HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Reading File - Final Report (Lincoln Alt)Final Report (January 2018)
LINCOLN STREET ALTERNATIVE
(MINIMAL PARKING LOSS)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative)i January 2018 Table of Contents I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 About the Plan ............................................................................................................................. 1 Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................................... 2 Project Goal and Objectives ......................................................................................................... 3 Relationship to Other Plans, Projects and Programs ................................................................... 3 II.Project Description ................................................................................................................. 6Design Elements ........................................................................................................................ 10 Designing for All Ages and Ability Levels ................................................................................... 15 Future Components ................................................................................................................... 16 III.Analysis of the Project ......................................................................................................... 17Traffic Access & Circulation ....................................................................................................... 17 Parking Considerations .............................................................................................................. 18 Benefits to Bicycling ................................................................................................................... 19 Benefits to Pedestrian & Streetscape Environment ................................................................... 22 Neighborhood Quality Considerations ....................................................................................... 24 Overall Ability to Support Project Goals & Objectives ................................................................ 25 IV.Project Development Process ............................................................................................. 26Community Outreach and Engagement ..................................................................................... 26 V. Cost Estimates, Phasing and Performance Monitoring Strategies .................................. 28 Phasing Plan and Cost Estimates .............................................................................................. 28 Performance Monitoring Program .............................................................................................. 30 Appendix A: Concept Design Plan Sheets Appendix B: Traffic & Parking Analysis TABLES Table 1: General Plan Circulation Element Modal Split Objectives ................................................. 3 Table 2: Project Design Elements ................................................................................................. 10 Table 3: Neighborhood Traffic Assessment .................................................................................. 17 Table 4: Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Definitions and Types of Bicyclists ..................................... 20 Table 5: Project Phasing and Planning-Level Cost Estimates ....................................................... 28 Table 6: Performance Monitoring Program ................................................................................... 30 FIGURES Figure 1: Project Study Area ........................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2: Recommended Traffic Speeds and Volumes for Mixed-Flow Street ................................ 2 Figure 3: Project Summary Map ...................................................................................................... 7 Figure 4: Recommended Typical Street Cross Sections ................................................................. 8 Figure 5: Types of Transportation Bicyclists in San Luis Obispo ................................................... 15 Figure 6: Map of Existing On-Street Parking Conditions ............................................................... 18 Figure 7: Traffic Speeds and Volumes for Mixed-Flow Street with and without Project ................ 19 Figure 8: Level of Traffic Stress Map with and without Project ...................................................... 21 Figure 9: Street Lighting Recommendations ................................................................................. 23
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative) 1 January 2018 I. Introduction About the Plan In early 2016, the City of San Luis Obispo Transportation Public Works Department began working with the community to develop plans for the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard project. Identified as a “First Priority” project in the 2013 City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan, the goal of the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard was to provide a safe, convenient, low-stress through route for bicyclists and pedestrians connecting the City’s downtown core through the historic Anholm Neighborhood to Foothill Boulevard. The intent of this project is to take a major step towards achieving the City’s goal of 20% bicycle mode share by not only improving conditions for pedestrians and experienced bicyclists who are already comfortable frequenting the streets within this area, but to also provide high-quality facilities that can attract new users of all ages and ability levels—such as families with small children and less-experienced cyclists who are interested in using a bicycle for transportation, but are uncomfortable sharing the existing streets with busy motor vehicle traffic. After nearly two years of community outreach, detailed technical analysis and refinement of design alternatives, staff is pleased to present the end-product of these efforts—the Anholm Bikeway Plan. The Plan is organized into the following sections: Introduction – Page 1What is the purpose of this project, why are improvements needed and how does this project relate to other city plans, programs andpolicies?Project Description – Page 6This section describes the proposed project, including the proposed route alignment, example street layouts and design elements.Analysis of the Project – Page 17How does the project support the goal and objectives of this planning effort, and what are the key benefits and trade-offs? This sectionsummarizes the technical analysis conducted for the project, considering potential traffic and parking concerns, benefits to the bicyclingand pedestrian environment, influence on neighborhood quality, and overall ability to support the project goal and objectives.Project Development Process – Page 26How did we get here? This section documents the community outreach activities conducted to develop this plan and summarizes thealternatives development process leading to refinement of the Recommended project.Cost Estimates, Phasing Plan and Performance Monitoring Strategies – Page 28This section presents planning-level cost estimates and summarizes proposed project phasing and performance monitoring strategies.This plan provides a blueprint to guide transportation improvements to create the low-stress route originally envisioned in the Bicycle Transportation Plan and will help create a vital multimodal link that not only accommodates bicyclists and pedestrians, but prioritizes safety and mobility for users of all ages and ability levels. Figure 1: Project Study Area
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative)2 January 2018 Purpose and Need Broad and Chorro Street are key links to the northern area of the city, serving as primary routes for commuters, students, employees and visitors, connecting Foothill Boulevard to Highway 101 and Downtown San Luis Obispo. With few other north-south route options in this area, these streets carry a greater volume of vehicular through-traffic than typically desired for a residential collector street. Traffic volumes on Chorro currently exceed established maximum neighborhood traffic thresholds and traffic speeds along both Chorro and Broad Street exceed the posted 25 mph speed limit by 20 percent or more.1,2 Traffic conditions within this neighborhood have been an ongoing concern for residents, leading to one of the City’s first traffic calming projects in the 1990’s. While many of the traffic calming features installed along Broad and Chorro Streets in the 1990’s were ultimately rejected for various reasons, there remains strong interest for streets that better balance motor vehicle throughput with neighborhood safety and mobility of other street users. High traffic volumes and speeds on Broad and Chorro not only affect neighborhood quality within the Anholm District, but also limit the viability of these streets as attractive routes for bicyclists and pedestrians off all ages and ability levels. While these streets are designated bike routes in the City’s bicycle network and include shared lane markings (“sharrows”) and signage indicating a cyclist’s right to share the road, current traffic conditions create an intimidating environment for many users—particularly families with school-age children, seniors, and less-experienced cyclists who are not comfortable sharing the lane with autos. As Figure 2 shows, existing traffic volumes/speeds exceed the ranges recommended for streets where cyclists and motor vehicles share travel lanes.3 Similarly, the pedestrian infrastructure within this neighborhood requires improvements to meet the needs of users with disabilities and other mobility challenges. Sidewalks are incomplete in several locations, particularly along the west side of Broad Street, accessible curb ramps are missing at several intersections, street lighting is limited, and the desire for intersection crossing enhancements has been expressed by many residents. To meet the City’s goals for increased walk and bike mode share (as discussed later in this section), street modifications are needed to provide an environment that is safe and viable for users who are interested in walking or bicycling more frequently, but are intimidated by the current street environment. 1 The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Circulation Element designates Broad and Chorro Streets north of Highway 101 as Residential Collector Streets. For the purposes of maintaining neighborhood quality along residential streets, the City establishes maximum Average Daily Traffic (ADT) threshold of 3,000 veh/day for most residential collector streets, with an increased threshold of 5,000 veh/day for Broad and Chorro Streets north of Highway 101. Existing traffic levels on Chorro exceed 6,000 veh/day. 2 Prevailing vehicular traffic speed refers to the 85th percentile speed, or the speed at which 85 percent of observed drivers are traveling at or below. Thus, 15 percent of observed drivers are traveling above the 85th percentile speed. In 2016, prevailing speeds on Broad Street north of Lincoln Street were measured at 26‐30 mph and at 31 mph along Chorro Street. 3 Source of Recommended Traffic Speed and Volume Thresholds: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). Cyclists on Broad and Chorro often ride within the narrow parking lane, increasing potential for “door zone” collisions Figure 2: Recommended Traffic Speeds and Volumes for Mixed-Flow Street
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative) 3 January 2018 Project Goal and Objectives At the start of the planning process for this project, City staff worked with the community to clearly define the overarching project goal and design objectives required to support that goal. While the proposed project does not include development of a continuous bicycle boulevard, as originally envisioned, the initial goal and design objectives remain relevant to the final project. Relationship to Other Plans, Projects and Programs The Anholm Bikeway Plan supports several key City plans, programs and policies: General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements (2014) – The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan (adopted 2014) provides the overarching vision, goals, policies, and programs for the city and is implemented through city ordinances, regulations, and guidance documents. The General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) call for investment in a safe, multimodal transportation network that provides viable transportation alternatives to help reduce dependence on single-occupant use of motor vehicles. As summarized in Table 1, the Circulation Element establishes modal split objectives to increase the use of alternate forms of transportation, including a goal to achieve 20% mode share for bicycles and 18% mode share for walking, car pools, and other forms of non-single occupancy vehicular use. Project Goal: Develop a safe, low-stress through route serving bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and skill levels connecting the City’s downtown core north to Foothill Boulevard.Design Objectives: Identity/Branding – Utilize signage, markings and other elements to provide a bicycle route with a look and feel that is unique from surrounding streets to communicate that bicycle travel has apriority on the roadway. These design features should encourage people to walk and bike along this route, while alerting drivers to expect to encounter people walking and bicycling.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, andlivability of the neighborhood.Volume Management – Consider measures to separate bicyclists from motor vehicles, and/or explore strategies to reduce/discourage motor vehicle through traffic along a designated route byphysically or operationally reconfiguring access along street segments and intersections. Such treatments should consider potential impacts to emergency vehicles and neighborhood access.Pedestrian Safety & Comfort – Incorporate design features along the boulevard that provide a continuous, accessible, low-stress environment for pedestrians of varying ability levels. Wherefeasible, identify opportunities for streetscape enhancements and green street features to enhance the existing beauty of the neighborhood and improve stormwater management.Crossing Enhancement – Improve accessibility, safety and comfort for bicyclists and pedestrians crossing at intersections.Table 1: General Plan Circulation Element Modal Split Objectives Type of Transportation % of City Resident Trips Motor Vehicles 50% Transit12%Bicycles 20% Walking, Carpools, and other Forms 18%
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative) 4 January 2018 Bicycle Transportation Plan (2013) – The City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) provides for the planning, development, and maintenance of facilities and activities within the city that are safe and convenient for bicyclists of all ability levels, laying out a network of proposed bikeways to connect the city for travel by bike with special emphasis on travel to schools. The BTP includes the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard as a “First Priority” project, and identifies this as the City Bicycle Advisory Committee’s highest ranked bicycle route project in the plan. The BTP includes the overall project in two components: Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Ramona to Highway 101 & Highway 101 to Monterey: Create a bicycleboulevard to serve as the primary low traffic impact north/south through route for bicyclists and pedestriansconnecting the downtown core to neighborhoods north of the downtown core. The alignment follows Broad Streetthroughout, from Monterey Street north to Ramona and the plan notes that traffic calming may be required.Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard – Grade-Separated Crossing at Highway 101: Provide a lower traffic routebypassing downtown core congestion with the addition of a pedestrian/bicycle grade-separated crossing of Highway101 connecting north and south segments of Broad Street. Implementation of the grade-separated crossing willrequire removal of the Highway 101 ramps at Broad Street by Caltrans.The BTP proposes several other bicycle facility improvements within the vicinity of the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard, including another planned bicycle boulevard on Cerro Romauldo from Patricia to Ferrini, bike lanes on Highland, and intersection enhancements on Foothill at Patricia, La Entrada, and Ferrini. City of San Luis Obispo Major City Goals (2017-19) – As part of each two-year financial plan, the City Council identifies Major City Goals. These represent the most important, highest priority goals for the City to accomplish over the next two years, and as such, the resources to accomplish them are prioritized in the financial plan components. One of the four Major City Goals established in conjunction with the 2017-19 Financial Plan focuses on improving Multi-modal Transportation—specifically, to prioritize implementation of the Bicycle Transportation Plan, pedestrian safety improvements, and the Short-Range Transit Plan. Vision Zero – The message of Vision Zero—adopted as policy by the San Luis Obispo City Council in 2016—is simple: one death on our city streets is too many. Rather than accepting traffic-related deaths as “accidents” and singularly faulting road users, the Vision Zero initiative places the core responsibility for traffic safety on proper street system design, enforcement and public education. The premise is that humans are fallible and will make mistakes—properly designed transportation systems can help minimize the consequences and severity of these mistakes when they do occur. Through data-driven analysis, innovative street improvements, strategic traffic enforcement and education, the City of San Luis Obispo is committed towards a goal of zero traffic-related deaths or severe injuries by 2030. A key focus of the City’s Vision Zero initiative is to prioritize safety improvements for locations with higher potential for collisions involving vulnerable road users, such as bicyclists, pedestrians, small children, the elderly and those with disabilities. WHAT IS A BICYCLE BOULEVARD? A “bicycle boulevard” is shared roadway that creates an attractive, convenient, and comfortable bicycling environment that is welcoming to cyclists of all ages and skill levels. The low-speed/traffic environment created by bicycle boulevards is not only attractive to bicyclists, but also to pedestrians. Bicycle boulevards are designated and designed to shift priority from vehicles to bicycles. Bicycle boulevards can be designed at different levels depending on the context of the street, and the effects desired by the community. The levels range from basic treatments, such as simple striping and signage, to more significant design elements, such as diverters and closures to reduce vehicle speeds/volumes and improve the safety and comfort of the bicycling environment. Many of the treatments associated with bicycle boulevards not only benefit people on bicycles, but also help create and maintain “quiet” streets that benefit residents and improve safety for all road users.
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative) 5 January 2018 Safe Routes to School Plan for Bishop’s Peak & Pacheco Elementary Schools – In August of 2017, City Council adopted a Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Improvements Plan for Bishop’s Peak and Pacheco Elementary, two schools located in the northern portion of the City. The purpose of the SRTS Plan was to identify specific transportation improvements, education, outreach and enforcement strategies to make walking and bicycling to Bishop’s Peak and Pacheco Elementary Schools safe, accessible, and attractive options for children and their families. While the SRTS Plan is separate from this effort, what it envisions is complementary to this plan to improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists of all ages and ability levels from the downtown to the Anholm District and other neighborhoods to the north. Two of the highest priority projects included in the SRTS Plan provide significant benefits to pedestrian and bicycle mobility by continuing the connection between the route developed in this plan (Anholm Bikeway Plan) and the neighborhoods north of Foothill Boulevard: Foothill Boulevard & Ferrini Road Crossing Enhancement – Addition of a controlledpedestrian/bicycle crossing on Foothill Boulevard at Ferrini. Improvements feature addition of a highvisibility crossing markings, warning signage, and installation of a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (a.k.a.“HAWK”) at this intersection to provide a dedicated crossing phase for cyclists and pedestrians.Where warrants prevent the installation of standard traffic signals, the pedestrian hybrid beaconprovides an alternative that provides a controlled crossing phase for pedestrians and bicyclists, butstops road traffic only as needed.Ramona Drive to Foothill Boulevard Class I Path – This project is aimed at addressing the difficultwalking and bicycling environment along Ramona and Foothill due to high traffic volumes and speeds.Limited bicycle accommodations at the Foothill/Broad intersection and lack of other controlled crossings along Foothill further impact connectivity between the neighborhoods north and south of Foothill. The proposed improvements include construction of a Class I Bicycle/Pedestrian Path along the eastern edge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS) property between Ramona and Foothill. This will provide a low-volume/low-stress alternative to Broad and Foothill. At the north end, this path will align with the enhanced crossing proposed at Foothill & Ferrini. Implementation of this project would require an agreement between the City and LDS Church for an access easement or right-of-way acquisition. Potential Class I Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Between Foothill and Ramona Potential Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK) at Foothill & Ferrini
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative) 6 January 2018 II. Project DescriptionA variety of route alignments and design features were considered in developing the final concept for the Anholm Bikeway. The final recommended project includes the following primary features: Route Alignment: Starting from Monterey Street (Mission Plaza) at the south end, the designated route follows Chorro Street north to LincolnStreet; Lincoln Street east from Chorro to Mission Street; Mission Street west from Chorro to Broad Street; Broad Street from Mission north toRamona Drive; Ramona Drive west to the proposed SRTS Class I Pedestrian/Bicycle Path, then north to connect with a planned enhancedbicycle/pedestrian crossing at the Foothill Boulevard/Ferrini Drive intersection. The alignment of the designated route is intended to maintain aconvenient, direct path for bicyclists and pedestrians, while avoiding the steeper uphill grades on Broad (south of Mission) and Chorro (north ofMission).Bicycle Facilities: The Recommended Project includes addition of protected bike lanes along Chorro from Palm to Lincoln, and designation ofa bicycle boulevard (shared street) along the remainder of the route north to the planned SRTS Class I Bicycle/Pedestrian Path from Ramona toFoothill Boulevard. Protected bike lanes place a physical barrier between drivers and bike riders to improve safety and comfort for cyclists—particularly for less experienced riders and for the many people who are interested in biking more, but have concerns about the safety of sharingthe road with busy motor vehicle traffic. Along the remaining portions of the route, elements such as traffic calming, enhanced pavement markingsand signage will be provided to clearly communicate that these street segments are prioritized for lower-speed bicycle travel.Traffic Calming: Traffic calming measures, such as speed humps/cushions, corner bulbouts, and raised intersections areproposed along the bikeway corridor to address speeding issues that currently exist. The intent of these measures is toreduce motor vehicle speeds to a range consistent with the posted speed limits of these streets (25 mph or less) and toa level more conducive to a walkable, bikeable and livable residential neighborhood.Crossing Enhancements: Intersection crossing enhancements are proposed at several intersections to improve access,safety and comfort for pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers. Crossing enhancements include installation of accessible curbramps, high-visibility crosswalk markings and corner bulbouts.Other Features: Other important features of the proposed project include street lighting enhancements, sidewalkimprovements, streetscape enhancements and green street elements, where feasible, to improve stormwatermanagement within the study area.Figure 3 summarizes the project route alignment and key features, while Figure 4 shows the typical street cross sections along the route. Specific design elements are discussed in further detail below and analysis of the project’s advantages and trade-offs is included in Section III of this document. For detailed concept drawings of full Anholm Bikeway Alignment, see Appendix A.Photo Courtesy of Lisa Jouet
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative) 7 January 2018 Figure 3: Project Summary Map
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative) 8 January 2018 Figure 4: Recommended Typical Street Cross Sections Travel Lane 10’-11’ Travel Lane 10’-11’ Sidewalk (Existing) Sidewalk (Existing) Buffer w/ Physical Barrier 2.5’-3’ Bike Lane 5’-6’ Bike Lane 5’-6’ Buffer w/ Physical Barrier 2.5’-3’ Chorro Street (Palm to Lincoln) NOTE: Street cross section widths represent typical dimensions along designated segments. Details may vary in final designs. Travel Lane 14’ Travel Lane 13’ Sidewalk (Existing) Sidewalk (Existing) *Parking7’ Chorro Street (Monterey to Palm) *Parking Width Transitions to Left-Turn Lane at IntersectionsEast Side of Street
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative) 9 January 2018 NOTE: Street cross section widths represent typical dimensions along designated segments. Details may vary in final designs. Figure 4: Recommended Typical Street Cross Sections (cont.) Safe Routes to School Path (Ramona to Foothill) Bicycle/Pedestrian Path 10’-12’ Shoulder 2’ Shoulder/Lighting 4’-6’ Shopping CenterLDS Church Field Lincoln (Chorro to Mission) / Mission (Chorro to Broad) / Broad (Mission to Ramona) / Ramona (Broad to SRTS Path) Travel Lane 10’-12’ Travel Lane 10’-12’ Parking 7’-8’ Sidewalk (Existing) Sidewalk (Existing) Parking 7’-8’ Dashed centerline to allow drivers to pass bicyclists safely (and legally)
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative) 10 January 2018 Design Elements The project includes a suite of mobility and safety tools that benefit various road users. Key elements of the project are summarized in Table 2 below, while detailed design features are shown on the plan sheets in Appendix A. Table 2: Project Design Elements Design Element Description Benefits Mode Affected Location SIGNAGE Signs create the basic elements of apriority bikeway. Types of signageoften include standard lane/routesigns, branded gateway ortrailblazer signs, and wayfindingsignage to guide users to keydestinations and other bicycleroutes.Helps brand street segment todifferentiate from other streets andreinforce the message of priority forbicycles along a given route.BicyclistsPedestriansApplied at major street crossings,entry points to the bikeway and atkey junctions with other bicycleroutesHIGH-VISIBILITY CROSSING STRIPING & SIGNS “Ladder” crosswalk striping, dashedbike lanes or shared lane markingsthrough intersections, and otherforms of high-visibility striping andsignage.Improves visibility of crossings to allroadway users. Can improve driveryield rates compared to standardcrossing markings.BicyclistsPedestriansMotor VehiclesApplied at major street crossingsalong the designated projectcorridor, such as Broad/Ramona,Chorro/Mission, Chorro/Lincoln.GREEN PAINT Green roadway surface coloring tomark merging zones and potentialconflict areas between bicycles andother roadway users.Can also be used as backing forsharrows and within intersectioncrossing markings for bicyclists.Increases visibility of bicyclefacilities.Alerts drivers and bicyclists topotential conflict areas.Provides branding and wayfindingfor cyclists along priority bicycleroutes.BicyclistsMotor VehiclesApplied within bicycle-vehicleconflict areas through keyintersections.Green backed sharrows providedalong shared street segments toindicate priority for bicyclists.Installed at entry points to protectedbikeways to prevent accidentalmotor vehicle entry.
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative) 11 January 2018 Table 2: Project Design Elements Design Element Description Benefits Mode Affected Location PROTECTED BIKE LANES On-street bikeway with physicalseparation from motor vehicle trafficand distinct from the sidewalk. Maybe one-way or two-way, and may beat street level or sidewalk level.Physical separation can be providedthrough a variety of design features,including raised curbs, on-streetparking, delineator posts, bollards orplanters.Creates a physical barrier betweenbicycles and motor vehicle trafficlanes.Provides the safety and comfort ofoff-street bicycle path with the on-street infrastructure andconnectivity of a bike lane.Removes slower-moving cyclistsfrom auto travel lanes, simplifyingconditions for drivers.BicyclistsProposed along street segmentswhere high vehicle speeds/volumescreate a high-stress environmentfor bicyclists. Proposed Segments: Chorro – Palm to LincolnBUFFERED BIKE LANES Conventional bike lanes with theaddition of a designated bufferspace separating the bicycle lanefrom the adjacent motor vehicletravel and/or parking lane.Provides greater separationbetween motor vehicles andbicyclists.BicyclistsExisting bike lane buffers on Chorroextended between Palm andLincoln.CURB EXTENSIONS (BULB-OUTS) Extension of the sidewalk or curbface into the parking lane at anintersection or mid-block location.Reduces crossing distance andexposure area for pedestrianscrossing at intersections.Provides better visibility betweenpedestrians and motorists.Potential to calm traffic and reducevehicle turning speeds.Provides area for potentialstreetscape and/or green streetenhancements.PedestriansProposed at: Broad/RamonaBroad/MeineckeChorro/WalnutChorro/LincolnChorro/Mission
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative) 12 January 2018 Table 2: Project Design Elements Design Element Description Benefits Mode Affected Location RAISED INTERSECTIONS Raised intersections are flush withthe sidewalk, like an extendedspeed hump, and ensure thatdrivers traverse the crossing slowly.Reinforce slow speeds andencourage motorists to yield topedestrians crossing theintersection.Potential to incorporate stormwaterimprovements as part ofintersection reconstruction.BicyclistsPedestriansMotor VehiclesProposed at Broad/MurraySTREET LIGHTING Well-designed street lightingprovides a continuous, sufficiently litpathway for motorists, bicyclists andpedestrians.Improves nighttime visibility for allroad users and provides perceivedsafety benefits for neighbors.BicyclistsPedestriansMotor VehiclesProposed along Mission, Broad,and Ramona where existing streetlight spacing does not meet CityEngineering Standards.SPEED HUMPS / CUSHIONS Speed humps are traffic calmingdevices that use vertical deflection(typically 2-4 inches high) to slowmotor vehicle traffic.Variations include speed cushions,which include cutouts specificallydesigned to allow wide-axleemergency vehicles to pass throughunimpeded.Provides traffic calming benefits,which enhances neighborhoodquality and improves safety for allusers.Speed cushions reduces motorvehicle speeds with little change toemergency vehicles or bicyclists.BicyclistsPedestriansMotor VehiclesExisting low-deflection speedhumps on Broad between Missionand Meinecke proposed to bereplaced with more effective speedhumps/cushions.New speed cushions on Lincolnbetween Chorro and MissionNew raised crossing on Ramona atSRTS Path.
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative) 13 January 2018 Table 2: Project Design Elements Design Element Description Benefits Mode Affected Location SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS & ACCESSIBLE CURB RAMPS Safe, accessible, continuous, andwell-maintained sidewalks and curbramps are necessary to provide anenvironment that encourageswalking for people of all ages andabilities.Improves accessibility andconnectivity for pedestrians of allages and ability levels.PedestriansADA-compliant curb rampsproposed at several intersectionsalong Broad and Chorro Streetswhere currently missing.Sidewalk installation proposedalong west side of Broad Streetwhere currently missing.GREEN STREET ELEMENTS Green streets incorporate a varietyof design elements, such as streettrees, permeable pavements,bioswales or other landscaping andplantings that improve stormwatermanagement.Provides benefits such as improveddrainage, filtering of stormwaterrunoff, reduced heat island effectand a more pleasant and visuallyappealing environment for walkingand biking.PedestriansWithin widened sidewalks, cornerbulbouts and within raised medianas part of long-term protectedbikeway separation.Chorro Undercrossing Safety & Placemaking Enhancements As part of the community outreach process for this project, staff received several requests from residents for safety improvements along the Chorro Street undercrossing of Highway 101. Although this location serves as a key gateway into Downtown San Luis Obispo, the underpass currently lacks lighting or other amenities needed to provide a comfortable, attractive environment for pedestrians and cyclists at night. This plan recommends installation of safety lighting and potential streetscape improvements to enhance the pedestrian environment under the highway. If construction of these improvements is not feasible as part of Anholm Bikeway Plan implementation—which is possible considering the required costs, design challenges, and need for Caltrans approval/participation for work within the State right-of-way—these improvements could potentially be designed and constructed as part of another City program, such as the newly-created New Streetlight Installation Program, or as a stand-alone capital improvement project. The Chorro/Highway 101 underpass lacks lighting and other amenities necessary to provide a quality pedestrian environment. Pedestrian lighting and streetscape enhancements are recommended to improve pedestrian conditions at this key gateway point to Downtown San Luis Obispo.
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative) 14 January 2018 Bicycle and Pedestrian Intersection Crossing Enhancements The proposed project includes focused improvements at several intersections to provide wayfinding guidance for cyclists, and to improve crossing safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. Recommended treatments include green pavement markings within potential vehicle-bicycle conflict areas, directional pavement markings to convey the path for bicyclists to follow when entering/exiting two-way protected bikeways, corner bulbouts to shorten crossing exposure for pedestrians, and high-visibility crosswalk markings to improve driver awareness of pedestrians at key crossing locations. Improvements at Chorro/Walnut to enhance crossing safety for bicyclists and pedestrians.Bulbouts, widened sidewalks, high-vis crosswalk markings and other pedestrian improvements at Broad/Meinecke/RamonaPavement markings and signage at intersections help with bicycle wayfinding and convey bicycle priority for streets along the proposed route. Corner bulbouts slow vehicle turning movements and shorten crossing distance for pedestrians.
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative) 15 January 2018 Designing for All Ages and Ability Levels As mentioned previously, the City has established goals to increase mode share for alternative forms of transportation, including goals to increase bicycle mode share from current levels (6-8%) to 20%. Many community benefits are achieved by increasing mode share for active forms of transportation (walking and biking), from benefits to community health with increased physical activity, to contributions towards reducing parking demand, traffic congestion, fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. To achieve these mode shift goals, it is important to first understand existing travel behavior within the community and the primary barriers that prevent people from bicycling more often. Regardless of whether actual bicycle collisions have occurred on a given street, studies and local surveys show that the perception of unsafe conditions is often the most significant barrier to bicycling for the majority of San Luis Obispo residents. For the purposes of bicycle system planning, the general population of a community can be classified into four types of transportation bicyclists. These four types of users and the corresponding percent of City of San Luis Obispo residents who identify with each classification, as estimated based on local travel survey data, are summarized in Figure 5.4 As shown in Figure 5, 18% of San Luis Obispo residents fall within the “No Way No How” category—they do not currently bicycle and have little interest in doing so. Similarly, 18% fit the “Strong and Fearless” description, and will likely bike regardless of what facilities are provided. The remaining 64% of residents fall into the “Enthusiastic and Confident” or “Interested but Concerned” categories—less experienced and intermediate riders who are interested in bicycling for transportation, but do not feel comfortable riding in mixed traffic on many streets, or even within striped bike lanes on busier streets. Attracting these riders offers the greatest potential to increase bicycle mode share. Not all bicycle facilities are created equal—a painted line dividing cyclists from busy motor vehicle lanes, or sharrows placed within a travel lane on a higher volume/speed street might be acceptable for “Strong and Fearless” riders, and perhaps some “Enthusiastic and Confident” cyclists. However, the remaining people interested in cycling will generally choose to drive if the type of low-stress bike facilities that they feel safe using are not available. If the City is to make progress towards its goal to reach 20% bicycle mode share, it stands to reason that strategic investments should be made in the types of bicycle infrastructure—low stress facilities—that have potential to not only benefit the existing rider population, but expand it significantly by attracting the “Enthusiastic and Confident” and “Interested but Concerned” riders. When designed appropriately, facilities like protected bike lanes, separated paths, and low-traffic shared streets—like those recommended in this plan—have a well-established history of increasing bicycle safety and mode share and have become a best practice for communities that support these goals. 4 Source: 2013 Bicycle Use Survey Results, San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), October 2013.
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative) 16 January 2018 Future Components There are several improvements that have been requested by the community, presented in other plans, or recommended by staff that relate to the Anholm Bikeway Plan, but due to costs or other constraints, are not recommended at this time. These improvements may be studied further and potentially implemented in the future as part of other City programs or as stand-alone projects. These include the following: Closure of Highway 101/Broad Street Ramps & Grade-Separated Pedestrian/Bicycle Crossing of Highway 101 – Asdiscussed previously, the project description for the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard in the 2013 BTP identifies a future grade-separated bicycle/pedestrian crossing of Highway 101 at Broad Street. Implementation of this crossing will require the ultimateclosure of the Broad Street ramps by Caltrans, which according to recent studies by the City and Caltrans will not be feasible forthe foreseeable future due to resulting impacts to the adjacent interchange at Santa Rosa (Highway 1) and nearby city streets.Major improvements would be needed to address the anticipated impacts at the Santa Rosa (Highway 1) interchange—due to thesignificant costs associated with these improvements, this is not feasible at this time. In addition, construction of a new grade-separated crossing of Highway 101 at Broad Street—most likely a bridge over the highway—would involve significant costs(estimated at several million dollars in the 2013 BTP), which further limits the feasibility of these improvements at this time. Sincethe southern portion of the Anholm Bikeway alignment follows Chorro Street into Downtown, including installation of protected bikelanes along this stretch, the ultimate utility and need for a new crossing at Broad Street and Highway 101 is likely reduced. Thisimprovement is not included as part of the Anholm Bikeway Plan at this time, but the City will continue to work with Caltrans topursue closure of the Broad Street ramps, and will reevaluate the potential for a pedestrian/bicycle crossing at this location in futureyears if closure of the ramps becomes feasible.Safety Improvements at Chorro & Peach Intersection – The intersection of Chorro and Peach has been identified as a highcollision-rate intersection in the City’s annual Traffic Safety Report in several recent years, with a propensity for auto vs. autobroadside collisions due to unsafe east/west turning and through movements from Peach Street onto Broad Street. Several potentialsafety improvements have been evaluated for this location, such as relocation of a utility pole that obstructs sight distance fordrivers, installation of a neighborhood traffic circle, or turn restrictions, but due to the challenging constraints at this intersection,improvements have yet to be implemented. While the Anholm Bikeway Plan proposes striping improvements and accessible curbramps to enhance bicycle and pedestrian crossing safety this intersection, more substantial improvements will need to beimplemented as part another program—likely through the City’s Traffic Safety (Vision Zero) program.Gateway Treatments – Ideally, the Anholm Bikeway will serve as a key bicycle and pedestrian gateway into Downtown San LuisObispo—for residents, students, workers and visitors. With the many proposed downtown revitalization strategies envisioned in therecently-approved Downtown Concept Plan and Mission Plaza Concept Plan, there will likely be additional interest and support forenhancing this northern gateway into Downtown. While not evaluated in detail or included in the project designs or cost estimatesas part of the Anholm Bikeway Plan, it is recommended that additional gateway landmarks, such as attractive entry signage andartwork, or a bicycle/pedestrian count display be considered as part of future improvements to further formalize the Anholm Bikewaycorridor and visually communicate the importance of this route as a priority street for multimodal travel.Count Totems display real-time bicycle and pedestrian volumes along gateway points to key routes. Displays can be customized and configured to show cumulative totals over the course of a year towards a year-end target.The 2013 City Bicycle Transportation Plan envisions a future grade-separated bicycle and pedestrian crossing of Highway 101 at Broad Street. This improvement is not feasible currently and will not be considered until closure of the Broad Street/Highway 101 Ramps by Caltrans.
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative) 17 January 2018 III. Analysis of the ProjectTraffic Access & Circulation The City evaluates vehicular traffic impacts based on roadway segment and intersection congestion/delays as measured using auto Levels of Service (LOS)5, as well as using established maximum daily traffic volume thresholds for residential streets to assess traffic impacts to neighborhood quality of life. For the purposes of assessing potential traffic impacts in conjunction with the Anholm Bikeway project, convenience of property access, collision trends, and potential impacts to emergency services are also considered. To guide this analysis, traffic data was collected in 2016 and 2017, including intersection and roadway volumes (autos, pedestrians and bicycles), speed survey data and collision reports for the most readily available five-year period. Existing traffic data and traffic analysis findings are summarized in more detail in Appendix B. Roadway Segment and Intersection Levels of Service The Recommended Project does not include any features that modify traffic circulation or access, and is expected to have a negligible effect on vehicular traffic capacity/throughput and emergency vehicle operations. For these reasons, roadway segment and intersection operations are anticipated to remain similar to existing conditions. The City has adopted an automobile level of service performance target of LOS D or better for streets affected by the proposed project. For reference purposes, AM and PM peak hour traffic operations were reviewed at intersections and roadway segments along the proposed bikeway route—all study facilities currently operate at acceptable LOS. Neighborhood Traffic The City evaluates potential neighborhood traffic impacts by comparing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes and speeds along residential streets with the corresponding maximum ADT and speed targets established in the City General Plan Circulation Element.6 A proposed project would potentially trigger a neighborhood traffic impact if it would cause residential street traffic volumes or speeds to exceed these established thresholds, or if the project further increases traffic volumes on a street that already exceeds the maximum thresholds under existing conditions. As shown in Table 3, existing traffic levels on Chorro and Lincoln Streets exceed established neighborhood traffic volume thresholds. Further, prevailing speeds on Broad, Chorro and Lincoln Street exceed established maximum neighborhood traffic speed thresholds. The Recommended Project is not expected to trigger any new neighborhood traffic impacts, but has potential to reduce speeds below max thresholds along Broad, Lincoln and Ramona with the traffic calming measures proposed in this plan. 5 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. 6 City General Plan Maximum ADT Targets: Local Streets (1,500 veh/day); Residential Collectors (Minor) (3,000 veh/day; Residential Collectors (Major) (5,000 veh/day). Desired maximum speeds for residential streets are 25 mph. Table 3: Neighborhood Traffic Assessment Max ThresholdExisting /Project ConditionsDesired Max Existing Project ConditionsBroad Street(Meinecke ‐ Mission)Res. Collector 5,0004,2112526‐2723‐24Broad Street(Mission ‐ Lincoln)Res. Collector 5,0003,428253025Chorro Street(Meinecke ‐ Center)Res. Collector 5,0005,816253131Chorro Street(Center ‐ Lincoln)Res. Collector 5,0006,315253131Meinecke Street(Broad ‐ Chorro)Local Res. 1,5001,27725N/AN/AMission Street(Broad ‐ Chorro)Local Res. 1,50047725N/AN/ACenter Street(Broad ‐ Chorro)Local Res. 1,50021725N/AN/AMountain View Street(Broad ‐ Chorro)Local Res. 1,50017025N/AN/ARamona Drive(Broad to Palomar)Res. Collector 5,0004,107253025Lincoln Street(Broad ‐ Chorro)Res. Collector 3,0004,58925N/AN/ALincoln Street(Chorro to West)Local Res. 1,500417253025Vehicle Speeds (mph)Notes:‐ Speeds reported as 85th percentile speeds. Locations that exceed the City's Maximum ADT and Speed Thresholds are highlighted.‐ Proposed Project traffic calming measures anticipated to reduce prevailing speeds by 10‐15%.Segment Street TypeAverage Daily Traffic
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative) 18 January 2018 Driveway Access The Recommended Project is not expected to affect traffic circulation or change the ability of drivers to ingress or egress private driveways along the proposed bikeway route. Parking Considerations Potential parking concerns related to the Recommended Project are evaluated by analyzing on-street parking supply and demand with and without the parking removal proposed by the project within the northern project bounded by Lincoln Street and Ramona Drive. Although the final number of on-street parking spaces impacted by the project may change slightly with final design, based on review of preliminary concepts, on-street parking loss is estimated as follows: Chorro/Lincoln Intersection – 1 legal parking space removed on Lincoln east of Chorro to provide corner bulbouts; andChorro/Mission Intersection – 2 legal parking spaces removed on Mission east and west of Chorro to provide cornerbulbouts;Ramona Drive – 2-3 spaces removed on north side of Ramona to provide access to new SRTS Class I Bicycle/PedestrianPath.To better understand existing on-street parking conditions near these street segments, parking surveys were conducted in fall of 2017 for various days of the week and times of day during a period when local schools and Cal Poly were in session. Parking surveys included inventory of existing on-street parking supply and occupancy during various times of day throughout the vicinity of the proposed Anholm Bikeway. Parking surveys found late evening on a weeknight (12-2 AM) to be the period where on-street parking demand is typically highest—both along Chorro, Lincoln, Broad and Ramona, as well as within the surrounding neighborhood. This peak period was used as a baseline for evaluating project-related parking concerns. Existing parking conditions are mapped visually in Figure 6, with street segments color-coded based on percent occupancy and labels showing the number of available parking spaces on each block. Street segments are highlighted red where peak occupancy exceeds 85%. A parking occupancy rate of 85%-90% is typically considered the “practical capacity” of a street, meaning that there could be a few on-street parking spaces available, but drivers may have a difficult time finding them. When parking demand exceeds the practical capacity, this can lead to drivers “cruising” around the block and increases temptation to park illegally, which could negatively affect neighborhood quality for residents. As shown in Figure 6, there is available on-street parking adjacent to the intersections of Chorro/Lincoln and Chorro/Mission, where removal of 1-2 parking spaces is proposed. Along Ramona Drive, where removal of 2-3 spaces is proposed, there is likely available street parking to accommodate the displaced demand. However, this segment of Ramona Drive is near 100% occupancy. For this reason, additional street parking demand on Ramona may spill over to adjacent streets during peak demand periods—likely to Broad, Meinecke or further west on Ramona. In general, the on-street parking removal proposed as part of this plan is not anticipated to significantly affect parking conditions or availability within the neighborhood. See Appendix B for detailed parking occupancy data.
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative) 19 January 2018 Benefits to Bicycling As mentioned in the Purpose and Need section, existing traffic volumes and speeds along Broad and Chorro Streets exceed the levels recommended for a low-stress street where bicyclists and motor vehicles share travel lanes. While some bicyclists are comfortable riding under these conditions—over 300 bicyclists per day travel Broad, Chorro or Lincoln Streets between downtown and Foothill Boulevard currently—these conditions do not provide the type of bicycling environment conducive to attracting new riders of all ages and ability levels, which is needed to achieve the City’s bicycle mode share objectives. Specific features of the Recommended Project that are designed to contribute to a high-quality, low-stress bicycling environment include: Protected Bike Lanes – Protected bike lanes are proposed along Chorro from Palm to Lincoln byextending existing bike lane buffers and installing physical separation within the buffers.Traffic Calming Elements – Traffic calming elements are proposed along the mixed-flow portions of theproposed bikeway route (Lincoln, Broad, Ramona) where bicyclists and drivers share travel lanes. Theseelements help reduce speeding and improve conditions for bicyclists, pedestrians and residents along thisstreet. Traffic calming elements include installation of new speed cushions, replacement of the existingspeed humps north of Mission with more-effective speed cushions, corner bulbouts several intersections,and a raised intersection at Broad/Murray.Safe Routes to School Class I Path – A Class I Bicycle/Pedestrian Path is proposed between Ramonaand Foothill, completing the continuous low-stress bicycle connection between downtown and FoothillBoulevard. The new path will align with the planned SRTS bicycle/pedestrian crossing at Foothill & Ferrini,linking the Anholm Bikeway with the neighborhoods and destinations north of Foothill, including Bishop’sPeak and Pacheco Elementary Schools and Cal Poly. It should be noted that completion of this path iscontingent on the City establishing an easement or right-of-way agreement with the LDS Church.Branded Route Signage & Markings – Bicycle route signs and pavement markings are proposed at entrypoints to the Anholm Bikeway and along the route to provide wayfinding for cyclists and to brand the routeas a priority bicycle street. Dashed roadway centerlines are proposed to allow drivers to safely (and legally)pass cyclists along mixed-flow segments of Broad and Ramona.High-Visibility Crossing Markings & Green Paint – High-visibility crossing markings and green paintare proposed through key intersection crossings to help bicyclists navigate the designated Anholm Bikeway route and to increase visibility of bicycle-vehicle conflict areas.As shown in Figure 7, the traffic calming measures proposed in this plan are expected to reduce traffic speeds along segments of Lincoln, Broad and Ramona along the bikeway route, bringing motor vehicle speeds closer to the range recommended for a mixed-flow bicycle street where cyclists and drivers share travel lanes. This assumes an effective speed reduction of 10-15% along these segments, which is reasonable based on studies of previous installations. Even with some speed reductions, traffic volumes along the Broad and Ramona portions of the bikeway will remain above the levels recommended for a mixed-flow street. To further evaluate the bicycling environment along the Anholm Bikeway, a bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)7 analysis was conducted for street segments along the proposed corridor. “Traffic stress” is the perceived sense of danger associated with riding in or adjacent to vehicular traffic and is one of the greatest deterrents to bicycling. A bicycle LTS analysis is an objective, data-driven approach to evaluating bikeways that correlates measurable factors such as roadway design, traffic volumes and motor vehicle speeds to typical bicyclist perceptions of comfort and 7 LTS analysis applied using methodology developed by the Mineta Transportation Institute Report II‐19: Low‐Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity (2012). Figure 7: Traffic Speeds and Volumes for Mixed-Flow Street with and without Project
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative) 20 January 2018 willingness to use a given facility. LTS scoring is designed to correspond with the “Four types of Bicyclists” categories (referenced previously in Figure 5), with a range of LTS 1 to LTS 4 representing conditions from lowest stress (LTS 1) to highest stress (LTS 4). In general, bikeways are considered low stress where there is little interaction between cyclists and motor vehicles (i.e. a shared low-volume/speed local street), or where greater degrees of physical separation are provided between a bikeway and motor vehicle traffic (i.e. protected bike lanes or off-street path). LTS scores are defined in Table 4 below, while LTS scores are mapped for the proposed Anholm Bikeway route in Figure 8 for conditions with and without the proposed project. Table 4: Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Definitions and Types of Bicyclists
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative) 21 January 2018 Figure 8: Level of Traffic Stress Map with and without Project As shown above, under existing (“No Build”) conditions, most of the proposed bikeway route scores as LTS 3 or LTS 4—the higher levels of traffic stress. These streets will likely be comfortable advanced and experienced adult cyclists, will likely present an intimidating environment for children and less-experienced adult cyclists. With implementation of the Recommend Project improvements, nearly all the Anholm Bikeway route scores as LTS 1 or LTS 2, proving a low-stress bicycling environment that should appeal to many users. The LTS score improvements at Broad and Ramona are predicated on the effectiveness of proposed traffic calming measures to slow speeds and the addition of a dashed centerline to allow drivers to more easily pass cyclists safely. That said, volumes along Broad and Ramona will continue to exceed levels recommended for a shared street, which may continue to deter less experienced riders—particularly if proposed traffic calming measures are less effective than anticipated, or if implementation of these measures are delayed for an extended period. South of Palm Street, Chorro Street will continue to score as LTS 4 where the dedicated bike lanes end and cyclists are required to operate in a shared street environment with heavier traffic volumes. EXISTING CONDITIONSPROJECT CONDITIONS (WITH TRAFFIC CALMING)Types of Bicyclists in San Luis Obispo Strong and Fearless (18%) – Willing to ride a bicycle on any roadway regardless of traffic conditions. Comfortable taking the lane and riding in a vehicular manner on major streets without designated bicycle facilities. Enthusiastic and Confident (33%) – Bicyclists who are comfortable sharing the roadway with automotive traffic in some instances, but prefer to ride in their own designated bike lane or off-street facility. Interested but Concerned (31%) – Infrequent bicyclists with some inclination towards bicycling more regularly if they felt safer on the roadways. Not very comfortable sharing the road with cars, or riding on major streets, even with a bike lane. Prefer separated pathways or low-traffic neighborhood streets. No Way No How (18%) – Residents who simply aren’t interested in bicycling, for reasons of topography, inability, or simply complete and utter lack of interest. Unlikely to adopt bicycling in any way.
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative) 22 January 2018 Benefits to Pedestrian & Streetscape Environment Connectivity, accessibility, safety and comfort are all important components of a quality pedestrian environment. While many of the primary features of the Anholm Bikeway project focus on improving conditions for bicyclists, the recommended project designs also include substantial elements to improve the quality of the pedestrian environment between downtown and Foothill Boulevard. The project includes the following features to improve the pedestrian environment: Elimination of Sidewalk Gaps – The project recommends installation of sidewalks along Broad Street where gaps currently exist in the pedestrian network, particularly on the west side of BroadStreet.Accessible Curb Ramps – ADA-compliant curb ramps are currently lacking at several intersections along Broad and Chorro Streets. The project includes construction of new ADA curb ramps ateach intersection along the designated route where they are currently lacking.Intersection Crossing Enhancements – The project includes elements intended to improve pedestrian crossing safety and comfort at intersections. High-visibility crosswalk markings arerecommended at key crossing locations, such as Chorro & Lincoln and Broad & Ramona. Corner bulbouts are proposed at several intersections along the Anholm Bikeway route, including at Chorro& Walnut, Chorro & Lincoln, Chorro & Mission, Broad & Meinecke, and Broad & Ramona. Bulbouts provide several benefits to pedestrian safety and comfort, including potential to slow motor vehicleturning speeds, shorten pedestrian crossing distances and increase visibility of pedestrians waiting to cross. A raised intersection is recommended at Broad & Murray to reduce speeds and encouragemotorists to yield to pedestrians crossing the intersection.Potential for Streetscape Enhancements and Green Street Elements – The project includes potential to improve the streetscape aesthetics and incorporate green street elements at severallocations. Locations where corner bulbouts are proposed, such as at Broad & Ramona and Broad & Meinecke, there will be additional sidewalk area available to incorporate landscaping and/ordrainage improvements to reduce demand on the stormwater system during rain events, which is particularly important considering the proximity of Brizzolara and Old Garden Creeks. In the initialinstallation, locations where protected bike lanes are proposed can include interim features like planter boxes that not only provide physical separation from motor vehicle traffic, but provideopportunities to further beautify the Anholm Neighborhood, where attractive landscaping and lush, well-maintained gardens are commonplace. In the long-term, a raised concrete median is proposedto separate bike facilities from motor vehicle traffic and will have potential for permanent landscaping and stormwater management features.The Recommended Project provides opportunities for streetscape and green street enhancements to beautify the corridor and improve stormwater management benefits during rainy seasons. Design elements considered as part of the project include landscaped corner bulbouts, and bioswales within widened sidewalks and within the potential long-term raised median separating the protected bikeways from motor vehicle traffic.
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative) 23 January 2018 Buffer from Motor Vehicle Traffic – The protected bike lanes proposed for Chorro between Palm and Lincoln havepotential to improve not only the bicycling environment, but the pedestrian environment as well. Protected bike lanescreate a continuous buffer between sidewalks and motor vehicle travel lanes—a buffer that improves pedestrian comfortthat can be lacking along streets where on-street parking lanes do not exist, or have low utilization. Protected bike lanescan also visually narrow the perceived roadway width for drivers, which can help reduce motor vehicle speeds. Becausethe potential risk for severe injury or death in pedestrian vs. motor vehicle collisions increases exponentially as vehiclespeeds increase, it is important to endeavor to achieve speeds within the project study area conducive to a walkable,residential district (25 mph or less).Street Lighting – The project recommends installation of new streetlighting at the Highway 101/Chorro undercrossing,and at several locations along Mission, Broad, and Ramona where existing lighting does not meet City standards.Pedestrian-scaled street light poles are proposed for the Highway 101/Chorro undercrossing, while an additional four (4)cobra-head LED street lights are proposed to be mounted to existing power poles throughout the neighborhood so thatthe corridor lighting is consistent with City standards. Existing and proposed street lighting are shown in Figure 9.The risk of pedestrian fatality increases significantly when speeds exceed 30 mph. Source: Smart Growth America, Dangerous by Design 2014.Figure 9: Street Lighting Recommendations
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative) 24 January 2018 Neighborhood Quality Considerations When evaluating the potential benefits and trade-offs of the Anholm Bikeway project, it is important to not only assess the effects of the project on users traveling through the planned route, but to also consider the specific effects—both positive and negative—on the neighborhood that the proposed bikeway travels through. Potential positive and negative effects to neighborhood quality associated with the Anholm Bikeway are summarized as follows: Potential Benefits to Neighborhood Quality Traffic Volumes and Circulation Unchanged – The project includes design elements that retain existing traffic circulation and access within the Anholm neighborhood, creating little-to-no effect onvehicular through traffic, property access or emergency service response.Improved Safety Lighting – To address concerns with lack of night lighting within the Anholm neighborhood, the Recommended Project includes addition of pedestrian-scaled street lighting at theHighway 101/Chorro undercrossing, as well as addition of several energy efficient LED street lights on Mission, Broad and Ramona to fill in the gaps in the lighting network and provide a continuouslylit path that bicyclists, pedestrians and drivers can feel safe navigating at night. The new street lights will be spaced consistent with City standards for residential streets and will provide a level ofillumination consistent with the existing neighborhood street lighting.Traffic Calming – High motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds can negatively impact the neighborhood quality along a residential street. As shown previously in the Neighborhood TrafficAssessment section (See Table 3), the proposed project includes traffic calming features to reduce speeding along several street segments. In addition, a monitoring plan will be implemented afterinstallation of the initial project elements to observe traffic volumes and speeds within the study area to identify if additional traffic calming measures are warranted in the future.Improved Walkability – The project includes addition of accessible curb ramps, enhanced intersection crossings, reduced sidewalk gaps and other amenities to contribute to a quality walkableneighborhood environment.Safer Passing of Cyclists – Currently, Chorro Street, Broad Street and Ramona Drive feature continuous double-yellow centerlines, which prohibit drivers from crossing into the opposing lane topass other road users. This can lead to frustration for both motorists and bicyclists sharing the travel lanes. Motorists are inconvenienced when following slower-moving bicyclists, and bicyclists areuncomfortable getting tail gated or passed closely faster-moving traffic. The Recommended Project replaces the solid center lines with a dashed single stripe along the bikeway route to allow driversto cross into the opposing lane (when safe to do so) to pass cyclists safely, courteously, and legally.Benefits of a Walkable, Bikeable Neighborhood – The benefits of high-quality pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure are well-documented, from community health benefits associated with increasedopportunity for physical activity, to reduced traffic congestion and improved safety for all road users. Investment in walkable and bikeable neighborhoods has also been found to provide economicbenefits for properties located within proximity of these facilities.88 Sources: How Much is a Point of Walk Score Worth, Redfin.com. August 3, 2016. Property Value/Desirability Effects of Bike Paths Adjacent to Residential Areas, Racca, et al., Delaware Center for Transportation, University of Delaware. November 2016. Measuring the Street: New Metrics for 21st Century Streets. New York City Department of Transportation. 2012. Bicycling Means Business: How Cycling Enriches People and Cities, StreetsblogUSA.com. March 8, 2013.
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative) 25 January 2018 Aesthetics – The residents of the historic Anholm District clearly take pride in their neighborhood, with attractive street trees, landscaping and beautiful gardens lining each street. The design of theproposed project will include elements that are intended to compliment the unique aesthetics of the existing neighborhood. Sidewalk improvements and corner bulbouts will provide potential to installadditional landscaping and/or green street treatments and the City will consider the aesthetic context of the neighborhood when considering new guide signage and pavement markings.Overall Ability to Support Project Goals & Objectives The Anholm Bikeway Plan diverges in some ways from the concept originally envisioned for this route in the 2013 BTP, as the project does not propose a continuous bicycle boulevard or follow Broad Street exclusively. Still, the Recommended Project supports the project goal to create a safe, low-stress route that serves bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and skill levels connecting the City’s downtown core north to Foothill Boulevard. The specific design elements identified in this plan are generally consistent with the design objectives initially established for this project, with unique features that brand the Anholm Bikeway as a priority bicycle corridor, traffic calming measures to reduce motor vehicle speeds, features that reduce conflicts between bicyclists and motor vehicles, and elements that improve accessibility and safety for pedestrians. The proposed project is anticipated to produce negligible impacts to traffic circulation or neighborhood parking, and includes many significant benefits to bicycle and pedestrian safety and mobility and will represent a noticeable improvement over existing conditions. However, it should be noted that the following features of the proposed bikeway may somewhat limit the ultimate ability of this project to generate significant increases in bicycle ridership: The Lincoln Street segment of the route alignment has limited visibility and increases the average bicycle trip length between Downtown and Foothill Boulevard (compared to traveling via ChorroStreet). Of the 300+ cyclists per day who currently travel between Downtown and Foothill Boulevard, about 12% use Lincoln Street. The addition of enhanced guide signage, bikeway markings andtraffic calming may increase the attractiveness and awareness of this route, but the potential for this route to generate significant shifts in bicycle mode share uncertain.Traffic volumes along the Broad Street and Ramona Drive segments of the proposed bikeway will remain above levels recommended for mixed-flow traffic, where bicyclists and drivers share travellanes. Implementation of additional traffic calming and a dashed centerline to encourage safe/legal passing of cyclists will improve the bicycling environment on these segments, but the frequentconflicts with passing autos will likely continue to deter some “Interested but Concerned” riders.
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative) 26 January 2018 IV. Project Development ProcessCommunity Outreach and Engagement Development of this plan included an extensive community-based public engagement effort, focused on understanding the key needs and priorities of residents and stakeholders. Major components of this community outreach effort include: Public Meetings Community Meetings – Four (4) community meetings were held at the City/County Library over the course of the two-yearlong project planning process. This process included an initial project kick-off meeting, an interactive design charrette to allowattendees to draw up their desired plans for the street improvements, a meeting to present preliminary project alternatives,and a final neighborhood meeting to present plans and invite feedback on the final recommendations for the Anholm BikewayPlan.Informal Field Visits – In addition to formal public meetings, City Transportation Staff also conducted several in-person sitevisits to tour the study area and answer questions from residents, business owners and other stakeholders who may not havebeen able to attend prior community meetings. Staff also joined a group of Bishop’s Peak and Pacheco Elementary Schoolparents and students for a bicycle tour following their typical routes to/from school along Broad and Chorro Streets.Bicycle Advisory Committee Meetings – The City Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) consists of seven members who mustbe residents of the City, and provides oversight and policy decisions on matters related to bicycle transportation. The BACreceived presentations from staff on the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard/Anholm Bikeway Plan during the preliminaryalternatives development stage, and again with submittal of the final concept plan. The BAC solicited public comments frommeeting attendees and ultimately provided staff with feedback and recommendations to carry forward to the City Council.City Council Hearings – During the alternatives development stage, a City Council Study Session was held to present severaldesign options considered for the proposed bikeway. The Study Session was well-attended and provided an opportunity forthe Council and the public to learn more about the project and provide input on the benefits and trade-offs associated withvarious project alternatives. The Final Anholm Bikeway Plan was presented for Council consideration and adopted inXXXXXXXX, 2018.Project Website A project website (www.peakdemocracy.com/3444) was created at the onset of this planning process and has been used throughout development of the plan to provide updates, access to project materials, and to serve as an open forum for community members to leave feedback. As of December 2017, the project website has received over 1,300 unique visitors and has 175+ comments in the online forum. In developing this plan, public outreach efforts included community meetings, in-person site tours, bike to school ride-a-longs, an interactive design charrette, and an online comment forum via the project website.
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative) 27 January 2018 Alternatives Development The road to the final concept plan for the Anholm Bikeway project is long and involved development and analysis of many potential project alternatives and variants. During the spring and summer of 2017, three preliminary project alternatives were presented to the community, BAC and City Council for consideration. The alternatives provided three distinct options for the most challenging portion of the bikeway between Lincoln Street and Ramona Drive, each with its own unique benefits, challenges and trade-offs. Alternatives included (Alt 1) a traditional bicycle boulevard with traffic diverters and a continuous route along Broad Street, (Alt 2) conversion of Broad and Chorro Streets to single-lane, one-way couplets to provide width for protected bike facilities, and (Alt 3) a “minimal change” alternative that included only minor route markings, signage and traffic calming elements. Each alternative was defined and analyzed in detail and the findings were shared in an Alternatives Screening Report (available on the project website). To supplement the input provided at previous community meetings and via the project’s web forum during the alternatives development process, Transportation Staff conducted surveys of residents to gauge support for any of the three proposed project alternatives and to better understand the specific features that the community liked or disliked. An online survey was made available for citywide participation via the project webpage, while a mail-in survey was distributed to approximately 1,200 residents in the Broad and Chorro neighborhood. In total, nearly 500 survey responses were received. The results of this survey, which are shown below, were presented during the City Council Study Session referenced above. Based on the survey responses, Alternative 1 (traditional bicycle boulevard with traffic diversion) received the least support both citywide and within the Broad/Chorro neighborhood. Per the online citywide survey, Alternative 2 (two-way conversion with protected bikeways) was the most popular option, receiving 44% of the total votes—nearly double that of the second ranking option. Within the neighborhood, there was not a clear consensus for a preferred option, with 37% of participants indicating that “No Project Alternative is Acceptable”, 30% of participants indicating support for Alternative 3 (markings, signage and traffic calming only), and 27% supporting Alternative 2. Upon review of the preliminary alternatives, the Alternative 2 was identified as the BAC’s preferred alternative—primarily because this alternative included protected bicycle facilities, which the group believed would provide the greatest potential to improve bicycling within the city. After reviewing the various project options and receiving input from the community at a well-attended Council Study Session, the City Council ultimately recommended that staff carry forward two variants of the preliminary alternatives for refinement. Public comments received from Anholm Neighborhood residents during the Council Study Session reflected a general theme of opposition to any project features that would impact vehicular traffic access or circulation within their neighborhood; thus, the two alternatives to be carried forward did not include features that would significantly change traffic circulation or access: Preferred Alternative – An option that includes partial removal of on-street parking on segments of Chorro andBroad Streets to provide dedicated/protected bike lanes without removing vehicular travel lanes or impactingtraffic circulation.Secondary Alternative – A “minimal parking loss” option that uses Lincoln Street and establishes a bicycleroute with features such as enhanced markings, signage and minor traffic calming that can be easily implemented and does not substantially affect street parking or traffic circulation. The “Secondary Alternative” carried forward from the Council Study Session represents the final concept represented in this plan. Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard Project – Alternatives Analysis Community Preference Survey Results (as of 8/1/17) Community surveys were distributed both citywide and to the Anholm Neighborhood within vicinity of the proposed bikeway to gauge support for preliminary project alternatives.
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative) 28 January 2018 V. Cost Estimates, Phasing and Performance Monitoring Strategies Phasing Plan and Cost Estimates Project improvements are expected to be implemented in phases, with each series of improvements prioritized based on several factors, including overall benefit to bicycle and pedestrian safety and mobility, desire for each improvement based on community input, and costs. Planning-level cost estimates were developed for the improvements identified in each phase and are summarized in Table 5 below. Table 5: Project Phasing and Planning-Level Cost Estimates PhaseImprovementsCostConstructionYearPHASE 1‐ Safe Routes to School Linkage•SRTS Class I Path (Ramona to Foothill)‐‐ROW & Construction•SRTS Crossing at Foothill/Ferrini•Raised Crossing & Bulbouts on Ramona at SRTS Path Crossing$850,000(2)2018‐19PHASE 2‐ Anholm Bikeway Primary Features‐ US 101/Chorro Undercrossing Enhancements•US 101/Chorro Undercrossing Lighting•Chorro Protected Bike Lanes (Downtown to Lincoln) ‐ Interim Materials•Bikeway Route Signage and Markings•Chorro/Lincoln & Chorro/Mission Bulbouts ‐ Interim Materials•New Speed Cushions$425,000 2019‐22$1,325,000PHASE 3‐ Remaining Improvements•Broad/Meinecke/Ramona Bulbouts ‐ Permanent Materials•Chorro/Lincoln & Chorro/Mission Bulbouts ‐ Permanent Materials•Broad/Murray Raised Intersection•New Sidewalk Installations (west side of Broad)•Chorro/Walnut & Chorro/Peach Pedestrian Crossing Improvements•ADA Curb Ramps (Remaining Locations)$1,560,000 TBD$2,885,000Subtotal (Phase 1‐2)TOTAL (Construction of All Plan Improvements)Notes:1.Costs and phasing are preliminary and represent planning‐level estimates. Final project costs and timing of improvements subject to refinement in design stage.2.Phase 1 includes improvements planned as part of the Bishop's Peak/Pacheco Elementary Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) Plan. Phase 2 improvements fundedthrough combination of Anholm Bikeway and Safe Routes to School CIP Project funds.2.City of SLO 2017‐19 Financial Plan includes $558,000 allocated for Anholm Bikeway (Broad St. Bike Boulevard) and $343,000 allocated for Safe Routes to Schoolproject implementation through FY2019‐20. A suplemental budget request will be required to fully fund all Phase 1‐2 improvements.3.Phase 3 improvements are anticipated to remain unfunded within the current 5‐year funding horizon. Remaining components will be implemented based onavailability of future grant and CIP funds.CITY TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH CALTRANS TO PURSUE CLOSURE OF THE HIGHWAY 101/BROAD STREET RAMPS
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative) 29 January 2018 Phase 1 will include implementation of the highest-priority features at the north end of the corridor—improvements that will support safe routes for families walking and biking to Bishop’s Peak and Pacheco Elementary Schools. This includes construction of the planned bicycle/pedestrian crossing of Foothill Boulevard at Ferrini, right-of-way acquisition and construction of the Class I Bicycle/Pedestrian Path between Ramona and Foothill, and construction of a raised crossing on Ramona Drive at the entry to the new Safe Routes to School Path. Improvements for this phase are expected to be funded through a combination of SRTS and Anholm Bikeway project funds. Phase 2 will include installation of safety lighting at the Highway 101/Chorro Street undercrossing, and implementation of essential features required to establish the Anholm Bikeway between Downtown and Ramona Drive, including all bike route markings and signage. For this phase, installation of corner bulbouts at Chorro/Lincoln and Chorro/Mission, as well as the installation of protected bikeway separation on Chorro south of Lincoln will be constructed using lower-cost, temporary materials, to allow for monitoring, testing and refinement prior to installation of permanent construction. During the interim installation, protected bikeway separation will likely be provided with flex posts and rubber curbing, while the permanent installation is proposed to include raised concrete curbing. Similarly, corner bulbouts may be installed using colored pavement markings and flex posts for an interim period before construction of permanent bulbouts with concrete and landscaping. Example images of interim and permanent treatments are shown below. Phase 3 includes permanent installation protected bikeway elements on Chorro between Palm and Lincoln, and remaining higher-cost civil improvements, such as concrete sidewalks and curb ramps, concrete bulbouts at Chorro/Lincoln, Chorro/Mission and Broad/Ramona/Meinecke, and the raised intersection at Broad/Murray. Ultimately, it won’t be feasible to implement many of these features within the budget currently available to this project. The City may seek additional funds for remaining project features through grant opportunities or as individual capital improvement projects based on available funding over time. While not included as a component of this project, it is important to note that the City will continue to work with Caltrans to pursue the closure of the Highway 101/Broad Street ramps. Protected bike lane separation and corner bulbouts can be implemented with temporary materials during initial project phases prior to construction using permanent materialsINTERIM PERMANENT
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative) 30 January 2018 Performance Monitoring Program This plan recommends initial implementation of the Anholm Bikeway between Downtown and Ramona Drive as a pilot phase, allowing the opportunity for staff to monitor, evaluate, and refine designs as needed prior to investment in permanent features. This section outlines the recommended components of a Performance Monitoring Program to be conducted in conjunction with Phase 2, the pilot phase for the Downtown-to-Ramona portion of the bikeway route: Table 6: Performance Monitoring Program Monitoring Program Component Description & Purpose Timing/Frequency TRAFFIC VOLUME & SPEED DATA Collect roadway segment Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts in order to identifypotential shifts in traffic patterns associated with the project.Conduct vehicle speed surveys to identify potential changes in motor vehicle speedsassociated with the project.Traffic counts and speed surveys will be conducted along Broad, Lincoln and ChorroStreets between Lincoln and Mission, as well as along nearby streets where potentialshifts in traffic may occur.Before ConstructionAfter Constructiono12 months after Phase 2 ImprovementsBICYCLE RIDERSHIP & PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY Collect bicycle and pedestrian counts to evaluate potential increases/shifts in bicycleridership and pedestrian activity in conjunction with the project. Where feasible,counts will include distribution of cyclists by age (adult vs. children) and gender tostudy potential shifts in user demographics.Daily bicycle and pedestrian volumes to be collected for roadway segments alongAnholm Bikeway route and along parallel bicycling routes.Before ConstructionAfter Constructiono12 months after Phase 2 ImprovementsSAFETY Analyze reported collision data (autos, bikes, pedestrians) to identify potential safetyconcerns and/or trends in conjunction with the project.Collision totals and rates will be tallied for segments along the Anholm Bikeway routeand compared for conditions before and after project implementation.Before Construction (summarize data for most recent 3-year average)After Constructiono12 months after Phase 2 Improvements
Anholm Bikeway Plan Final Report (Lincoln Street Alternative) 31 January 2018 Monitoring Program Component Description & Purpose Timing/Frequency USER SURVEYS Survey TypesoOnline Survey – available to all residentsoIntercept Surveys – in-person survey of bicyclists and pedestrians travelingalong bikewayoResident Surveys – surveys mailed directly to residents living within vicinity ofbikewaySurvey TopicsoBicyclist perceived comfort/safety, route preference, changes to cyclingfrequency, observed issues and suggestions for improvementoPedestrian perceived comfort/safety, route preference, changes to walkingfrequency, challenges and suggestions for improvementoDriver experience and perception navigating route after project implementationoResident perception of project features, parking impacts, benefits/impacts toneighborhood qualityPurpose of surveys is to study user perception of project features and identify areasfor potential design refinement and needs for additional focused education/outreach.After Constructiono12 months after Phase 2 ImprovementsPERFORMANCE MONITORING REPORTING Submit staff report to City Council summarizing findings of the project PerformanceMonitoring ProgramAfter Constructiono14-18 months after Phase 2 Improvements*Additional performance reporting can be conducted in conjunction withPhase 1 and/or Phase 3 improvements, if requested by the City Council.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Anholm Bikeway Plan Appendix A: Concept Design Plan Sheets A-1 January 2018 Appendix A: Concept Design Plan Sheets
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:SHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE:
LINCOLN ALIGNMENT (MINIMAL PARKING LOSS) SUMMARY MAP
SHEET TITLE:JANUARY 2018ANHOLM BIKEWAY PLAN LINCOLN ALIGNMENT (MINIMAL PARKING LOSS)
BROADFOOTHILL CHORROSANTA ROSALINCOLNCHORROBROADRAMONA SERRANO MEINECKEMURRAYWEST
VENABLEMISSIONMISSIONCENTERLINCOLNCENTERALMOND
PEACHMILLPALMWALNUTUS 101BENTONMTN. VIEWCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:SHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE:
SHEET TITLE:
N1" = 350'LINCOLN ALIGNMENT (MINIMAL PARKING LOSS) KEY MAPSHEET 8SHEET
10
SHEET 1
1
SHEET
12SHEET 9SHEET 7
SHEET 1 SHEET 2SHEET 3SHEET 4SHEET 5
SHEET 6
JANUARY 2018ANHOLM BIKEWAY PLAN
STOPXINGPEDCHURCH OF LATTER DAYSAINTS PROPERTYRAMONABUMPBUMP STOPBUMPBUMP
RAMONAPED
XING
CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:1ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE:
SHEET TITLE:N1" = 30'MATCH LINE 112MATCH LINE 2MATCH LINE 1 anholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewayanholmCity of San Luis Ob
ispo bikewaySTOP FOR BIKEWAYSTOP FOR BIKEWAYBULBOUTS AND RAISED CROSSING TOPROVIDE TRAFFIC CALMINGBICYCLE BOULEVARD MARKINGSLINCOLN ALIGNMENT (MINIMAL PARKING LOSS)JANUARY 2018SRTS BIKE PATH CONNECTINGRAMONA TO FOOTHILL BLVDSHOPPING CENTERDRIVEWAYPROJECT LIMITS (FOOTHILL BLVD)EXISTING RAISED CROSSINGANHOLM BIKEWAY PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. FINAL PLANS WILLBE PREPARED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTIONSINGLE DASHED CENTERLINE TOREPLACE EXISTING DOUBLE YELLOWALLOWS VEHICLES TO SAFELY ANDLEGALLY PASS CYCLISTS
STOPSTOPSTOPRAMONA
MEINECKESTOP
BROADCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:2ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE:
SHEET TITLE:
N1" = 20'N1" = 20'MATCH LINE 2MATCH LINE 3NEW ADA CURB RAMPSINSTALL HI-VISCROSSWALKSIDEWALK BULBOUTS WITH POTENTIALFOR GREEN STREET TREATMENTS12BULBOUTS SHORTEN CROSSINGDISTANCE FOR PEDESTRIANS NEARVILLAGES SENIOR COMMUNITYSIDEWALK BULBOUTSWITH POTENTIAL FORGREEN STREET TREATMENTSNEW ADA CURB RAMPSWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPADD "WATCH FOR BICYCLES"SUPPLEMENTARY SIGN TO ALLSIDE-STREET STOP SIGNS ALONGBICYCLE CORRIDORSWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPanholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewayanholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewayanholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewayanholmCity of San Luis Obispo bikewayBULB OUT TO TIGHTEN CORNERRADIUS TO REDUCE TURNINGSPEEDS AND IMPROVE CROSSINGNEW MEDIAN ISLAND IMPROVESPEDESTRIAN CROSSINGSTRIPE NEW CROSSWALK MARKINGSLINCOLN ALIGNMENT (MINIMAL PARKING LOSS)JANUARY 2018ANHOLM BIKEWAY PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. FINAL PLANS WILLBE PREPARED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION
BROADBUMPBUMP
STOPBROADMURRAYBUMPBUMP
CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:3ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE:
SHEET TITLE:
LINCOLN ALIGNMENT (MINIMAL PARKING LOSS)
N1" = 20'N1" = 20'MATCH LINE 4MATCH LINE 4
MATCH LINE 5MATCH LINE 3
12INSTALL SPEED CUSHION TOREPLACE EXISTING SPEED HUMPSINGLE DASHED CENTERLINE TOREPLACE EXISTING DOUBLE YELLOWALLOWS VEHICLES TO SAFELY ANDLEGALLY PASS CYCLISTSINSTALL SPEED CUSHION TOREPLACE EXISTING SPEED HUMPRAISED INTERSECTIONSLOWS TRAFFIC AND IMPROVESPEDESTRIAN CROSSINGBOLLARDSBOLLARDSBOLLARDSSIDEWALK BULBOUTSWITH POTENTIAL FORGREEN STREETTREATMENTSWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPanholmCity of San
Luis ObispobikewayanholmCity of San Luis
Ob
ispo bikewayBIKE BOULEVARD MARKINGSBIKE BOULEVARD MARKINGSJANUARY 2018ANHOLM BIKEWAY PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. FINAL PLANS WILLBE PREPARED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION
STOPBROADSERRANO
BUMPBUMPBROADBUMPBUMP
CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:4ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE:
SHEET TITLE:
N1" = 20'N1" = 20'MATCH LINE 6MATCH LINE 6
MATCH LINE 7MATCH LINE 5
12COMPLETE SIDEWALKNEW ADACURB RAMPNEW ADACURB RAMPINSTALL SPEED CUSHION TOREPLACE EXISTING SPEED HUMPINSTALL SPEED CUSHION TOREPLACE EXISTING SPEED HUMPWATCHFOR BICYCLES STOPBIKE BOULEVARD MARKINGSBIKE BOULEVARD MARKINGSLINCOLN ALIGNMENT (MINIMAL PARKING LOSS)JANUARY 2018ANHOLM BIKEWAY PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. FINAL PLANS WILLBE PREPARED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTIONSINGLE DASHED CENTERLINE TOREPLACE EXISTING DOUBLE YELLOWALLOWS VEHICLES TO SAFELY ANDLEGALLY PASS CYCLISTS
STOPMISSIO
N
S
T
O
P
MISSION
STOPSTOPBROADCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:5ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE:
SHEET TITLE:
MATCH LINE 7 N1" = 20'NEW ADACURB RAMPSNEW ADACURB RAMPSCOMPLETESIDEWALKNEW ADACURB RAMPS12BRING STOP BARSUP TO MISSIONMATCH LINE 8anholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewayanholmCity of San
Luis ObispobikewaySTOPBIKE BOULEVARD MARKINGSCHEVRONDIRECTIONALMARKINGSBIKE BOULEVARD MARKINGSLINCOLN ALIGNMENT (MINIMAL PARKING LOSS)JANUARY 2018ANHOLM BIKEWAY PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. FINAL PLANS WILLBE PREPARED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION
MISSIONMISSIONMISSIONCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:6ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE:
SHEET TITLE:N1" = 30'MATCH LINE 9MATCH LINE 8
12MATCH LINE 10MATCH LINE 9 BIKE BOULEVARD MARKINGSLINCOLN ALIGNMENT (MINIMAL PARKING LOSS)N1" = 30'JANUARY 2018anholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewayanholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewayANHOLM BIKEWAY PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. FINAL PLANS WILLBE PREPARED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION
STOPSTOPSTOP
MISSIONSTOPCHORROMISSIONLINCOLNCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:7ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE:
SHEET TITLE:12MATCH LINE 11MATCH LINE 12MATCH LINE 10MATCH LINE 11 WATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPCHEVRONDIRECTIONALMARKINGSanholmCity of San Luis
ObispobikewaySIDEWALK BULBOUTSWITH POTENTIAL FORGREEN STREETTREATMENTSBICYCLE BOULEVARDMARKINGSanholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewayanholmCity of San
Luis ObispobikewayanholmCity of San
Luis ObispobikewayBICYCLE BOULEVARDMARKINGSanholmCity of San
Luis ObispobikewayLINCOLN ALIGNMENT (MINIMAL PARKING LOSS)N1" = 30'N1" = 30'JANUARY 2018ANHOLM BIKEWAY PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. FINAL PLANS WILLBE PREPARED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION
LINCOLNVENABLE
MONTALBAN
BUMPBUMPBUMP
LINCOLNCENTER
BUMPBUMP
BUMP
CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:8ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE:
SHEET TITLE:MATCH LINE 13MATCH LINE 13 MATCH LINE 12
12MATCH LINE 14anholmCity of San Lu
is ObispobikewayanholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewayBICYCLE BOULEVARDMARKINGSBICYCLE BOULEVARDMARKINGSLINCOLN ALIGNMENT (MINIMAL PARKING LOSS)
N1" = 30'N1" = 30'JANUARY 2018ANHOLM BIKEWAY PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. FINAL PLANS WILLBE PREPARED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTIONINSTALL SPEED CUSHIONINSTALL SPEED CUSHIONINSTALL SPEED CUSHION
STOPSTOPSTOPSTOP
CHORROSTOPLINCOLNCHORRO
LINCOLNMOUNTAINVIEW
BUMPBUMP
CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:9ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE:
SHEET TITLE:12MATCH LINE 14
MATCH L
INE
15MATCH LINE 15MATCH LINE 16BICYCLE BOULEVARDMARKINGSN1" = 30'HI-VIS CROSSWALKSTRIPEDBUFFERGREEN BIKE LANE ATINTERSECTIONSHORTEN LEFT TURNPOCKET TO 75' TOPROVIDE WIDTH FORBUFFERED BIKE LANESINSTALL PHYSICAL SEPARATION·NEAR TERM: FLEX POSTS ANDRUBBER CURBING·ULTIMATE: RAISED CONCRETE CURBSREMOVE STRIPED MEDIAN ANDSHORT TURN POCKET AT PRIVATEDRIVEWAY TO PROVIDE WIDTHFOR BIKE LANE BUFFERSanholmCity of San Luis Ob
ispo bikewayanholmCity of San Lu
is
ObispobikewayanholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewayPLEASE WALK,BIKE, AND DRIVESAFELYanholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewayLINCOLN ALIGNMENT (MINIMAL PARKING LOSS)
N1" = 30'JANUARY 2018ANHOLM BIKEWAY PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. FINAL PLANS WILLBE PREPARED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTIONINSTALL SPEED CUSHION
CHORROWALNUTSTOPSTOP
CHORROCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:10ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE:
SHEET TITLE:12MATCH LINE 17MATCH LINE 18MATCH LINE 16MATCH LINE 17 1" = 20'N1" = 20'NSHORTEN LEFT TURNPOCKET TO 50' TOPROVIDE WIDTH FORBUFFERED BIKE LANESGREEN THROUGH INTERSECTIONHI-VIS CROSSWALKTIGHTEN CORNER RADIUS TOREDUCE TURNING SPEEDS ANDIMPROVE CROSSINGSTRIPED BUFFEREXTEND BACK OF SIDEWALK TOACCOMMODATEPEDESTRIAN-SCALE LIGHTING ONBOTH SIDES OF CHORRO ATHIGHWAY 101 UNDERCROSSINGTIGHTEN CORNER RADIUS TO REDUCETURNING SPEEDS AND IMPROVE CROSSINGWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPLINCOLN ALIGNMENT (MINIMAL PARKING LOSS)JANUARY 2018INSTALL PHYSICAL SEPARATION·NEAR TERM: FLEX POSTS AND RUBBERCURBING·ULTIMATE: RAISED CONCRETE CURBSGAPS PROVIDED FOR DRIVEWAY ACCESSANHOLM BIKEWAY PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. FINAL PLANS WILLBE PREPARED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION
CHORROMILLSTOPSTOPSTOP PEACH
STOPSTOPSTOPCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:11ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE:
SHEET TITLE:12MATCH LINE19MATCH LINE 20MATCH LINE 18MATCH LINE 19 1" = 20'N1" = 20'N
GREEN PAINTTHROUGH INTERSECTIONINSTALL GREEN PAINT THROUGH INTERSECTIONWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPHI-VIS CROSSWALKSTRIPED BUFFERSTRIPED BUFFERINSTALL PHYSICAL SEPARATION·NEAR TERM: FLEX POSTS ANDRUBBER CURBING·ULTIMATE: RAISED CONCRETECURBSGAPS PROVIDED FOR DRIVEWAY ACCESSFUTURE SAFETY IMPROVMENTS TOCHORRO/PEACH INTERSECTION WILLBE DONE UNDER THE CITY'S TRAFFICSAFETY PROGRAM.NEW CURB RAMPNEW CURB RAMPNEW CURB RAMPACTIVATED FLASHING BEACONTO IMPROVE CROSSINGYIELD LINESYIELD LINESSTRIPED CROSSWALKanholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewayWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPLINCOLN ALIGNMENT (MINIMAL PARKING LOSS)JANUARY 2018ANHOLM BIKEWAY PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. FINAL PLANS WILLBE PREPARED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTIONanholmCity of San Luis Ob
ispo bikeway
PALMCHORRO
MONTEREYCHORRO
CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:12ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE:
SHEET TITLE:12MATCH LINE 20 1" = 20'N1" = 20'N
MATCH LINE 21PROJECT LIMITSMATCH LINE 21 STRIPED BUFFERSHARROWS UP TO INTERSECTIONSHARROWS BETWEEN PALM AND MONTEREYLINCOLN ALIGNMENT (MINIMAL PARKING LOSS)JANUARY 2018BIKE LANEENDBIKE LANEBEGINANHOLM BIKEWAY PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. FINAL PLANS WILLBE PREPARED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTIONMAY USEFULL LANEMAY USEFULL LANE
Anholm Bikeway Plan Appendix B: Traffic & Parking Analysis B-1 January 2018 Appendix B: Traffic & Parking Analysis
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Anholm Bikeway Plan Appendix B: Traffic & Parking Analysis B-2 January 2018 Traffic Data Volume Data Existing (2016) roadway segment and intersection traffic data (auto, bike and pedestrian volumes) were collected for streets within the vicinity of the Anholm Bikeway. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes were collected for roadway segments, while AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes were collected for intersections. All traffic data was collected during typical weekdays, avoiding school holidays, construction impacts, inclement weather or other unusual events. Existing traffic volume data is summarized in Figure B1 and Figure B2. Vehicle Speed Data City Transportation Staff collects traffic speed data regularly for the purposes of setting speed limits, investigating neighborhood traffic concerns and for studying traffic safety issues at various locations throughout the city. A typical speed survey involves the use of Lidar or Radar equipment to measure vehicle speeds along a selected corridor. Speeds are recorded for vehicles in free-flow conditions (avoiding congested locations or platoons of vehicles grouped tougher) and a sample of at least 100 vehicles is recorded in each survey. Speed data is most often used to determine the prevailing (85th percentile) speeds for a given street. Early in the project planning process, speed data was collected along streets that has potential to be considered for the Anholm Bikeway route alignment. For the purposes of this project, existing vehicle speed data was used evaluate whether conditions are appropriate for mixed-flow traffic, where bicyclists and drivers share travel lanes, and where traffic calming may be warranted to reduce vehicle speeds to a level conducive to a quality neighborhood environment. Collision History As part of the City’s Vision Zero/Traffic Safety Program, collision reports are collected from the San Luis Obispo Police Department and analyzed on an annual basis to identify collision trends throughout the City. The City’s Annual Traffic Safety Report documents citywide trends by collision type (total collisions, fatal/injury collisions, pedestrian & bicycle collisions) and identifies mitigation strategies for high-collision rate locations, with a focus on locations with high rates of collisions involving pedestrians, bicyclists and injuries. Potential mitigation recommendations may include physical improvements, as well as targeted education and enforcement strategies. As part of the analysis for the Anholm Bikeway Plan, collision data from the most recent five-year period was reviewed for intersections and streets within the project study area. This assessment included a focused investigation of locations with a documented history of pedestrian or bicycle collisions to identify potential trends that could be addressed through improvement strategies as part of this plan. A summary of pedestrian and bicycle collisions reported within the most recent five-year period (2012-2016) available is provided in Table B1. Solo vs. VehChorroMonterey 44 221Chorro Mill 2 2 1 1ChorroWest 111ChorroMurray 33111Chorro Foothill 1 1 1Broad Mill 2 2 1 1Broad Peach 2 2Broad Center 1 1Broad Serrano 1 1Broad Ramona 2 2Broad Foothill 2 2 2Ramona Broad to Palomar 3 1 2 1Foothill Ferrini* 1 1 1Lincoln Mountain View 1 116 26 9 10 7 2BikePed vs. Veh Severe Inj.TOTAL*Data represents 5‐year total (2012‐2016). A fatal vehicle vs. bicycle collision occurred at Foothill/Ferrini in 2017, outside of the range of this dataset.Street Nearest Cross StreetAt IntersectionTotalTable B1: Study Area Bicycle/Pedestrian Collision History (2012-2016)
Existing Traffic Volumes - North SegmentBroad Street Bicycle Boulevard PlanBROAD STFOOTHILL BLVDCHORRO STMEINECKE AVEMURRAY AVEMISSION STCENTER STMOUNTAINLINCOLN STLINCOLN STVIEW STRAMONA DRWEST STNOT TO SCALEBROAD STXXX(YYY)[ZZZ]Daily(AM Peak Hour)[PM Peak Hour] Auto Segment VolumesXXX(YYY)[ZZZ]Daily(AM Peak Hour)[PM Peak Hour] Bike Segment VolumesStop Controlled IntersectionSignalized IntersectionSERRANOBENTON WY85th Percentile Vehicle SpeedsXX mphLEGEND1
4
4
5
(
19
1
)
[
12
1
]22
(
3
)
[5
]
3
06
8
(
2
55
)
[
2
96
]51(
9
)
[
5
]1082(75
)
[122
]2347(238
)
[226
]1445(191)[121]3068(255)[296]2322(228)[230]1287(114)[132]2467(187)[190]2762(211)[210]1
05
(1
6
)
[
15
]
105
(1
1
)
[
12
]28
29
(
2
15
)
[
3
02
]
3
24
0
(
3
35
)
[2
7
5
]3715(262)[386
]2600(256
)
[220
]3399(275)[340]2414(230)[226]2967(253)[301]2123(217)[196]30 mp
h 30 mph27 mph26 mph31 mph31 mph22(23)202(169)9(13)25(39)3(10)96(98)Broad St810(4)7(9)2(1)4(0)10(6)176(153)2(3)6(7)0(1)13(22)5(2)1(0)1(3)65(89)0(0)Broad StAM(PM)AM(PM)AM(PM)AM(PM)6(4)222(177)6(3)5(8)Broad St109(8)1(0)1(1)1(1)2(3)216(166)2(3)1(1)2(1)1(2)2(2)5(2)4(4)0(3)59(88)0(0)Broad St115(10)2(0)2(1)0(1)63(51)175(116)2(3)83(164)5(16)35(87)7(4)10(8)3(0)140(69)38(35)1(2)Broad St122(0)0(1)1(2)1(6)0(0)222(168)27(21)19(9)7(4)0(2)213(134)3(5)6(1)4(28)258(324)94(172)Chorro StLincoln St6 2(4)8(11)2(2)1(2)AM(PM) Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement VolumesAM(PM) Peak Hour Pedestrian Crossing VolumesXX(YY)XX(YY)NMurray Ave
Mission St
Center St
Mountain View
Lincoln St3(2)2(6)46(54)37(39)23(37)51(59)336(684)35(38)137(64)620(481)23(40)62(52)45(41)133(182)Chorro StFoothill Blvd1 9(25)13(48)15(34)5(5)202(166)2(2)19(25)19(33)12(11)12(14)19(22)3(3)16(21)231(288)12(34)Murray Ave2 3(5)5(8)1(2)1(4)5(5)232(171)5(5)2(6)5(2)2(5)17(9)2(5)3(4)249(323)12(28)Mission St3 3(6)5(13)1(2)2(0)3(2)228(192)2(6)1(2)1(1)3(2_10(9)0(1)3(3))232(325)1(6)Center St
4AM(PM)AM(PM)AM(PM)4(2)265(187)3(5)3(4)2(0)2(1)6(9)0(0)2(3)256(381)3(3)Mountain View
54(7)6(19)0(0)0(2)Chorro StChorro StChorro StChorro St2(5)1(6)1(2)0(0)0(0)5(2)61(141)441(738)6(2)91(77)704(441)2(3)81(145)3(0)50(57)Broad StFoothill Blvd14(35)12345678910111212(13)22(30)87(14)[9]73(17)[8]9761(85)(7)[8](4)[5](14)[13](7)[12]91(13)[9]83(20)[9]MISSION LN101BROAD S
TAM(PM)(13)[13
](10)[13
]
956(79)[91]758(70)[76]865(54)[83]613(41)[55]
275(12)[27]
202(14)[22]89(10)[7]128(11)[9]70(6)[3]100(5)[9](222)[140](128)[197]Note: Traffic count data collected during a typical weekday (Tues, Wed, Thurs) with schools in session during 2016 and 2017. Peak hour volumes reflect the highest hourly volume during the AM (7-9 AM) and PM (3:30-6:00 PM) periods.219(25)[24]30 mph30 mph198(34)[14]31(3)[2]11(1)[0]
Existing Traffic Volumes - South SegmentBroad Street Bicycle Boulevard PlanNOT TO SCALENPeach StChorro St14
151617XXX(YYY)[ZZZ]Daily(AM Peak Hour)[PM Peak Hour] Auto Segment VolumesXXX(YYY)[ZZZ]Daily(AM Peak Hour)[PM Peak Hour] Bike Segment VolumesStop Controlled IntersectionSignalized Intersection85th Percentile Vehicle SpeedsXX mphLEGENDAM(PM) Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement VolumesAM(PM) Peak Hour Pedestrian Crossing VolumesXX(YY)XX(YY)PEACH ST101MIL
L
STWALNUT
STPALM
S
T
MONTEREY STCHORRO STMORRO STOSOS STLINCOLN ST
HIGUERA
S
T BROAD STMISS
ION
P
LAZAMONTEREY STNIPOMO STBROAD ST35 mph36 mph1128(89)[118](0)[0]1551(203)[296](0)[5]88(16)[9]103(12)[8]2694(203)[274]3080(288)[260]PEACH ST
1
1
9
9
(
1
0
5
)
[
1
2
8
]
9
8
7
(
7
3
)
[
10
9
]
1
4
7
7
(
1
2
7
)
[
1
5
8
]
6
8
2
(
4
5
)
[
7
2
]131614171588(129)7(11)19(16)14(4)338(255)113(69)5(4)205(342)24(10)11(37)12(11)1(3)53(16)4(2)7(7)37(6)21(11)13(7)42(19)250(233)17(9)11(23)159(234)4(3)28(85)29(30)14(17)9(11)4(12)6(8)4(4)44(50)84(76)145(136)39(42)185(196)67(23)28(22)138(169)12(24)11(25)38(110)3(12)3(4)3(3)10(8)15(5)15(12)29(43)6(12)62(56)76(76)73(88)38(95)62(66)22(9)91(175)9(22)42(50)1(3)1(1)0(0)0(2)Mill StChorro StPalm StChorro St
Palm StBroad St 21(28)26 mph28 mphWalnut StChorro St13
0(0)1(4)1(0)2(0)44(16)382(325)1(0)10(12)237(514)0(1)70(143)1(1)6(19)17(9)0(0)5(11)88(15)[27]103(31)[20]Note: Traffic count data collected during a typical weekday (Tues, Wed, Thurs) with schools in session during 2014 and 2016. Peak hour volumes reflect the highest hourly volume during the AM (7-9 AM) and PM (3:30-6:00 PM) periods.
Anholm Bikeway Plan Appendix B: Traffic & Parking Analysis B-5 January 2018 Traffic Analysis The City of San Luis Obispo evaluates vehicular traffic impacts based on roadway segment and intersection congestion/delay, as measured using auto Levels of Service (LOS)9, as well as using established maximum daily traffic volume thresholds for residential streets to assess traffic impacts to neighborhood quality of life. For the purposes of assessing potential traffic impacts related to the Anholm Bikeway project, convenience of property access and potential impacts to emergency services were also considered. Roadway Segment Levels of Service For the purposes of this plan, 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 EIR. The City has adopted performance target of LOS D or better for streets outside of the Downtown Core. Because the Recommended Project proposes no reductions in vehicle travel lanes, modifications to traffic circulation, or significant changes to auto capacity, roadway levels of service are anticipated to remain consistent with existing conditions. As shown in Table B2, all study segments currently operate at acceptable levels of service and are anticipated to remain at this level with the proposed project. 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 Anholm Bikeway 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 9 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. Table B2: Roadway Segment Levels of Service Volume LOS Volume LOSNB 185A179ASB 153A199ANB 228A163ASB 114A126ANB 232A178ASB 119A165ANB 70A114ASB 222A169ANB 70A114ASB 222A169ANB 253A301ASB 196A177ANB 253A301ASB 196A177ANB 275A340BSB 206A203ANB 275A340BSB 206A203ANB 262A386BSB 236A214ASegment Dir.Existing / Project ConditionsAM Peak Hour PM Peak HourBroad Street (Foothill ‐ Ramona)Broad Street (Meinecke ‐ Murray)Broad Street (Murray ‐ Mission)Broad Street (Mission ‐ Center)Broad Street (Center ‐ Lincoln)Chorro Street (Foothill ‐ Meincecke)Chorro Street (Center ‐ Lincoln)Chorro Street (Meinecke ‐ Murray)Chorro Street (Murray ‐ Mission)Chorro Street (Mission ‐ Center)Table B3: Intersection Levels of Service Delay LOS Delay LOSChorro Street & Foothill Boulevard Signal 35.0D34.5CChorro Street & Meinecke Avenue AWSC 10.5B9.8AChorro Street & Murray Avenue AWSC 10.4B11.4BChorro Street & Mission Street AWSC 10.3B11.0BChorro Street & Center Street AWSC 9.9A10.8BChorro Street & Mountain View Street SSSC 14.1B15.1CChorro Street & Lincoln Street AWSC 15.5C12.6BBroad Street & Foothill Boulevard Signal 19.8B12.6BBroad Street & Meinecke Avenue SSSC 9.7A10.1BBroad Street & Murray Avenue SSSC 10.1B10.0BBroad Street & Mission Street AWSC 8.1A7.9ABroad Street & Center Street AWSC 8.4A8.0ABroad Street & Mountain View Street SSSC 10.9B10.4BBroad Street & Lincoln Street AWSC 10.5B10.2BNotes:‐ Signal ‐ Signalized Control; SSSC ‐ Side‐Street Stop Control; AWSC ‐ All‐Way Stop Control‐ For signalized and AWSC intersections, delay and LOS based on intersection average. For SSSC intersections, delay and LOS reported for worst approach. AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourIntersectionTrafficControlExisting / Project Conditions
Anholm Bikeway Plan Appendix B: Traffic & Parking Analysis B-6 January 2018 of the downtown core. As with the roadway segment analysis, intersection levels of service with the proposed project are anticipated to remain consistent with existing conditions. As shown in Table B3, all study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service and are anticipated to remain at this level with the proposed project. Neighborhood Traffic Concerns The City evaluates potential neighborhood traffic impacts by comparing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes and speeds along residential streets with the corresponding maximum ADT and speed targets established in the City General Plan Circulation Element.10 A proposed project would potentially trigger a neighborhood traffic impact if it would cause residential street traffic volumes or speeds to exceed these established thresholds, or if the project further increases traffic volumes on a street that already exceeds the maximum thresholds under existing conditions. As shown in Table B4, the Recommended Project does not trigger any neighborhood traffic impacts, but has potential to reduce speeds below max thresholds along Broad and Lincoln Streets. 10 City General Plan Maximum ADT Targets: Local Streets (1,500 veh/day); Residential Collectors (Minor) (3,000 veh/day; Residential Collectors (Major) (5,000 veh/day). Desired maximum speeds for residential streets are 25 mph. Table B4: Neighborhood Traffic Assessment Max ThresholdExisting /Project ConditionsDesired Max Existing Project ConditionsBroad Street(Meinecke ‐ Mission)Res. Collector 5,000 4,211 25 26‐27 23‐24Broad Street(Mission ‐ Lincoln)Res. Collector 5,000 3,428 25 30 25Chorro Street(Meinecke ‐ Center)Res. Collector 5,000 5,816 25 31 31Chorro Street(Center ‐ Lincoln)Res. Collector 5,0006,315253131Meinecke Street(Broad ‐ Chorro)Local Res. 1,5001,27725N/AN/AMission Street(Broad ‐ Chorro)Local Res. 1,50047725N/AN/ACenter Street(Broad ‐ Chorro)Local Res. 1,50021725N/AN/AMountain View Street(Broad ‐ Chorro)Local Res. 1,50017025N/AN/ALincoln Street(Broad ‐ Chorro)Res. Collector 3,0004,58925N/AN/ARamona Drive(Broad to Palomar)Res. Collector 5,0004,107253025Lincoln Street(Chorro to West)Local Res. 1,500417253025Vehicle Speeds (mph)Notes:‐ Speeds reported as 85th percentile speeds. Locations that exceed the City's Maximum ADT and Speed Thresholds are highlighted.‐ Proposed Project traffic calming measures anticipated to reduce prevailing speeds by 10‐15%.Segment Street TypeAverage Daily Traffic
Anholm Bikeway Plan Appendix B: Traffic & Parking Analysis B-7 January 2018 Parking Analysis Potential parking concerns related to the Recommended Project are evaluated by analyzing on-street parking supply and demand with and without the parking removal proposed by the project within the segments between Lincoln Street and Ramona Drive. Although the final number of on-street parking spaces impacted by the project may change slightly with final design, based on review of existing on-street parking supply and preliminary project designs, on-street parking loss is estimated as follows: Chorro/Lincoln Intersection – 1 legal parking space removed on Lincoln east of Chorro to provide corner bulbouts; and Chorro/Mission Intersection – 2 legal parking spaces removed on Mission east and west of Chorro to provide corner bulbouts; Ramona Drive – 2-3 spaces removed on north side of Ramona to provide access to new SRTS Class I Bicycle/Pedestrian Path. To better understand existing on-street parking conditions near these street segments, parking surveys were conducted in fall of 2017 for both weekday and weekend conditions during a period when local schools and Cal Poly were in session. Parking surveys included inventory of existing on-street parking supply and occupancy during various times of day throughout the vicinity of the proposed Anholm Bikeway. Figure B3 shows the parking study area and summarizes the existing on-street parking occupancy by time of day. As shown below, of the various periods observed, late evening on a weeknight was found to be the period where on-street parking demand is typically highest throughout the neighborhood. This peak period is used in the following analysis as a baseline for evaluating project-related parking concerns. 49%44%40%53%44%30%22% 22%35%25%31%35%37%29%41%31%58%50%40%64%44%60%54%48%60% 60%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%WEEKDAYEARLY AM(5‐6 AM)WEEKDAYMID DAY(12‐1 PM)WEEKDAYEVENING4‐ 5 PMWEEKDAYLATE NIGHT(12‐1 AM)SATURDAYLATE NIGHT(12‐1 AM)THURSDAYFARMERS MARKET(6‐7 PM)ON‐STREET PARKING OCCUPANCY %Chorro (Lincoln to Foothill)Chorro (Lincoln to Mission)Broad (Lincoln to Foothill)Broad (Mission to Ramona)Total Anholm NeighborhoodPEAK PARKING DEMAND ↓Figure B3: On-Street Parking Occupancy by Time of Day
Anholm Bikeway Plan Appendix B: Traffic & Parking Analysis B-8 January 2018 A summary of existing on-street parking supply, spaces expected to be lost due to the project, and peak on-street demand is provided in Table B5. Table B5: On-Street Parking Conditions with and without Project ParkingSupplyPeak Period DemandSurplus/ DefecitPeak Period % OccupancyParkingLossParkingSupplySurplus (+) or Defecit (‐)Peak Period % OccupancyLincoln to Mountain View16115 6%16156%Mountain View to Center21714 33%211433%Center to Mission St601743 28%604328%Mission to Murray28199 68%28968%Murray to Ramona20137 65%20765%Ramona to Foothill651 83%6183%Subtotal Broad Street151 6289 41%01518941%Lincoln to Mountain View16511 31%161131%Mountain View to Center231013 43%231343%Center to Venable21138 62%21862%Venable to Mission21021 0%21210%Mission to West251312 52%251252%West to Murray19514 26%191426%Murray to Meinecke2631‐5 >100%*26‐5>100%*Meinecke to Foothill1192 82%11282%Subtotal Chorro Street162 8676 53%01627653%East of Chorro (1 block)862 75%‐17 1 86%Parkign removed for bulbout on east side.Subtotal Mission Street86275%‐17 1 86%Lincoln to Chorro392217 56%‐138 16 58%Chorro to Broad33102330%‐132 22 31%Subtotal Mission Street392217 56%‐138 16 58%Broad to Palomar47434 91%‐344 1 98%Parking removed at SRTS Path EntrySubtotal Ramona Drive47 43 4 91%‐344 1 98%Parking removed for bulbouts on east and west sides.LincolnRamonaNotes:1. Parking data collection conducted September‐October 2017. Period of peak observed parking demand was a weekday (Wednesday) 1‐2 AM.2. Above table only includes Broad Street, Chorro Street, Lincoln Street, Mission Street, and the segment of Ramona Street where parking removal is proposed as part of recommended project. Detailed parking occupancy data for other streets available upon request.3. Street segments highlighted red represent locations where parking demand exceeds practical capacity (85‐90% occupancy). When demand exceeds practical capacity, there is technically parking available, but it may be difficult to find.4. At segments marked with an asterisk (*), existing parking occupancy exceeds number of available standard parking spaces (i.e. vehicles parked closely together or illegally parked).Chorro Street Broad StreetMissionSTREET SEGMENTEXISTING CONDITIONS PROJECT CONDITIONSReason for Parking Loss
Anholm Bikeway Plan Appendix B: Traffic & Parking Analysis B-9 January 2018 Existing parking conditions are mapped visually in Figure B4, with street segments color-coded based on percent occupancy and labels showing the number of available parking spaces on each block. Street segments are highlighted red where peak occupancy exceeds 85%. A parking occupancy rate of 85%-90% is typically considered the “practical capacity” of a street, meaning that there could be a few on-street parking spaces available, but drivers may have a difficult time finding them. When parking demand exceeds the practical capacity, this can lead to drivers “cruising” around the block and increases temptation to park illegally, which could degrade neighborhood quality for residents. As shown in Figure 6, there is available on-street parking adjacent to the locations where parking removal is proposed: Chorro/Lincoln Intersection – 1 legal parking space removed; 23 spaces available on adjacent blocks ofChorro and Lincoln.Chorro/Mission Intersection – 2 legal parking spaces removed on Mission east and west of Chorro; 73spaces available on adjacent blocks of Chorro and Mission.Ramona Drive – 2-3 spaces removed on north side of Ramona at new SRTS Class I Bicycle/Pedestrian Path;4 spaces available on Ramona, 19 spaces available on nearby blocks of Meinecke and Broad.In general, the on-street parking removal proposed as part of this plan is not anticipated to significantly affect parking conditions or availability within the neighborhood. Figure B4: Map of Existing On-Street Parking Conditions