramps, drainage improvements, sidewalks, corner bulbouts and an ultimate plan for construction of concrete curbing to separate the cycle track from vehicular traffic. The total costs include design, materials, traffic control and construction. Further advancement of the project designs would be needed to more accurately determine the constructability challenges and costs associated with these features. The minimum initial installation costs for this alternative are estimated at $148,000. This figure represents the minimal investment needed to implemented the primary features of the project, which includes striping modifications, signage and installation of speed cushions and the proposed cycle track separation using lower-cost temporary materials, such as plastic flex-posts and mountable curbing. Unlike Concept Alternative 1, this alternative would be more challenging to implement as a temporary “pilot project” to test and refine the project features. Concept Alternative 3 As shown in Table 5, the full improvements identified in Concept Alternative 3 are anticipated to cost approximately $1,126,000. About 60%-70% of the total costs are related to the proposed civil improvements, such as construction of curb ramps, drainage improvements, sidewalks and corner bulbouts. The total costs include design, materials, traffic control and construction. Further advancement of the project designs would be needed to more accurately determine the constructability challenges and costs associated with these features. The minimum initial installation costs for this alternative are estimated at $154,000. This figure represents the minimal investment needed to implemented the primary features of the project, which includes striping modifications, signage and installation of chicanes, speed cushions and the proposed traffic circle using lower-cost temporary materials. It would be relatively easy to test the features proposed in this alternative as a temporary “pilot project” to test and refine project designs. Other Project Components The improvements proposed for the Broad Street to Foothill Connection Option A are anticipated to cost between $175,000 and $547,000. The large range in potential costs is primarily related to the undetermined cost to obtain an access easement or right-of-way within the LDS Church property, and for installation of lighting along the proposed path, where costs can vary significantly depending on the fixture type and challenges with establishing electrical service. As shown in Table 5, the improvements proposed for the Broad Street to Foothill Connection Option B are anticipated to cost approximately $206,500. The magnitude of this cost is primarily related to the challenge of widening the east side of Broad Street, and for relocation of the existing utility poles, where costs can vary significantly from location to location. The estimated costs for the Broad Street to Foothill Connection Option B are roughly 40-50% lower than for     Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Alternatives Screening Analysis 21 Option A; however, it should be noted that the additional right-of-way needs and utility relocations would present a significant challenge. Installation of the additional street lighting proposed along Broad Street and Chorro Street is anticipated to cost approximately $10,000 and $8,500, respectively. VI. Bicycling Environment Each concept alternative was assessed with regards to anticipated impacts on the bicycling environment, considering how effective the design is at traffic calming, volume management and how well it achieves the overall project goals and objectives for the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard. Traffic Calming Each concept alternative has been assessed qualitatively to consider the potential to reduce traffic speeds along Broad Street. The desired maximum acceptable vehicle speeds along a bicycle boulevard are 25 miles per hour, while speeds as low as 20 mph provide an ideal low-stress bicycling environment.  No Build Alternative No change from existing. Existing prevailing auto speeds along Broad Street have been recorded at 27 mph north of Mission Street and 30 mph south of Mission. Prevailing speeds on Chorro Street are approximately 31 mph. These conditions exceed the speeds required for a low-stress bicycle route.    Concept Alternative 1 The traffic diverters, speed cushions and traffic circle proposed in Concept Alternative 1 are anticipated to reduce vehicle speeds along the Broad Street corridor. Diverters are particularly effective in reducing auto speeds by shifting a significant proportion of vehicular through traffic off Broad Street completely. The speed cushions proposed for Broad Street south of Mission would be expected to provide similar traffic calming benefits to the existing speed humps on Broad Street north of Mission, where prevailing speeds are 10-15% lower than the southern segment of Broad Street. It is reasonable to expect the neighborhood traffic circle proposed for the Broad/Mountain View intersection to provide similar speed reduction benefits as the traffic circles recently constructed along south Chorro Street, where prevailing vehicle speeds have been reduced by 10-15%. Ultimately, the combination of these proposed design elements is anticipated to provide moderate-to-high reductions in traffic speeds, supporting a low-stress bicycling environment. Concept Alternative 2 Unlike the traditional bicycle boulevard proposed in Concept Alternative 1, the improvements in Concept Alternative 2 are not necessarily focused on improving the bicycling environment by Recommended Bicycle Boulevard Traffic Speeds       Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Alternatives Screening Analysis 22 significantly reducing speeds or volumes on a single street. Instead, the proposed concept reallocates the street width on Broad and Chorro to provide separation between the bicycle facilities and the vehicular travel lanes. Broad Street will be converted to one-way southbound with parking on both sides of the street, a southbound buffered bike lane, sidewalk bulbouts and installation of speed cushions south of Mission. Addition of the southbound bike lane reduces high-street conflicts between southbound bicyclists and vehicles. The speed cushions proposed along Broad Street south of Mission are the primary form of traffic calming used in this design concept for southbound vehicles. As with Concept Alternative 1, it is reasonable to expect the proposed speed cushions to provide similar traffic calming benefits to the existing speed humps north of Mission, potentially reducing speeds for southbound vehicles by 10-15% south of Mission. Chorro Street will be converted to one-way northbound with parking on both sides of the street and a two-way protected bikeway (“cycle track”) between Lincoln and Meinecke. The modifications to Chorro Street are not anticipated to provide substantial traffic calming benefits; however, the protected bicycle facility will provide an ideal low-stress environment for cyclists. Ultimately, the improvements proposed in Concept Alternative 2 support quality low-stress bicycling environments for southbound Broad and in both directions on Chorro Street. These measures are anticipated to reduce vehicle speeds on Broad—albeit less so compared to Concept Alternative 1. Vehicle speeds along Chorro Street are anticipated to remain similar to existing conditions. Concept Alternative 3 The speed cushions, chicanes and traffic circle proposed in Concept Alternative 3 are anticipated to reduce vehicle speeds along the Broad Street corridor, and along Chorro Street. Chicanes are particularly effective in reducing auto speeds by narrowing the road and requiring vehicles to navigate a series of S-shaped curves at reduced speeds. The speed cushions proposed for Broad Street south of Mission and along Chorro Street would be expected to provide similar traffic calming benefits to the existing speed humps on Broad Street north of Mission, where prevailing speeds are 10-15% lower than the southern segment of Broad Street. It is reasonable to expect the neighborhood traffic circle proposed for the Broad/Mountain View intersection to provide similar speed reduction benefits as the traffic circles recently constructed along south Chorro Street, where prevailing vehicle speeds have been reduced by 10-15%. Ultimately, the combination of these proposed design elements is anticipated to provide moderate-to-high reductions in traffic speeds along Broad and Chorro, supporting a low-stress bicycling environment. Other Project Components Other proposed project features (as described in the Project Description section) would have a negligible impact on traffic calming. Volume Management Each concept alternative has been assessed to consider the potential to reduce traffic volumes along Broad Street. The desired maximum two-way traffic volumes along a bicycle boulevard are 1,500-3,000 veh/day, while volumes under 1,500 veh/day provide an ideal low-stress route. This would equate to a maximum one-way volume of approximately 900-1,800 veh/day, with an     Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Alternatives Screening Analysis 23 ideal volume of 900 veh/day or less. See Table 2 for volume estimates for each project alternative. No Build Alternative No change from existing. Existing volumes along Broad Street range from 2,930 veh/day south of Mission to 4,200 veh/day north of mission. These conditions exceed the volumes recommended for a bicycle boulevard. Concept Alternative 1 The improvements proposed in Concept Alternative 1 are anticipated to decrease vehicle volumes along Broad Street to approximately 700-800 veh/day. This will provide for an ideal low-stress bicycling route. Concept Alternative 2 Instead of focusing on reducing volumes on a single street, as with Concept Alternative 1, the one-way couplet orientation proposed in Concept Alternative 2 is anticipated to more evenly distribute the traffic demand between Broad and Chorro Streets. Total vehicular traffic volumes on Broad Street are projected to increase to approximately 4,500-4,600 vehicles per day (up 20% on average), while traffic volumes on Chorro Street would decrease to approximately 5,000-5,100 vehicles per day (down 15% on average). The street modifications proposed under this alternative would separate bicyclists from vehicular travel lanes on both Broad Street and Chorro Street, providing dedicated right-of-way for bicyclists in the southbound direction on Broad, and in both directions on Chorro. Concept Alternative 3 The traffic calming improvements proposed in Concept Alternative 3 may create a less desirable route for cut-through traffic, but are ultimately are anticipated to result in a negligible change in traffic levels on Broad and Chorro Streets in the near-term. Volumes on Broad Street will likely remain similar to existing (No Build) levels, which exceed the ideal range for a low-stress bicycle boulevard. However, with the ultimate implementation of the proposed closure of the Highway 101/Broad Street ramps, the resulting volumes on Broad Street are estimated to fall within the acceptable range for an effective bicycle boulevard (< 3,000 vehicles/day). Other Project Components Other proposed project features (as described in the Project Description section) would have a negligible impact on traffic volume management. Recommended Bicycle Boulevard Traffic Volumes       Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Alternatives Screening Analysis 24 Bicycle Level of Service Planning-level bicycle levels of service4 were calculated for AM and PM peak hour conditions at key roadway links along Broad Street and Chorro Street. Potential project impacts are evaluated considering the City’s multimodal level of service policy, which establishes a bicycle level of service objective of LOS B, with a minimum acceptable level of service standard of LOS D. Bicycle levels of service are summarized in Table 6 and results for existing “No Build” conditions, Concept Alternative 1 and Concept Alternative 2 are discussed below. Table 6: Segment Bicycle Levels of Service  AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak NB DDBA DCCC SB CDABCCCCCC NB CCBB BCBB SB DDAACCDCCC NB DDEEAADDDD SB DDDDAADDDD NB DDDDAADDDD SB DDDDAADDDD Alt. 3 Alt. 3 w/ Ramp ClosureSegment Dir. Alt. 1Alt. 2No Build Broad Street (Meinecke to Mission) Broad Street (Mission to Lincoln) Chorro Street (Meinecke to Mission) Chorro Street (Mission to Lincoln) No Build Alternative As shown in Table 6, the study segments of Broad Street and Chorro Street currently operate at LOS C and LOS D. These segments meet the City’s minimum bicycle level of service standards (LOS D), but fall short of the City’s level of service objective (LOS B). Concept Alternative 1 As shown in Table 6, the improvements proposed in Concept Alternative 1 would improve the bicycle levels of service along Broad Street to LOS A or B. The bicycle level of service along Chorro Street would remain at LOS D, except for the northbound link between Meinecke and Mission, which is projected to degrade to unacceptable LOS E during the PM peak hour. Without the northbound bike lane proposed for Chorro between Lincoln and Center as part of the Almond Street “Wiggle” component, the bicycle level of service grade on Chorro between Lincoln and Mission would also degrade to unacceptable LOS E.                                                                4 Levels of service were calculated based on 2010 HCM methodologies, consistent with the methods established in  the City’s Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. As with autos, Bicycle levels of service are defined using letter grades  “A” through “F”, with LOS A representing an ideal, low‐stress bicycling environment, and LOS F representing poor,  high‐stress bicycling conditions.       Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Alternatives Screening Analysis 25 Concept Alternative 2 As shown in Table 6, the improvements proposed in Concept Alternative 2 would provide for LOS C bicycle level of service on Broad Street in the southbound direction. No bicycle access would be provided on Broad Street in the northbound direction. The two-way protected bikeway proposed for Chorro Street would improve the bicycle levels of service from LOS D to LOS A between Meinecke and Lincoln. Concept Alternative 3 As shown in Table 6, the near-term traffic calming improvements proposed in Concept Alternative 3 would provide minor improvements to the bicycle levels of service along Broad Street. All study segments of Broad Street would operate within the City’s established minimum bicycle level of service standard (LOS D), but only one segment would operate at the City’s level of service objective (LOS B), and only during one of the two peak hour periods analyzed. With the planned long-term closure of the Highway 101/Broad Street ramps, the bicycle levels of service on Broad Street would be expected to improve to LOS C or better for both AM and PM peak hours. The bicycle level of service along Chorro Street would remain at LOS D in the short-term and long-term under this alternative. Other Project Components For the purposes of this assessment, bicycle levels of service were not evaluated for other project components. VII. Pedestrian/Streetscape Environment Each concept alternative was assessed with respect to impacts on the pedestrian/streetscape environment, considering how effective the design is with improving pedestrian connectivity, accessibility and comfort, street lighting and the design’s potential to include Green Street elements. Pedestrian Connectivity/Accessibility/Comfort Each project alternate was assessed to evaluate the effectiveness of the alternative’s potential to improve the pedestrian environment along Broad Street. The assessment considered the ability of each alternative to eliminate gaps in the sidewalk network, provide ADA-compliant pedestrian access, improve safety/comfort at pedestrian crossings, and enhance the overall appeal of Broad Street as a safe, inviting pedestrian environment. No Build Alternative No change from existing. The existing pedestrian environment lacks complete sidewalks and accessible curb ramps are missing at several intersections along the Broad Street corridor. Concept Alternative 1, 2 & 3 All concept alternatives include improvements to complete gaps in the sidewalk network, provide ADA-compliant curb ramps at all intersections currently lacking them, and add sidewalk bulbouts at several locations to improve pedestrian crossing safety/comfort. Concept Alternative 1 is anticipated to provide the most substantial improvement to the pedestrian experience along Broad Street by significantly lowering vehicle volumes and speeds along this street. However,     Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Alternatives Screening Analysis 26 by diverting traffic to Chorro Street, the pedestrian environment along Chorro will be less desirable. Concept Alternative 2 is anticipated to benefit the pedestrian experience along Broad and Chorro Streets by reducing the number of conflicting vehicle travel lanes, which reduces the number of pedestrian-vehicle conflict points and pedestrian crossing distance at intersections. Concept Alternative 3 is anticipated to benefit the pedestrian experience along Broad and Chorro by focusing on speed reduction and crossing improvements along both of these corridors. Other Project Components The Broad Street to Foothill Connection Option A would provide substantial benefit to pedestrian connectivity by providing a formal connection between Ramona and Foothill Boulevard. This connection would be particularly effective considering the planned SRTS crossing improvements at the Foothill/Ferrini intersection. Other project components identified in this assessment would provide negligible benefits to pedestrian accessibility/connectivity. Street Lighting No Build Alternative No change from existing. Existing street lighting is limited along Broad Street, resulting in poorly lit conditions in for bicyclists and pedestrians at night. Concept Alternative 1, 2 & 3 For the purposes of this assessment, street lighting improvements are not described as features specific to either project alternative. Street lighting improvements, as discussed under “Other Project Components” below can be considered for either concept alternative. Other Project Components Street lighting improvements are proposed for Broad Street and Chorro Street to improve the night environment for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers. Proposed enhancements would consist of adding an additional five (5) cobra-head LED street lights to Broad Street and an additional four (4) street lights to Chorro Street mounted to existing power poles. The additional lighting will be added at locations so that the corridor lighting as a whole is consistent with current City standards. Potential for Green Street Elements No Build Alternative No change from existing. Concept Alternative 1, 2 & 3 Each concept alternative was reviewed for the potential to incorporate green street features, such as bioswales, rain gardens or other landscaping/plantings. These features can provide benefits such as improved drainage, filtering of stormwater runoff, improved air quality, reduced     Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Alternatives Screening Analysis 27 heat island effect and a more pleasant and visually appealing streetscape. The potential stormwater management benefits are particularly important considering the proximity of the bicycle boulevard to Stenner Creek and Old Garden Creek. All three concept alternatives incorporate features that could be designed to accommodate green street elements—primarily within sidewalk bulbouts. Concept Alternative 2 and 3 offer slightly more opportunities for these features as these concepts include additional bulbout locations and raised islands (chicanes in Alt. 3) compared to Concept Alternative 1. Other Project Components Potential for green street features are negligible with the other project components discussed in this assessment. VIII. Overall Performance Achieves Overall Project Goal & Objectives A qualitative assessment is provided for each concept alternative to assess the overall potential to support the project goal and objectives, which are summarized as follows:  Project Goal – Provide a safe, convenient, low-stress through route serving bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and skill levels between the downtown core and Foothill Boulevard.  Project Objectives o Identity/Branding – Utilize signage, markings and other elements to provide a bicycle boulevard with a look and feel that is unique from surrounding streets to communicate that bicycle travel has a priority on the roadway. These design features should encourage people to walk and bike along this route, while alerting drivers to expect to encounter people bicycling. o Traffic Calming – Incorporate design features that bring motor vehicle speeds closer to those of bicyclists, improving the safety and comfort of the bicycle and pedestrian environment. o Volume Management – Consider measures to reduce or discourage motor vehicle thru traffic along the boulevard by physically or operationally reconfiguring access along street segments and intersections. Such treatments should consider potential impacts to emergency vehicles and neighborhood access. o Pedestrian Safety & Comfort – Incorporate design features along the boulevard that provide a continuous, accessible, low-stress environment for pedestrians of all ability levels. o Crossing Enhancement – Improve accessibility, comfort and visibility for bicyclists and pedestrians crossing at intersections.     Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Alternatives Screening Analysis 28 No Build Alternative No change from existing. Traffic volumes and speeds along Broad Street remain above recommended thresholds for a low-stress bicycle boulevard. Concept Alternative 1 Concept Alternative 1 is anticipated to strongly support the overall project goal and objectives. This concept would effectively create a unique identity of Broad Street as a traditional bicycle boulevard by significantly reducing vehicle speeds and volumes and through unique signage, pavement markings and features. While motor vehicles would be diverted at several intersections, bicycle access would be accommodated throughout the corridor with minimal stops, identifying and encouraging bicycling as the primary mode of transportation on Broad. Northbound bicyclists experience a slight grade on Broad Street between Center and Mission. However, anticipated low vehicle volumes and speeds should provide for a relatively comfortable climb. In addition, the Almond Street “Wiggle” creates unique branding, as it identifies an informal “local” route that many seasoned bicycle commuters already use to bypass uphill grades along Broad Street. This provides a less physically-demanding option northbound between Center and Mission, as it bypasses the slight grade on Broad Street. Concept Alternative 1 provides improvements that enhance the overall pedestrian environment along Broad Street by filling in sidewalk gaps, providing accessible curb ramps at intersections, reducing vehicular traffic volumes adjacent to sidewalks, and providing potential for green street elements. Concept Alternative 1 is anticipated to provide strong potential for increased bicycle mode share on Broad Street by providing a low-stress bicycling environment that feel comfortable to beginning and experienced riders. Additionally, the placement of traffic diverters along Broad Street will contribute towards make bicycling along the corridor a quicker and more convenient mode of transportation compared to motor vehicles, further encouraging bicycle ridership. It should be noted that while this alternative provides significant benefits to bicycling along Broad Street, this comes with the trade-off of diverting a significant amount of auto traffic to Chorro Street. The increase in traffic volumes on Chorro Street would have the potential to negatively impact neighborhood quality, and conditions for drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians that continue to use Chorro Street. Concept Alternative 2 Concept Alternative 2 does not necessarily follow the objectives of a bicycle boulevard, as this project alternative does not propose a traditional bicycle boulevard where bicyclists share travel lanes with motorists. Instead, Concept Alternative 2 creates separation between bicycle facilities on southbound Broad Street—with a buffered bike lane—and in both directions along Chorro Street—with a two-way protected bikeway (“cycle track”). The addition of a buffered bike lane on Broad Street provides improved separation from higher-speed vehicular traffic in the southbound direction, although, northbound access for bicyclists is eliminated. The proposed two-way protected bikeway on Chorro Street clearly identifies this route as a priority bike corridor, providing an ideal low-stress bicycling environment where riders are physically     Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Alternatives Screening Analysis 29 separated from higher-speed vehicle traffic by a buffer area with vertical elements (flex posts and/or curbing) and an on-street parking lane. Instead of significantly reducing traffic volumes and speeds along Broad Street only, the features proposed in Concept Alternative 2 create a more even distribution of vehicular traffic between Broad and Chorro Streets, while completely separating bicyclists from vehicular travel lanes. The proposed elements along Broad Street are expected to provide some traffic calming benefits, although less-so compared to the traffic diverters and traffic circle proposed in Concept Alternative 1. As with Concept Alternative 1, Concept Alternative 2 provides improvements that enhance the overall pedestrian environment along Broad Street by filling in sidewalk gaps, providing accessible curb ramps at intersections, reducing vehicular traffic volumes adjacent to sidewalks, and providing potential for green street elements. Compared to Alternative 1, this concept includes additional locations with sidewalk bulbouts, which provides increased potential for green street elements. In addition, this alternative benefits the pedestrian environments along both Broad Street and Chorro Street by reducing the number of vehicular travel lanes, which shortens the crossing distance and number of pedestrian-vehicle conflict points at intersections. It should be noted that with this concept, additional outreach would be prudent to inform Chorro Street residents regarding the appropriate position to park on-street adjacent to the cycle track buffer, and of the importance to look for bicyclists coming from both directions entering/exiting driveways adjacent to the cycle track. Ultimately, Concept Alternative 2 will significantly improve access and comfort for bicyclists traveling on Chorro Street with the addition of a two-way protected bikeway. In other cities across the country and internationally, the addition of physically-protected bicycle facilities has demonstrated improved safety for bicyclists, and the ability to attract existing and new riders who may be interested in bicycling more regularly, but feel unsafe sharing a travel lane or riding adjacent to higher-speed vehicular traffic. The addition of a buffered bike lane on Broad Street improves conditions for southbound bicyclists by separating them from vehicular traffic; however, access for northbound bicyclists is eliminated on this street. Compared to Alternative 1 and 3, this alternative is the most challenging option to implement as an interim “pilot project” for monitoring due to the significant changes to traffic circulation. Concept Alternative 3 Concept Alternative 3 is anticipated to moderately support the overall project goal and objectives in the short-term, with a long-term vision that more completely achieves these aspirations. This concept would effectively create a unique identity of Broad Street as a traditional bicycle boulevard in the short-term with traffic calming treatments and through unique signage, pavement markings and features. With the ultimate closure of the Highway 101/Broad Street ramps, as proposed by Caltrans, traffic volumes along Broad Street would be reduced to levels more supportive of a low-stress, priority bicycle route. While this alternative does not provide the level of immediate benefit to the bicycling environment as achieved in Alternatives 1 and 2, Alternative 3 has less potential to negatively impact neighborhood access and circulation.     Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Alternatives Screening Analysis 30 As with Alternative 1, the addition of the Almond Street “Wiggle” creates unique branding, as it identifies an informal “local” route that many seasoned bicycle commuters already use to bypass uphill grades along Broad Street. This provides a less physically-demanding option northbound between Center and Mission, as it bypasses the slight grade on Broad Street, and traverses lower-volume local streets through this stretch. Concept Alternative 3 provides improvements that enhance the overall pedestrian environment along Broad Street by filling in sidewalk gaps, providing accessible curb ramps at intersections, reducing vehicular traffic speeds adjacent to sidewalks, and providing potential for green street elements. Concept Alternative 3 is anticipated to provide only moderate potential for increased bicycle mode share on Broad Street in the short-term by calming traffic and reducing the uncomfortable speed differential between high-speed autos and lower-speed bicyclists. These short-term traffic calming benefits would also be realized by bicyclists who continue to use Chorro Street through this neighborhood. In the long-term, the anticipated reduction in traffic volumes on Broad Street with the closure of the Highway 101 ramps will further achieve the goal of a low-stress bicycling environment with potential to attract additional beginning and experienced riders. Other Project Components The proposed Broad Street to Foothill Connection Option A would provide a very comfortable, low-stress bicycle connection and facilitates a convenient linkage to the future crossing enhancements at the Foothill/Ferrini intersection planned as part of a parallel SRTS project. Protected bikeways (“cycle tracks”) and bike paths are very desirable for the beginner/novice bicyclists as there are minimal if any points of conflict with motor vehicles. There are significant challenges to implementing this option, with fairly-high costs and uncertainty that the City will successfully acquire an access agreement through the private LDS Church property. The Broad Street to Foothill Connection Option B provides another option for an improved bicycle connection between Broad Street and the Foothill Boulevard corridor. While this connection would represent an improvement over existing conditions, bicyclists would need to navigate the intersection of Broad at Foothill, which could be an uncomfortable and challenging experience for beginner and novice riders. For this reason, this option provides a less direct, higher-stress bicycling connection to destinations north of Foothill compared to Option A. While construction costs are anticipated to be lower than with Option A, there will be significant engineering challenges with the proposed widening of Broad Street approaching the Broad/Foothill intersection. The street lighting improvements proposed for Broad and Chorro Streets would improve nighttime visibility for bicyclists and pedestrians, supporting the objectives of the project to improve the safety and comfort of the transportation environment for these users.     Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Alternatives Screening Analysis 31 IX. Attachments Attachment 1: Alternatives Screening Analysis Summary Matrix Attachment 2: Concept Alternative 1 Plans Attachment 3: Concept Alternative 2 Plans Attachment 4: Concept Alternative 3 Plans Attachment 5: Broad Street to Foothill Connection – Option A Attachment 6: Broad Street to Foothill Connection – Option B Attachment 7: Street Lighting Recommendations Attachment 8: Concept Alternative Traffic Volumes Rating Comments Rating Comments Rating Comments Rating CommentsTraffic ImpactsRoadway Segment Levels of Service (LOS)All study roadway segments operate at acceptable LOS.All study roadway segments operate at acceptable LOS.All study roadway segments operate at acceptable LOS.All study roadway segments operate at acceptable LOS.Intersection Levels of Service (LOS)All study intersections operate at acceptable LOS. All study intersections operate at acceptable LOS. All study intersections operate at acceptable LOS. All study intersections operate at acceptable LOS.Neighborhood Traffic ImpactsVolumes along Chorro & Lincoln exceed established maximum volume thresholds.Volumes along Chorro, Meinecke and Lincoln exceed established maximum volume thresholds.Volumes decrease on Chorro. Meinecke and Lincoln volumes exceed established maximum thresholds.Volumes along Chorro & Lincoln continue to exceed established maximum volume thresholds until potential US 101/Broad ramps closure.Property Access‐Access to Broad Street properties somewhat less convenient with diverters.Access to Broad & Chorro St. properties somewhat less convenient with conversion to one‐way.No impact to property access.Emergency Services Access‐Traffic calming treatments & diverters designed to minimize impacts to emergency services.Conversion to one‐way travel adds some inconvenience for emergency services access.Traffic calming treatments & diverters designed to minimize impacts to emergency services.Parking ConsiderationsOn‐Street Parking Loss‐Loss of apx. 16 on‐street parking spaces on Broad(≈ 11% of total supply). Loss of apx. 8 on‐street parking spaces on Broad; 22 on‐street spaces on Chorro(≈ 10% of total supply on Broad & Chorro). Loss of apx. 20 on‐street parking spaces on Broad(≈ 14% of total supply). CostsCosts & Feasibility of ImplementationNo cost above ongoing maintenance activities.Full improvements estimated at $879k. Can be installed for interim testing with low‐cost temp. materials.Cost for full improvements estimated at$1.12M (26% higher than Alt. 1 on avg.). Difficult to test/install with interim treatments.Full improvements estimated at $1.13M (28% higher than Alt. 1). Can be installed for interim testing with low‐cost temp. materials.Bicycling EnvironmentTraffic CalmingExisting prevailing speeds at 27‐30 mph, providing high‐street bicycling environment on Broad St. Chorro prevailing speeds at 31 mph.Diverters, speed cushions & traffic circle provide significant speed reduction on Broad St.One‐way conversion & speed humps provide moderate speed reduction on Broad St.Speed cushions, chicanes & traffic circle provide significant speed reduction on Broad St. and moderate speed reduction on Chorro St.Volume ManagementExisting volumes on Broad St. exceed maximum recommended volume for bicycle boulevard.Broad St. volumes within ideal range for bicycle boulevard. Increased vols on Chorro degrade bicycling environmentVolumes evenly distributed between Broad/Chorro.Bicycles fully separated from auto traffic.Existing volumes on Broad St. continue to exceed maximum recommended volume for bicycle boulevard until closure of US 101/Broad St.Bicycle Level of Service (LOS)(City Target = LOS B; Min Acceptable = LOS D)Bike LOS on Broad at LOS C/D.Bike LOS on Chorro St. at LOS DBike LOS on Broad at LOS A/B.Bike LOS on Chorro St. at LOS D/E.Bike LOS on Broad at LOS C (SB Only) &Bike LOS on Chorro St. at LOS A.Bike LOS on Broad mostly at LOS C/D, with slight improvement from existing.Bike LOS on Chorro St. at LOS DPedestrian/Streetscape EnvironmentConnectivity/Accessibility/Comfort‐Sidewalk improvements, new curb ramps, much lower traffic volumes/speeds greatly enhance pedestrian Environment.Sidewalk improvements, new curb ramps, fewer conflicts & shorter crossing exposure for pedestrians at intersections.Sidewalk improvements, new curb ramps, lower traffic speeds greatly enhance pedestrian Environment.Street LightingLimited street lighting along segments of Broad St. create poor nighttime visibility for users.Proposed street lighting will improve nighttime visibility/comfort for vehicles, peds & bikes.Proposed street lighting will improve nighttime visibility/comfort for vehicles, peds & bikes.Proposed street lighting will improve nighttime visibility/comfort for vehicles, peds & bikes.Potential for Green Street Elements‐Sidewalk bulbouts, diverters, traffic circle provide moderate opportunity for green street elements.Sidewalk bulbouts and cycle track buffer provide moderate opportunity for green street elements.Sidewalk bulbouts, chicanes, traffic circle provide moderate opportunity for green street elements.Overall PerformanceAchieves Overall Project Goal & ObjectivesExisting conditions on Broad St. do not provide ideal environment for bicycles & pedestrians.Improvements provide strong potential to establish a low‐stress, convenient bicycle route on Broad. Trade‐off is degraded conditions for other users on Chorro.Improvements provide significant potential to establish a low‐stress, convenient bicycle route for users of all ages & ability levels. Improvements provide moderate potential to establish a low‐stress, convenient bicycle route on Broad in short‐term.  Long‐term benefits are more significant with closure of US 101/Broad ramps.No Change from Existing‐Rates ModeratelyRates Very Poorly Rates WellRates Poorly Rates Very WellAlternative 3Alternatives Screening Analysis Summary MatrixPerformance Rating CriteriaCriteriaNo Build Alternative 1Alternative 2Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard ‐ Alternatives Screening Analysis BROADFOOTHILL CHORROSANTA ROSALINCOLNCHORROBROADBROADRAMONA SERRANO MEINECKEMURRAYWEST VENABLEMISSIONMISSIONCENTERLINCOLNMOUNTAIN VIEWCENTERALMONDPEACHMILLPALMWALNUTUS 101BENTONONLYBROADMEINECKESTOPONLY ONLYSTOPST O P ONLYBROADMISSION ONLYONLYSTOPCENT E R BROADCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:SHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD SHEET TITLE: N1" = 350'EXISTINGSPEED HUMPSTRAFFICDIVERTERTRAFFICDIVERTERTRAFFICDIVERTERTRAFFICCIRCLEEXTEND BIKELANE BUFFERALTERNATIVE 1 SUMMARY MAPPROPOSEDSPEED CUSHIONSADD NB BIKE LANEON CHORRO FROMLINCOLN TO CENTERSIGN & STRIPE BIKE ROUTECONNECTING NB CHORRO TO BROADST. VIA ALMOND & MISSION ST.ALMOND STREET"WIGGLE"CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 1(BICYCLE BOULEVARD ON BROAD WITH TRAFFIC DIVERSION) BROADFOOTHILL CHORROSANTA ROSALINCOLNCHORROBROADBROADRAMONA SERRANO MEINECKEMURRAYWEST VENABLEMISSIONMISSIONCENTERLINCOLNMOUNTAIN VIEWCENTERALMONDPEACHMILLPALMWALNUTUS 101BENTONCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:SHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD SHEET TITLE: CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 1 KEY MAP N1" = 350'SHEET 1SHEET 2SHEET 3SHEET 4SHEET 5SHEET 6SHEET 7SHEET 12SHEET 13SHEET 14SHEET 8SHEET 9SHEET 10SHEET 11 FOOTHILL BROADSTOPSTOPRAMONABROADSTOP CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:1ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 1 SHEET TITLE: N1" = 20'N1" = 20'MATCH LINE 1MATCH LINE 1 MATCH LINE 214PROJECT LIMITSBICYCLE BOULEVARDPAVEMENT LEGENDBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdNEW ADA CURB RAMPSINSTALL HI-VISCROSSWALKBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPSIDEWALK BULBOUTS WITH POTENTIALFOR GREEN STREET TREATMENTS BROADBROADBUMPBUMP STOPSTOP MEINECKEONLY ONLYCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:2ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: N1" = 20'MATCH LINE 3 MATCH LINE 4BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 114EXISTING SPEED HUMPSN1" = 20'MATCH LINE 3MATCH LINE 2 BICYCLE BOULEVARDPAVEMENT LEGENDSIDEWALK BULBOUTS WITH POTENTIALFOR GREEN STREET TREATMENTSNEW ADA CURB RAMPSBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdSIDEWALK BULBOUTS WITH POTENTIALFOR GREEN STREET TREATMENTSSTOPONLYBIKE SLOT/DIVERTERONLYEXCEPTEXCEPT STOPBROADMURRAYBUMPBUMPSTOPSERRANOBROADBUMP BUMP CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:3ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: N1" = 20'N1" = 20'MATCH LINE 5MATCH LINE 5 MATCH LINE 6MATCH LINE 4 BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 114 BICYCLE BOULEVARDPAVEMENT LEGENDNEW ADA CURB RAMPSBICYCLE BOULEVARDPAVEMENT LEGENDCOMPLETE SIDEWALKWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPNEW ADACURB RAMPSIDEWALK BULBOUTSWITH POTENTIAL FORGREEN STREETTREATMENTSEXISTING SPEED HUMPSWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOP BROADBUMPBUMPSTOPMISSION MISSI O N S T O P ONLYONLYCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:4ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: N1" = 20'MATCH LINE 7MATCH LINE 6 BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 114MATCH LINE 7 N1" = 20'BICYCLE BOULEVARDPAVEMENT LEGENDCOMPLETE SIDEWALKBICYCLE BOULEVARDPAVEMENT LEGENDNEW ADA CURBRAMPSNEW CROSSWALKDIVERTER WITH BIKE SLOTSCOMPLETE SIDEWALKMATCH LINE 8WATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPCROSS TRAFFICDOES NOT STOPBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdONLYBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdSTOPONLYEXCEPTEXCEPTEXCEPT BROADBUMPBUMPBROAD BUMPBUMP CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:5ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: N1" = 20'MATCH LINE 9MATCH LINE 9 MATCH LINE 8 N1" = 20'BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 114INSTALL BICYCLEBOULEVARDPAVEMENT LEGENDCOMPLETE SIDEWALKINSTALL SPEED CUSHION(DESIGN HAS CUTOUTS TO ALLOWEMERGENCY VEHICLES TO PASS THROUGH)COMPLETE SIDEWALKMATCH LINE 10INSTALL SPEED CUSHION(DESIGN HAS CUTOUTS TO ALLOWEMERGENCY VEHICLES TO PASS THROUGH) BROADSTOPCENTER ONLY ONLYONLYBROADMOUNTAIN VIEWBUMPBUMPSTOP STOPSTOPCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:6ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE:MATCH LINE 11MATCH LINE 11 MATCH LINE 12MATCH LINE 10 N1" = 20'N1" = 20'BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 114NEW ADACURBRAMPSCOMPLETESIDEWALKINSTALL TRAFFIC CIRCLEINSTALL BICYCLE BOULEVARDPAVEMENT LEGENDBIKE SLOT/DIVERTERNEW CURB RAMPCOMPLETESIDEWALKBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdSTOPONLYSIDEWALK BULBOUTSWITH POTENTIAL FORGREEN STREETTREATMENTSONLYINSTALL SPEED CUSHION(DESIGN HAS CUTOUTS TO ALLOWEMERGENCY VEHICLES TO PASS THROUGH)BROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdEXCEPT BICYCLESEXCEPTEXCEPTEXCEPT STOPSTOP STOPSTOPBROADLINCOLN BROADMOUNTAIN VIEWCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:7ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: N1" = 20'BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 114 BICYCLE BOULEVARDPAVEMENT MARKINGSBICYCLE BOULEVARDPAVEMENT MARKINGSBICYCLE BOULEVARDPAVEMENT MARKINGSMATCH LINE 13 MATCH LINE 14BROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdNEW ADACURB RAMPSBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdMATCH LINE 13MATCH LINE 12 N1" = 20' STOPSTOPSTOPSTOPCHORRO STOPCHORROLINCOLNCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:8ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: MATCH LINE 14 N1" = 20'BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 114MATCH LINE 19DIRECTIONAL SHARROWSTHROUGH INTERSECTIONBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdBICYCLE BOULEVARDPAVEMENT LEGENDBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdN1" = 20'IN ADDITION TO BROAD ST. BIKEBOULEVARD, PROVIDE ALTERNATENORTHBOUND BIKE ROUTE VIACHORRO & ALMOND TO AVOID UPHILLGRADE ALONG BROAD ST. BETWEENMOUNTAIN VIEW AND MISSIONBROADMISSIONLINCOLNMOUNTAIN VIEWCENTERALMONDMODIFY STRIPING TO PROVIDENORTHBOUND BIKE LANE ONCHORRO STREET(SEE SHEETS 8-10)MATCH LINE 15 STOPSTOPSTOPCE N T E R STOP CHORROSTOPSTOPMOUNTAINVIEW CHORROCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:9ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 114 MATCH LINE 15MATCH LINE 171" = 20'N1" = 20'N MATCH LINE 16 MATCH LINE 16 WAYFINDING SIGNAGEMODIFY STRIPING TO PROVIDENORTHBOUND BIKE LANE ONCHORRO STREETBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdMODIFY STRIPING TO PROVIDENORTHBOUND BIKE LANE ONCHORRO STREET STOPCENTERALOMNDCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:10ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 114 MATCH LINE 18DIRECTIONAL SHARROWSDIRECTIONAL SHARROWSMATCH LINE 17 BROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike Blvd1" = 20'N STOPMISSIONALOMNDSTOPMISSIONONLY CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:11ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 114MATCH LINE 18DIRECTIONAL SHARROWSBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdBROADSTOPONLY 1" = 20'N EXCEPT CHORROWALNUTSTOPSTOP CHORROCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:12ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE:MATCH LINE 20MATCH LINE 21MATCH LINE 19MATCH LINE 20 1" = 20'N1" = 20'N BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 114 BICYCLE BOULEVARD PAVEMENT MARKINGEXTEND DASHED BIKE LANEEXTEND BUFFERED BIKE LANES WEST OFWALNUT UNDER US 101 OVERCROSSINGREMOVE STRIPED MEDIAN AND SHORT TURN POCKETTO PROVIDE WIDTH FOR BIKE LANE BUFFERSINSTALL DASHED BIKE LANE ACROSS DRIVEWAYUS 101 OVERCROSSINGBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPINSTALL DASHED BIKE LANE ACROSS DRIVEWAYINSTALL DASHED BIKE LANETHROUGH INTERSECTIONSHORTEN LEFT TURNPOCKET TO 50' TOPROVIDE WIDTH FORBUFFERED BIKE LANESEXTEND BUFFERED BIKE LANES WEST OFWALNUT UNDER US 101 OVERCROSSING CHORROMILLSTOPSTOPSTOP CHORROPEACH STOPSTOPSTOPCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:13ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE:MATCH LINE 22MATCH LINE 23MATCH LINE 21MATCH LINE 22 1" = 20'N1" = 20'N BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 114 BROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPINSTALL SHARROW MARKINGSTHROUGH INTERSECTIONBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPINSTALL SHARROW MARKINGSTHROUGH INTERSECTIONBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOP CHORROPALMCHORRO MONTEREY CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:14ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: MATCH LINE 23 1" = 20'N BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD1" = 20'N MATCH LINE 24PROJECT LIMITSMATCH LINE 24 CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 114 BICYCLE BOULEVARDPAVEMENT MARKINGBICYCLE BOULEVARDPAVEMENT MARKINGBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike Blvd BROADFOOTHILL CHORROSANTA ROSALINCOLNCHORROBROADRAMONA SERRANO MEINECKEMURRAYWEST VENABLEMISSIONMISSIONCENTERLINCOLNCENTERALMONDPEACHMILLPALMWALNUTUS 101BENTONMTN. VIEWCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:SHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD ALTERNATIVE 2 SUMMARY MAP SHEET TITLE: N1" = 350'EXISTINGSPEED HUMPSPROPOSEDSPEED CUSHIONSEXTEND BIKELANE BUFFERCHORRO CONVERTED TO ONE-WAY NB BETWEENMEINECKE AND LINCOLN WITH ONE AUTO TRAVEL LANEAND TWO-WAY CYCLE TRACKBROAD CONVERTED TO ONE-WAY SB BETWEENMEINECKE AND LINCOLN WITH ONE AUTO TRAVELLANE AND BUFFERED BIKE LANEPROPOSED BROAD STREET CROSS SECTION(MEINECKE TO LINCOLN)PROPOSED CHORRO STREET CROSS SECTION(MEINECKE TO LINCOLN)CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 2(BROAD/CHORRO ONE-WAY COUPLET) BROADFOOTHILL CHORROSANTA ROSALINCOLNCHORROBROADRAMONA SERRANO MEINECKEMURRAYWEST VENABLEMISSIONMISSIONCENTERLINCOLNCENTERALMONDPEACHMILLPALMWALNUTUS 101BENTONCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:SHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD SHEET TITLE: N1" = 350'SHEET 1SHEET 2SHEET 3SHEET 4SHEET 5SHEET 6SHEET 7SHEET 12SHEET 13SHEET 14 CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 2 KEY MAPSHEET 8SHEET 9SHEET 10SHEET 11 FOOTHILL BROADSTOPRAMONA BROADSTOPCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:1ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 2 SHEET TITLE: N1" = 20'N1" = 20'MATCH LINE 1MATCH LINE 1 MATCH LINE 2PROJECT LIMITSEXISTING SHARROWS TO REMAINNEW ADA CURB RAMPSINSTALL HI-VISCROSSWALKWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPSIDEWALK BULBOUTS WITH POTENTIALFOR GREEN STREET TREATMENTS14BIKE ROUTEDOWNTOWN STOPSTOP MEINECKEBUMPBROAD CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:2ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 2 N1" = 20'N1" = 20'MATCH LINE 3MATCH LINE 3 MATCH LINE 4MATCH LINE 2BULBOUTS SHORTEN CROSSINGDISTANCE FOR PEDESTRIANS NEARVILLAGES SENIOR COMMUNITYSIDEWALK BULBOUTS WITH POTENTIALFOR GREEN STREET TREATMENTSNEW ADA CURB RAMPSWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPSIDEWALK BULBOUTS WITH POTENTIALFOR GREEN STREET TREATMENTSEXISTING SPEED HUMPSBROAD STREET CONVERTED TOONE-WAY TRAVEL SOUTHBOUNDBETWEEN MEINECKE AND LINCOLNON-STREET PARKINGPRESERVED ON BOTHSIDES OF STREET14BIKE LANEAHEADSOUTHBOUNDBUFFERED BIKE LANEADD "WATCH FOR BICYCLES"SUPPLEMENTARY SIGN TO ALLSIDE-STREET STOP SIGNS ALONGBICYCLE CORRIDORSON-STREET PARKINGON-STREET PARKING STOPBROADMURRAYBUMPSTOPBROADSERRANOONLYBUMP CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:3ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 2 N1" = 20'N1" = 20'MATCH LINE 5MATCH LINE 5 MATCH LINE 6MATCH LINE 4 NEW ADACURB RAMPSCOMPLETE SIDEWALKEXISTING SPEED HUMPSONE WAYONE WAYNEW ADACURB RAMPSIDEWALK BULBOUTSWITH POTENTIAL FORGREEN STREETTREATMENTS14BROAD STREET CONVERTED TOONE-WAY TRAVEL SOUTHBOUNDBETWEEN MEINECKE AND LINCOLNSOUTHBOUND BUFFEREDBIKE LANEON-STREET PARKINGON-STREET PARKING BROADSTOPMISSI O N S T O P ONLYSTOPO N L Y MISSION CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:4ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 2 N1" = 20'MATCH LINE 7MATCH LINE 6MATCH LINE 7 N1" = 20'COMPLETE SIDEWALKNEW ADACURB RAMPSNEW ADACURB RAMPSCOMPLETE SIDEWALKMATCH LINE 8ONE WAYONE WAYNEW ADACURB RAMPS14SOUTHBOUND BUFFEREDBIKE LANEBROAD STREET CONVERTED TOONE-WAY TRAVEL SOUTHBOUNDBETWEEN MEINECKE AND LINCOLNBIKE ROUTEDOWNTOWNON-STREET PARKINGON-STREET PARKING BROADBUMPBROADBUMPCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:5ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 2 N1" = 20'MATCH LINE 9MATCH LINE 9 MATCH LINE 10MATCH LINE 8 N1" = 20'INSTALL SPEED CUSHION(DESIGN HAS CUTOUTS TO ALLOWEMERGENCY VEHICLES TO PASS THROUGH)COMPLETE SIDEWALKCOMPLETE SIDEWALKINSTALL SPEED CUSHION(DESIGN HAS CUTOUTS TO ALLOWEMERGENCY VEHICLES TO PASS THROUGH)ON-STREET PARKINGPRESERVED ON BOTHSIDES OF STREET14SOUTHBOUND BUFFEREDBIKE LANEBROAD STREET CONVERTED TOONE-WAY TRAVEL SOUTHBOUNDBETWEEN MEINECKE AND LINCOLN BROADSTOPCENTER ONLYBROADMOUNTAIN VIEWBUMPSTOP STOPSTOPCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:6ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 2 MATCH LINE 11MATCH LINE 11 MATCH LINE 12MATCH LINE 10 N1" = 20'N1" = 20'COMPLETESIDEWALKNEW ADACURB RAMPSCOMPLETESIDEWALKSIDEWALK BULBOUTSWITH POTENTIAL FORGREEN STREETTREATMENTSONE WAYINSTALL SPEED CUSHION(DESIGN HAS CUTOUTS TO ALLOWEMERGENCY VEHICLES TO PASS THROUGH)NEW ADACURB RAMPSONE WAYONE WAY14SOUTHBOUND BUFFEREDBIKE LANEBROAD STREET CONVERTED TOONE-WAY TRAVEL SOUTHBOUNDBETWEEN MEINECKE AND LINCOLNON-STREET PARKINGON-STREET PARKING BROADSTOPSTOP STOPSTOPBROADLINCOLN ONLYCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:7ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 2 MATCH LINE 13MATCH LINE 13 MATCH LINE 12 N1" = 20'N1" = 20'PARKING AND DRIVEWAY ACCESSRETAINED AT LINCOLN DELINEW ADACURB RAMPSDO NOTENTER14BIKE LANEENDBIKE ROUTEDOWNTOWN STOPSTOPSTOPONLY AHEADSTOP MURRAYCHORRO AHEAD STOPSTOP STOPSTOP STOPMEINECKEONLY ONLYONLYCHORROCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:8ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 2 SHEET TITLE: N1" = 30'N1" = 30'MATCH LINE 14MATCH LINE 14 MATCH LINE 15PROJECT LIMITS 14ON-STREET PARKING RETAINED ON BOTHSIDES OF CHORRO STREETBIKE ROUTEFOOTHILL BLVDCAL POLYCHORRO STREET CONVERTED TO ONE-WAY AUTO TRAVELNORTHBOUND BETWEEN MEINECKE AND LINCOLNTWO-WAY PROTECTED BIKEWAY("CYCLE TRACK") ON WEST SIDE OFCHORRO STREETBIKEWAY SEPARATED FROM AUTO TRAFFIC BYON-STREET PARKING AND BUFFER AREA. BUFFERTO INCLUDE PHYSICAL SEPARATION, SUCH ASRAISED CURB, FLEX POSTS, ETC.PRIVATE DRIVEWAY ACCESS RETAINEDBY PROVIDING APPROPRIATE GAPS INPHYSICAL SEPARATION WITHIN BIKEWAYGREEN PAVEMENT MARKINGSENHANCE VISIBILITY OF BIKEWAYAT INTERSECTIONSTWO-WAY CIRCULATIONMAINTAINED ON CHORRO NORTHOF MEINECKEDO NOTENTERBIKE LANEPARKINGONE WAYONE WAYEXCEPTEXCEPTEXCEPTEXCEPTEXCEPTBIKE ROUTEDOWNTOWNON-STREET PARKINGON-STREET PARKINGON-STREET PARKINGON-STREET PARKING STOPONLYAHEADSTOP WESTCHORROSTOPSTOPONLYONLY STOP MISSIONCHORRO CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:9ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 2 SHEET TITLE: N1" = 30'MATCH LINE 16MATCH LINE 16 MATCH LINE 17MATCH LINE 15 14CHORRO STREET CONVERTED TO ONE-WAY TRAVELNORTHBOUND BETWEEN MEINECKE AND LINCOLNTWO-WAY PROTECTED BIKEWAY("CYCLE TRACK") ON WEST SIDE OFCHORRO STREETGREEN PAVEMENT MARKINGSENHANCE VISIBILITY OF BIKEWAYAT INTERSECTIONSBIKE LANEPARKINGONE WAYN1" = 30'BIKEWAY SEPARATED FROM AUTO TRAFFIC BYON-STREET PARKING AND BUFFER AREA. BUFFERTO INCLUDE PHYSICAL SEPARATION, SUCH ASRAISED CURB, FLEX POSTS, ETC.ONE WAYONE WAYEXCEPTEXCEPTEXCEPTEXCEPTEXCEPTEXCEPTBIKE ROUTEDOWNTOWNBIKE ROUTEFOOTHILL BLVDCAL POLYON-STREET PARKINGON-STREET PARKINGON-STREET PARKINGON-STREET PARKING STOPVENABLE ONLYCHORROSTOPCENTERSTOP STOP ONLYONLYCHORROCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:10ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 2 SHEET TITLE: N1" = 30'MATCH LINE 18MATCH LINE 18 MATCH LINE 17 14N1" = 30'EXCEPTONE WAYEXCEPTCHORRO STREET CONVERTED TO ONE-WAY TRAVELNORTHBOUND BETWEEN MEINECKE AND LINCOLNON-STREET PARKING RETAINED ON BOTHSIDES OF CHORRO STREETPRIVATE DRIVEWAY ACCESS RETAINEDBY PROVIDING APPROPRIATE GAPS INPHYSICAL SEPARATION WITHIN BIKEWAYBIKE LANEPARKINGEXCEPTEXCEPTONE WAYEXCEPTONE WAYEXCEPTNEW ADA CURB RAMPSNEW ADA CURB RAMPSMATCH LINE 19ON-STREET PARKINGON-STREET PARKING STOPSTOPCHORROMOUNTAIN VIEW ONLYONLYCHORROSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOP LINCOLN CHORROCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:11ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 2 SHEET TITLE:MATCH LINE 20MATCH LINE 20 MATCH LINE 21MATCH LINE 19 14N1" = 30'N1" = 30'BIKE LANEPARKINGEXCEPTONE WAYEXCEPTEXCEPTONE WAYEXCEPTCHORRO STREET CONVERTED TO ONE-WAYAUTO TRAVEL NORTHBOUND BETWEENMEINECKE AND LINCOLNTWO-WAY PROTECTED BIKEWAY("CYCLE TRACK") ON WEST SIDE OFCHORRO STREETBIKEWAY SEPARATED FROM AUTO TRAFFIC BYON-STREET PARKING AND BUFFER AREA. BUFFERTO INCLUDE PHYSICAL SEPARATION, SUCH ASRAISED CURB, FLEX POSTS, ETC.BIKE LANEPARKINGBIKE ROUTEDOWNTOWNBIKE ROUTEFOOTHILL BLVDCAL POLYBIKE ROUTEFOOTHILL BLVDCAL POLYDOWNTOWNON-STREET PARKINGON-STREET PARKING CHORROWALNUTSTOPSTOP CHORROCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:12ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 2 MATCH LINE 22MATCH LINE 23MATCH LINE 21MATCH LINE 22 1" = 20'N1" = 20'N EXTEND DASHED BIKE LANEEXTEND BUFFERED BIKE LANES WEST OFWALNUT UNDER US 101 OVERCROSSINGREMOVE STRIPED MEDIAN AND SHORT TURN POCKETTO PROVIDE WIDTH FOR BIKE LANE BUFFERSSHORTEN LEFT TURNPOCKET TO 50' TOPROVIDE WIDTH FORBUFFERED BIKE LANESINSTALL DASHED BIKE LANE ACROSS DRIVEWAYINSTALL DASHED BIKE LANE ACROSS DRIVEWAYINSTALL DASHED BIKE LANETHROUGH INTERSECTIONUS 101 OVERCROSSINGUS 101 OVERCROSSINGEXTEND BUFFERED BIKE LANES WEST OFWALNUT UNDER US 101 OVERCROSSINGWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOP14BIKE ROUTEFOOTHILL BLVDCAL POLYDOWNTOWN CHORROMILLSTOPSTOPSTOP CHORROPEACH STOPSTOPSTOPCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:13ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 2 MATCH LINE 24MATCH LINE 25MATCH LINE 23MATCH LINE 24 1" = 20'N1" = 20'N INSTALL SHARROW MARKINGSTHROUGH INTERSECTIONINSTALL SHARROW MARKINGSTHROUGH INTERSECTIONWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOP14BIKE ROUTEFOOTHILL BLVDCAL POLYDOWNTOWNBIKE ROUTEFOOTHILL BLVDCAL POLYDOWNTOWNBIKE ROUTEFOOTHILL BLVDCAL POLYDOWNTOWNBIKE ROUTEFOOTHILL BLVDCAL POLYDOWNTOWN PALMCHORRO MONTEREYCHORRO CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:14ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 214MATCH LINE 25 1" = 20'N1" = 20'N MATCH LINE 26PROJECT LIMITSMATCH LINE 26 BIKE ROUTEFOOTHILL BLVDCAL POLYDOWNTOWNBIKE ROUTEFOOTHILL BLVDCAL POLYDOWNTOWNBIKE ROUTEFOOTHILL BLVDCAL POLYDOWNTOWNBIKE ROUTEFOOTHILL BLVDCAL POLY BROADFOOTHILL CHORROSANTA ROSALINCOLNCHORROBROADBROADRAMONA SERRANO MEINECKEMURRAYWEST VENABLEMISSIONMISSIONCENTERLINCOLNMOUNTAIN VIEWCENTERALMONDPEACHMILLPALMWALNUTUS 101BENTONCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:SHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD SHEET TITLE: N1" = 350'PROPOSEDCHICANESTRAFFICCIRCLEEXTEND BIKELANE BUFFERALTERNATIVE 3 SUMMARY MAPPROPOSEDSPEED CUSHIONSADD NB BIKE LANEON CHORRO FROMLINCOLN TO CENTERSIGN & STRIPE BIKE ROUTECONNECTING NB CHORRO TO BROADST. VIA ALMOND & MISSION ST.ALMOND STREET"WIGGLE"PROPOSEDSPEED CUSHIONS*NO TRAFFIC DIVERSION ON BROAD STREET UNDER ALTERNATIVE 3EXISTINGSPEED HUMPSCONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 3(BICYCLE BOULEVARD ON BROAD WITHOUT TRAFFIC DIVERSION) BROADFOOTHILL CHORROSANTA ROSALINCOLNCHORROBROADBROADRAMONA SERRANO MEINECKEMURRAYWEST VENABLEMISSIONMISSIONCENTERLINCOLNMOUNTAIN VIEWCENTERALMONDPEACHMILLPALMWALNUTUS 101BENTONCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:SHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD SHEET TITLE: CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 3 KEY MAP N1" = 350'SHEET 1SHEET 2SHEET 3SHEET 4SHEET 5SHEET 6SHEET 7SHEET 14SHEET 15SHEET 16SHEET 8SHEET 9SHEET 10SHEET 11SHEET 13SHEET 12 FOOTHILL BROADSTOPSTOPRAMONABROADSTOP CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:1ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 3 SHEET TITLE: N1" = 20'N1" = 20'MATCH LINE 1MATCH LINE 1 MATCH LINE 216PROJECT LIMITSBICYCLE BOULEVARDPAVEMENT LEGENDBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdNEW ADA CURB RAMPSINSTALL HI-VISCROSSWALKBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPSIDEWALK BULBOUTS WITH POTENTIALFOR GREEN STREET TREATMENTS BROADBROADBUMPBUMP STOPSTOP MEINECKE CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:2ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: N1" = 20'MATCH LINE 3 MATCH LINE 4BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 316EXISTING SPEED HUMPSN1" = 20'MATCH LINE 3MATCH LINE 2 SIDEWALK BULBOUTS WITH POTENTIALFOR GREEN STREET TREATMENTSNEW ADA CURB RAMPSBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdSIDEWALK BULBOUTS WITH POTENTIALFOR GREEN STREET TREATMENTSSTOPWATCHFOR BICYCLES STOPBROADMURRAYBUMPBUMPSTOPSERRANOBROAD CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:3ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: N1" = 20'N1" = 20'MATCH LINE 6MATCH LINE 4 BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 316 BICYCLE BOULEVARDPAVEMENT LEGENDNEW ADA CURB RAMPSBICYCLE BOULEVARDPAVEMENT LEGENDCOMPLETE SIDEWALKWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPNEW ADACURB RAMPSIDEWALK BULBOUTS WITHPOTENTIAL FOR GREENSTREET TREATMENTSEXISTING SPEED HUMPSWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPCHICANES REDUCE AUTO SPEEDS BETWEENSERRANO AND MISSION AND PROVIDE POTENTIALFOR ATTRACTIVE HARDSCAPE OR GREEN STREETTREATMENTS. RAISED ISLANDS LOCATED TOMAINTAIN PRIVATE DRIVEWAY ACCESSMATCH LINE 5 MATCH LINE 5 BROADSTOPMISSIONMISSIONS T O P STOPSTOPCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:4ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: N1" = 20'MATCH LINE 7MATCH LINE 6 BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 316MATCH LINE 7 N1" = 20'COMPLETE SIDEWALKBICYCLE BOULEVARDPAVEMENT LEGENDNEW ADA CURBRAMPSCOMPLETESIDEWALKMATCH LINE 8BROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdSTOPBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPRELOCATE STOP BARTO THE EASTCHICANES REDUCE AUTO SPEEDSBETWEEN SERRANO AND MISSIONAND PROVIDE POTENTIAL FORATTRACTIVE HARDSCAPE OR GREENSTREET TREATMENTS. RAISEDISLANDS LOCATED TO MAINTAINPRIVATE DRIVEWAY ACCESS BROADBUMPBUMPBROAD BUMPBUMP CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:5ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: N1" = 20'MATCH LINE 9MATCH LINE 9 MATCH LINE 8 N1" = 20'BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 316INSTALL BICYCLEBOULEVARDPAVEMENT LEGENDCOMPLETE SIDEWALKINSTALL SPEED CUSHION(DESIGN HAS CUTOUTS TO ALLOWEMERGENCY VEHICLES TO PASS THROUGH)COMPLETE SIDEWALKMATCH LINE 10INSTALL SPEED CUSHION(DESIGN HAS CUTOUTS TO ALLOWEMERGENCY VEHICLES TO PASS THROUGH) BROADSTOPCENTERSTOP STOPBROAD MOUNTAIN VIEWBUMPBUMPSTOP STOPSTOPCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:6ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE:MATCH LINE 11MATCH LINE 11 MATCH LINE 12MATCH LINE 10 N1" = 20'N1" = 20'BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 316COMPLETESIDEWALKINSTALL TRAFFIC CIRCLEINSTALL BICYCLE BOULEVARDPAVEMENT LEGENDNEW CURB RAMPCOMPLETESIDEWALKBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdSTOPSIDEWALK BULBOUTSWITH POTENTIAL FORGREEN STREETTREATMENTSINSTALL SPEED CUSHION(DESIGN HAS CUTOUTS TO ALLOWEMERGENCY VEHICLES TO PASS THROUGH)BROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPSTOP STOPSTOP STOPSTOPBROADLINCOLN BROADMOUNTAIN VIEWCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:7ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: N1" = 20'BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 316 BICYCLE BOULEVARDPAVEMENT MARKINGSBICYCLE BOULEVARDPAVEMENT MARKINGSBICYCLE BOULEVARDPAVEMENT MARKINGSMATCH LINE 13 MATCH LINE 14BROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdNEW ADACURB RAMPSBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdMATCH LINE 13MATCH LINE 12 N1" = 20' STOPSTOPSTOPSTOPCHORRO STOPCHORROLINCOLNCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:8ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: MATCH LINE 14 N1" = 20'BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 314MATCH LINE 23DIRECTIONAL SHARROWSTHROUGH INTERSECTIONBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdBICYCLE BOULEVARDPAVEMENT LEGENDBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdN1" = 20'IN ADDITION TO BROAD ST. BIKEBOULEVARD, PROVIDE ALTERNATENORTHBOUND BIKE ROUTE VIACHORRO & ALMOND TO AVOID UPHILLGRADE ALONG BROAD ST. BETWEENMOUNTAIN VIEW AND MISSIONBROADMISSIONLINCOLNMOUNTAIN VIEWCENTERALMONDMODIFY STRIPING TO PROVIDENORTHBOUND BIKE LANE ONCHORRO STREET(SEE SHEETS 8-10)MATCH LINE 15 STOPSTOPSTOPCE N T E R CHORROSTOP STOPSTOPMOUNTAINVIEW CHORROCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:9ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 314 MATCH LINE 15MATCH LINE 171" = 20'N1" = 20'N MATCH LINE 16 MATCH LINE 16 WAYFINDING SIGNAGEMODIFY STRIPING TO PROVIDENORTHBOUND BIKE LANE ONCHORRO STREETBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdMODIFY STRIPING TO PROVIDENORTHBOUND BIKE LANE ONCHORRO STREETMATCH LINE 19NEW ADA CURB RAMPS STOPCENTERALOMNDCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:10ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 314 MATCH LINE 18DIRECTIONAL SHARROWSDIRECTIONAL SHARROWSMATCH LINE 17 BROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike Blvd1" = 20'N STOPMISSIONALOMNDSTOPMISSION CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:11ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 314MATCH LINE 18DIRECTIONAL SHARROWSBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdBROADSTOP 1" = 20'N WATCHFOR BICYCLES STOPSTOPSTOPSTOPAHEADSTOPBUMPBUMP MISSIONCHORRO STOPBUMPBUMP VENABLECHORRO CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:12ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 316N1" = 30'MATCH LINE 19N1" = 30'INSTALL SPEED CUSHION(DESIGN HAS CUTOUTS TO ALLOWEMERGENCY VEHICLES TO PASS THROUGH)NEW ADA CURB RAMPSINSTALL SPEED CUSHION(DESIGN HAS CUTOUTS TO ALLOWEMERGENCY VEHICLES TO PASS THROUGH)MATCH LINE 20MATCH LINE 21 MATCH LINE 20 STOPSTOPSTOPSTOP STOP AHEAD STOPMURRAY WESTCHORRO STOPAHEAD STOPSTOP STOPSTOP STOPBUMPBUMP MEINECKE CHORROCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:13ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 316N1" = 30'N1" = 30'MATCH LINE 22MATCH LINE 22 MATCH LINE 21PROJECT LIMITS INSTALL SPEED CUSHION(DESIGN HAS CUTOUTS TO ALLOWEMERGENCY VEHICLES TO PASS THROUGH) CHORROWALNUTSTOPSTOP CHORROCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:14ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE:MATCH LINE 24MATCH LINE 25MATCH LINE 23MATCH LINE 24 1" = 20'N1" = 20'N BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 316 BICYCLE BOULEVARD PAVEMENT MARKINGEXTEND DASHED BIKE LANEEXTEND BUFFERED BIKE LANES WEST OFWALNUT UNDER US 101 OVERCROSSINGREMOVE STRIPED MEDIAN AND SHORT TURN POCKETTO PROVIDE WIDTH FOR BIKE LANE BUFFERSINSTALL DASHED BIKE LANE ACROSS DRIVEWAYUS 101 OVERCROSSINGBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPINSTALL DASHED BIKE LANE ACROSS DRIVEWAYINSTALL DASHED BIKE LANETHROUGH INTERSECTIONSHORTEN LEFT TURNPOCKET TO 50' TOPROVIDE WIDTH FORBUFFERED BIKE LANESEXTEND BUFFERED BIKE LANES WEST OFWALNUT UNDER US 101 OVERCROSSING CHORROMILLSTOPSTOPSTOP CHORROPEACH STOPSTOPSTOPCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:15ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE:MATCH LINE 26MATCH LINE 27MATCH LINE 25MATCH LINE 26 1" = 20'N1" = 20'N BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 316 BROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPINSTALL SHARROW MARKINGSTHROUGH INTERSECTIONBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPINSTALL SHARROW MARKINGSTHROUGH INTERSECTIONBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOP CHORROPALMCHORRO MONTEREY CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:16ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: MATCH LINE 27 1" = 20'N BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD1" = 20'N MATCH LINE 28PROJECT LIMITSMATCH LINE 28 CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 316 BICYCLE BOULEVARDPAVEMENT MARKINGBICYCLE BOULEVARDPAVEMENT MARKINGBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike Blvd STOPSTOPPEDXINGBUMP BROADSTOPONLYRAMONACITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:1ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD SHEET TITLE:2CLASS IV BIKE FACILITY(TWO-WAY CYCLE TRACK) ALONGNORTH SIDE OF RAMONA DRIVEMATCH LINE 1 BROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPBIKE ROUTEBROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdN1" = 20'REMOVE ON-STREETPARKING ON NORTHSIDE OF RAMONABROAD STREET TO FOOTHILL CONNECTION OPTION A: RAMONA CYCLE TRACK & CLASS I PATH THROUGH CHURCH FIELD FOOTHILLBUMPXINGPEDBUMP CHURCH OF LATTERDAY SAINTSPROPERTYRAMONADRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:2ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD SHEET TITLE:2N1" = 30'PROJECT LIMITSMATCH LINE 1STRIPING TO PROVIDEBIKE "EXIT/MERGE"ONTO RAMONABROAD STREETCity of San Luis ObispoBike BlvdCROSS TRAFFICDOES NOT STOPSTOPCLASS I BIKE PATH CONNECTING RAMONACYCLE TRACK TO FOOTHILL BLVDCROSS TRAFFICDOES NOT STOPSTOPWAYFINDING SIGNAGEUSE GREEN PAVEMENT TOINCREASE VISIBILITY OF BIKEFACILITY ACROSS DRIVEWAYSCLASS IV BIKE FACILITY(TWO-WAY CYCLE TRACK)BROAD STREET TO FOOTHILL CONNECTION OPTION A: RAMONA CYCLE TRACK & CLASS I PATH THROUGH CHURCH FIELD BROADWAIT HERE FOOTHILLDRIVEWAY CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:1ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD BROAD STREET TO FOOTHILL CONNECTION OPTION B:SHEET TITLE:1N1" = 20'WIDEN EAST SIDE OF BROAD STREET APPROACHINGFOOTHILL BOULEVARD TO PROVIDE WIDTH FOR BIKESLOT (REQUIRES UTILITY & TREE RELOCATION ANDEASEMENT OR RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION)ELIMINATE OR RELOCATE EXISTINGCOMMERCIAL LOADING ZONE ON NORTHSIDE OF BROAD STREETPROVIDE A BIKE BOX WITH GREENPAVEMENT MARKING TO IMPROVE SAFETYAND COMFORT FOR BICYCLISTS MAKINGLEFT TURN MANEUVER FROM NORTHBOUNDBROAD TO WESTBOUND FOOTHILLBROAD STREET & FOOTHILL BOULEVARD BIKE BOX FOOTHILL BLVDCHORRO STMEINECKE AVEMURRAY AVEMISSION STCENTER STLINCOLN STRAMONA DRBENTON WY101BROAD STBROAD STLEGENDExisting Street LightingProposed Street Lighting250'Recommended street light pole spacing for thistype of street is every 200-250' per CityEngineering StandardsStreet LightingCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:SHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: NNOT TO SCALEBROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD STREET LIGHTING RECOMMENDATIONS MOUNTAIN VIEWWEST STVENABLE ST 9,700 (+3,885) [+67%]9,845 (+3,530) [+56%]725 (-3,490) [-83%]700 (-2,730) [-80%]BROAD LINCOLN 2,925 (+1,650) [+129%]6,405 (+1,820) [+40%]905 (+430) [+90%]515 (+300) [+136%]LEGENDExisting Speed Hump(Can be converted to Speed Cushion)New Speed CushionNew Neighborhood Traffic CircleBypass Route w/ NB Bike Lane(Almond Street “Wiggle)Extend Chorro St. Buffered Bike LanesXX (XX%)Daily Traffic Traffic Volume(Net Change) [% Change] from ExistingNew Traffic Diverter(Arrow Indicates Direction Traffic Shifted)ATTACHMENT 7 – CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC VOLUMES5,095 (-720) [-12%]5,160 (-1,150) [-18%]4,610 (+400) [+9%]4,550 (+1,120) [+33%]BROAD LINCOLN 2,895 (+1,620) [+127%]5,980 (+1,390) [+30%]775 (+300) [+62%]405 (+190) [+86%]LEGENDExisting Speed Hump(Can be converted to Speed Cushion)New Speed CushionChorro Street Reconfigured (One-Way NB)Extend Chorro St. Buffered Bike LanesXX (XX%)Net Daily Traffic Volume(Net Change) [% Change] from ExistingBroad Street Reconfigured (One-Way SB)BROAD STREET TYPICAL CROSS SECTION(ONE-WAY SB FROM MEINECKE TO LINCOLN)BROAD STREET TYPICAL CROSS SECTION(ONE-WAY SB FROM MEINECKE TO LINCOLN)BROAD STREET TYPICAL CROSS SECTION(ONE-WAY SB FROM MEINECKE TO LINCOLN)CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 1(BICYCLE BOULEVARD W/ TRAFFIC DIVERSION)CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 2(BROAD/CHORRO ONE-WAY COUPLET)CHORRO STREET TYPICAL CROSS SECTION(ONE-WAY NB FROM MEINECKE TO LINCOLN) 5,815 (0) [0%]6,315 (0) [0%]4,210 (0) [0%]3,430 (0) [0%]BROAD LINCOLN 1,280 (0) [0%]4,590 (0) [0%]475 (0) [0%]215 (0) [0%]LEGENDExisting Speed Hump(Can be converted to Speed Cushion)New Speed CushionNew Neighborhood Traffic CircleBypass Route w/ NB Bike Lane(Almond Street “Wiggle)Extend Chorro St. Buffered Bike LanesXX (XX%)Daily Traffic Traffic Volume(Net Change) [% Change] from ExistingChicanesATTACHMENT 7 – CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC VOLUMESCONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 3(BICYCLE BOULEVARD W/ NO TRAFFIC DIVERSION)