HomeMy WebLinkAboutAnholm Bikeway PlanAmended September 4, 2018
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Anholm Bikeway Plan i September 2018 Acknowledgements City Council Heidi Harmon, Mayor Carlyn Christianson Aaron Gomez Andy Pease Dan Rivoire Public Works Department Daryl Grigsby, Director Timothy Bochum, Deputy Director Jake Hudson, Transportation Manager Jennifer Rice, Transportation Planner-Engineer Luke Schwartz, Transportation Planner-Engineer Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager Active Transportation Committee Lea Brooks Past Members Jenna Espinosa Layla Lopez Timothy Jouet Howard Weisenthal Ken Kienow Brianna Martenies Paul Orton Jonathan Roberts Citizens of San Luis Obispo The many residents, parents, and students who participated in the Plan development. Thank you!
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Anholm Bikeway Plan ii September 2018 Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1 I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 6 About the Plan ............................................................................................................................. 6 Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................................... 7 Project Goal and Objectives ......................................................................................................... 8 Relationship to Other Plans, Projects and Programs ................................................................... 8 II.Project Description ............................................................................................................... 11Design Elements ........................................................................................................................ 17 Designing for Bicyclists of All Ages and Ability Levels ............................................................... 22 Future Components ................................................................................................................... 24 III.Analysis of the Project ......................................................................................................... 25Traffic Access & Circulation ....................................................................................................... 25 Parking Considerations .............................................................................................................. 27 Benefits to Bicycling ................................................................................................................... 30 Benefits to Pedestrian & Streetscape Environment ................................................................... 33 Neighborhood Quality Considerations ....................................................................................... 35 Overall Ability to Support Project Goals & Objectives ................................................................ 36 IV.Project Development Process ............................................................................................. 37Community Outreach and Engagement ..................................................................................... 37 V. Cost Estimates, Phasing and Performance Monitoring Strategies .................................. 40 Phasing Plan and Cost Estimates .............................................................................................. 40 Performance Monitoring Program .............................................................................................. 42 Appendix A: Concept Design Plan Sheets Appendix B: Traffic & Parking Analysis Appendix C. Adopting Resolution TABLES Table 1: General Plan Circulation Element Modal Split Objectives ................................................. 8 Table 2: Project Design Elements ................................................................................................. 17 Table 3: Neighborhood Traffic Assessment .................................................................................. 25 Table 4: Peak Period On-Street Parking Conditions with and without Project............................... 27 Table 5: Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Definitions and Types of Bicyclists ..................................... 31 Table 6: Project Phasing and Planning-Level Cost Estimates ....................................................... 40 Table 7: Performance Monitoring Program ................................................................................... 42 FIGURES Figure 1: Project Study Area ........................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2: Recommended Traffic Speeds and Volumes for Mixed-Flow Street ................................ 7 Figure 3: Project Summary Map .................................................................................................... 12 Figure 4: Recommended Typical Street Cross Sections ............................................................... 13 Figure 5: Types of Transportation Bicyclists in San Luis Obispo ................................................... 22 Figure 6: Driveway Access with Two-Way Protected Bikeway ...................................................... 26 Figure 7: Map of On-Street Parking Conditions with and without Project ...................................... 28 Figure 8: Level of Traffic Stress Map with and without Project ...................................................... 32 Figure 9: Street Lighting Recommendations ................................................................................. 34
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Anholm Bikeway Plan Executive Summary 1 September 2018 Executive Summary As originally envisioned in the 2013 City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan, the Anholm Bikeway Plan (the “Plan”) provides a blueprint to develop a low-stress, priority route for bicyclists and pedestrians between the City’s downtown core and Foothill Boulevard. These improvements 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. This plan supports several key City programs, plans and policies, including the Multimodal Transportation Major City Goal, the General Plan objective to achieve 20 percent bicycle mode share citywide, the Climate Action Plan recommendation to increase use of active transportation modes, and Vision Zero initiative to eliminate traffic-related deaths and severe injuries for all the city’s road users by 2030. Project Description The Anholm Bikeway Plan provides recommended bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements to improve the link between Downtown San Luis Obispo and Foothill Boulevard. The proposed route consists of the following primary features, starting from Monterey Street in the downtown: Chorro Street (Monterey to Palm): Class III shared lane markings and route signageChorro Street (Palm to Lincoln): Buffered bike lanes on each side of the street with potential for future installation of physical separation between bicyclists and motor vehicle trafficChorro Street (Lincoln to Mission): Two-way protected bikeway on the west side of Chorro with removal of on-street parking on the west side of the streetMission Street (Chorro to Broad): Class III shared lane markings and route signageBroad Street (Mission to Ramona): One-way southbound buffered/protected bikeway with removal of on-street parking on the west side of the street. Northbound to remain as Class III shared lanewith enhanced markings and route signage.Ramona Drive (Broad to Latter-Day-Saints Church property): A two-way protected bikeway in place of on-street parking on the north side of Ramona along frontage of the existing shopping centerMulti-Use Path (Ramona to Foothill): Class I bicycle/pedestrian path connecting the two-way protected bikeway on Ramona to the planned Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon crossing at Foothill BoulevardA summary map of the proposed project improvements is shown in Figure ES-1. Technical Analysis Technical analysis of the Plan includes a traffic analysis, assessment of parking conditions, review of potential benefits to the bicycling and pedestrian environments, and discussion of potential effects on neighborhood quality. Implementation of the Anholm Bikeway Plan will require removal of 17 on-street parking spaces along north side of Ramona, 41 spaces on the west side of Chorro, and 15 spaces on the west side of Broad to accommodate dedicated bike lanes. While analysis of parking conditions indicates that on-street parking will generally be available within a block of the Chorro Street segments where parking removal is proposed as part of the project, on-street parking along affected segments of Broad and Ramona will likely be scarce during periods of peak occupancy, requiring some users to travel multiple blocks (approximately a 1- to 3-minute walk) to find available street parking opportunities. Implementation of the project will create a more comfortable bicycling environment than currently exists and would make significant progress towards establishing a low-stress bicycling corridor with the potential to attract more “interested but concerned riders”. Project Development Development of this plan included an extensive community-based public engagement effort, focused on understanding the key needs and priorities of residents and stakeholders. Outreach components included public meetings, a project website, and two community surveys. Multiple iterations of the design components were considered before reaching the ultimate design for the Anholm Bikeway.
Anholm Bikeway Plan Executive Summary 2 September 2018 Figure ES-1: Project Summary Map
Anholm Bikeway Plan Executive Summary 3 September 2018 Figure ES-2: Phase 1 Project Improvements Plan Implementation The Anholm Bikeway Plan will be implemented in three primary phases with the highest-priority features being those 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. As the plan is implemented, construction documents will be brought before the Active Transportation Committee (previously Bicycle Advisory Committee) and City Council for Review. Recommended phasing of project improvements is summarized below and illustrated in Figure ES-2, Figure ES-3 and Figure ES-4: Phase 1 – 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. Phase 1 includes the following features: Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing (Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon) at Foothill & FerriniClass I Pedestrian/Bicycle Path between Foothill & RamonaRemoval of street parking on Ramona and installation of two-way ProtectedBikewayInitiation of a Residential Parking District (if approved by the neighborhood)
Anholm Bikeway Plan Executive Summary 4 September 2018 Phase 2 – Installation of the essential bikeway features between Downtown and Ramona Drive: Install two-way protected bikeway on ChorroStreet between Lincoln and Mission*Install southbound buffered/protected bike laneon Broad between Mission and Ramona.Improved bikeway pavement markings and guidesignage within Class III shared lane in northbounddirection*Streetscape, lighting & artwork improvements atChorro & Highway 101 UndercrossingExtend buffered bike lanes on Chorro betweenLincoln and PalmClass III shared street on Chorro from Palm toMontereyBikeway route signage and markingsPerformance Monitoring Report to Council at 12and 24 months after implementation*Bike lane separation may utilize lower-costtemporary materials during initial installation, depending on available funds Figure ES-3: Phase 2 Project Improvements
Anholm Bikeway Plan Executive Summary 5 September 2018 Figure ES-4: Phase 3 Project Improvements Phase 3 – Installation of physical separation within Chorro bike lane buffers between Palm and Lincoln and incremental installation of remaining higher-cost project improvements. Installation of physical separation within Chorro bike lane buffers between Palm and Lincoln.Incremental installation of ancillary spot improvements that cannot be funded in Phase 2, such as:oContinuous sidewalks on west side of Broad StreetoAdditional street lightingoHigher-cost pedestrian improvements at remaining locations along bikeway route, such as permanent bulbouts and pedestrian refuge at Broad/Ramona/Meinecke, raised crossing atBroad/Murray, bulbouts at Chorro/Walnut and Chorro/Peach, and ADA curb ramps at remaining intersections along bikeway route as funding allows
Anholm Bikeway Plan I. Introduction 6 September 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 11This section describes the proposed project, including the proposed route alignment, example street layouts and design elements.Analysis of the Project – Page 25How 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 impacts to traffic and parking, benefits to the bicyclingand pedestrian environment, influence on neighborhood quality, and overall ability to support the project goal and objectives.Project Development Process – Page 37How 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 project.Cost Estimates, Phasing Plan and Performance Monitoring Strategies – Page 40This 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 I. Introduction 7 September 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). Figure 2: Recommended Traffic Speeds and Volumes for Mixed-Flow Street Cyclists on Broad and Chorro often ride within the narrow parking lane, increasing potential for “door zone” collisions
Anholm Bikeway Plan I. Introduction 8 September 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 I. Introduction 9 September 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 I. Introduction 10 September 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 III. Analysis of the Project11 September 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 MissionStreet; Mission Street west from Chorro to Broad Street; Broad Street from Mission north to Ramona Drive; Ramona Drive west to a proposedSRTS Class I Pedestrian/Bicycle Path, then north to connect with a planned enhanced bicycle/pedestrian crossing at the FoothillBoulevard/Ferrini Drive intersection. The alignment of the designated route is intended to maintain a convenient, direct path for bicyclists andpedestrians, while avoiding the steeper uphill grades on Broad (south of Mission) and Chorro (north of Mission).Bicycle Facilities: The Recommended Project includes addition of protected or buffered bike lanes along 80+ percent of the route betweenDowntown and Ramona Drive, and a dedicated SRTS Class I Bicycle/Pedestrian Path from Ramona to Foothill Boulevard to complete thecontinuous low-stress bicycle and pedestrian corridor. Protected bike lanes place a physical barrier between drivers and bike riders to improvesafety and comfort for cyclists—particularly for less experienced riders and for the many people who are interested in biking more, but haveconcerns about the safety of sharing the road with busy motor vehicle traffic. For the short segments of the route where protected bike lanes arenot feasible, elements such as traffic calming, enhanced pavement markings and signage are proposed to clearly communicate that these streetsegments are prioritized for lower-speed bicycle travel.Traffic Calming: Traffic calming measures, such as speed humps/raised crossings and corner bulbouts are proposedalong the bikeway corridor to address speeding issues that currently exist. The intent of these measures is to reducemotor vehicle speeds to a range consistent with the posted speed limits of these streets (25 mph or less) and to a levelmore conducive to a walkable, bikeable and livable residential neighborhood.Crossing Enhancements: Intersection crossing enhancements are proposed at several intersections to improveaccess, safety and comfort for pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers. Crossing enhancements include installation ofaccessible curb ramps, raised crossings, enhanced 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 III. Analysis of the Project12 September 2018 Figure 3: Project Summary Map
Anholm Bikeway Plan III. Analysis of the Project13 September 2018 Figure 4: Recommended Typical Street Cross Sections 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 StreetTravel 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)
Anholm Bikeway Plan III. Analysis of the Project14 September 2018 NOTE: Street cross section widths represent typical dimensions along designated segments. Details may vary in final designs. Mission Street (Chorro to Broad) Travel Lane 12’ Travel Lane 12’ Parking 8’ Sidewalk (Existing) Sidewalk (Existing) Parking 8’ West Side of Street Figure 4: Recommended Typical Street Cross Sections (cont.) Travel Lane 10’ Chorro Street (Lincoln to Mission) Travel Lane 10’ Parking 7’-7.5’ Sidewalk (Existing) Sidewalk (Existing) Buffer w/ Physical Barrier 2.5’-3’ Bike Lanes 10’
Anholm Bikeway Plan III. Analysis of the Project15 September 2018 Figure 4: Recommended Typical Street Cross Sections (cont.) NOTE: Street cross section widths represent typical dimensions along designated segments. Details may vary in final designs. Broad Street (Mission to Ramona) Travel Lane 10’ Travel Lane 10’ Parking 7’ Sidewalk (Existing) Sidewalk (Existing) Bike Lane 5’ Buffer w/ Potential for Physical Barrier 2’ West Side of Street Dashed centerline to allow drivers to pass bicyclists safely (and legally)Travel Lane 10’-11’ Travel Lane 10’ Parking 7’ Sidewalk (Existing) Sidewalk (Existing) Buffer w/ Physical Barrier 2’-3’ Bike Lanes10’ Ramona Drive (Broad to Safe Routes to School Path) North Side of Street
Anholm Bikeway Plan III. Analysis of the Project16 September 2018 Figure 4: Recommended Typical Street Cross Sections (cont.) NOTE: Street cross section widths represent typical dimensions along designated segments. Details may vary in final designs. Safe Routes to School Path (Ramona to Foothill) Bicycle/Pedestrian Path 10’-12’ Shoulder 2’ Shoulder/Lighting 4’-6’ Shopping CenterLDS Church Field
Anholm Bikeway Plan III. Analysis of the Project17 September 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 III. Analysis of the Project18 September 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.BicyclistsMotor VehiclesProposed along street segmentswhere high vehicle speeds/volumescreate a high-stress environmentfor bicyclists. Proposed Segments: Chorro – Palm to MissionBroad (SB) – Mission to RamonaRamona – Broad to Class I PathBUFFERED 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.SB Broad – Mission to Ramona(near-term may include stripedbuffers only w/ potential for physicalseparation in later phase)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.PedestriansMotor vehiclesProposed at Broad/Ramona,Broad/Meinecke, Chorro/Walnut,Chorro/PeachConsidered at additional locationsin long-term as funding allows
Anholm Bikeway Plan III. Analysis of the Project19 September 2018 Table 2: Project Design Elements Design Element Description Benefits Mode Affected Location STREET 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 Chorro, Broad andRamona where existing street lightspacing 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 impact toemergency vehicles or bicyclists.BicyclistsPedestriansMotor VehiclesExisting low-deflection speedhumps on Broad between Missionand Meinecke proposed to beretained with potential for futurereplacement with more effectivespeed humps/cushions.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.
Anholm Bikeway Plan III. Analysis of the Project20 September 2018 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 III. Analysis of the Project21 September 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. Green paint and enhanced pavement markings at intersections such as Chorro/Lincoln highlight potential vehicle-bicycle conflict areas, help with bicycle wayfinding and convey proper positioning for bicyclists entering dedicated bike lanes. Improvements are recommended at Chorro/Walnut to improve crossing safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. Bulbouts, widened sidewalks, high-vis crosswalk markings and other pedestrian improvements at Broad/Meinecke/Ramona
Anholm Bikeway Plan III. Analysis of the Project22 September 2018 Designing for Bicyclists of 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 residents, employees and visitors from bicycling more often. Even in the absence of actual collision trends or safety deficiencies on a given street, surveys show that the perception of risk or unsafe facilities is often the most significant barrier to bicycling for the majority of community members. 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 population (64% of all residents) fall into the “Enthusiastic and Confident” or “Interested but Concerned” categories—less experienced riders who are interested in bicycling for transportation, but do not feel comfortable riding in mixed traffic on most streets, or even within striped bike lanes on busier streets. 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 high-traffic/speed street might be acceptable for “Strong and Fearless” riders, and perhaps some “Enthusiastic and Confident” cyclists. However, the remaining people interested in cycling—somewhere between 31% and 64% of city residents—will generally choose to drive if the type of low-stress bike facilities that they feel safe using—separated and protected bikeways—are not available. If the City is to meet its goal to reach 20% bicycle mode share, it stands to reason that strategic investments should be made in the types of bicycle infrastructure that have been proven to attract users of all ages and ability levels. 4 Source: 2013 Bicycle Use Survey Results, San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), October 2013. Figure 5: Types of Transportation Bicyclists in San Luis Obispo
Anholm Bikeway Plan III. Analysis of the Project23 September 2018 Facilities with physical separation from vehicles, or shared streets with low traffic volumes and speeds, like bicycle boulevards, provide the potential to not only benefit the existing rider population, but expand it significantly by attracting the “Enthusiastic and Confident” and “Interested but Concerned” riders. Why Protected Bike Lanes While protected bike lanes—also commonly referred to as “cycle tracks” or Class IV Bikeways (per Caltrans standard bikeway classification)—are a new type of facility for the City of San Luis Obispo, their benefits in terms of safety and potential to increase bicycle ridership are well-documented. Protected bike lanes have been a best practice in street planning for decades in many European cities, such as Amsterdam and Copenhagen, where nearly 40 percent of citywide trips are made by bicycle. Over the past decade, more and more North American cities have been building these types of facilities, with over 400 protected bike lane installations in over 100 U.S. cities as of 2017. Why are more and more cities building protected bike lanes? The following statistics provide some explanation:5 Increased Bicycle Ridership – New protected bike lanes have been found to boost bike volumes by an average of 75 percent in the first year alone. Following the City of Calgary’s recent rollout ofa four-mile network of protected bike lanes as a pilot project, bicycle ridership along these routes doubled in the first three months, including a 30 percent increase in female riders. Throughout thedowntown, bicycle ridership increased by 40 percent during the pilot project.Attractive to Less Experienced Riders – Surveys find that 80% ormore of “Interested but Concerned” bicyclists would be comfortableriding in protected bike lanes—a significantly higher percentcompared to those who would be comfortable riding in standard bikelanes (39%) or streets with no bicycle facilities (8%).They Can Make Biking Safer – Installing a protected bike lane on astreet cuts the injury risk per bike trip by 30 percent (two-way bikeway)to 50 percent (one-way bikeway).Reduces Some Types Unsafe Behavior – Adding a protected bikelane cuts sidewalk riding by 56 percent on average (sidewalk andwrong-way riding accounts for 16 percent of San Luis Obispo bicyclecollisions).Pedestrian Safety – Protected bike lanes can calm traffic and reduce crossing distances for pedestrians. With the installation of protected bike lanes along several streets, New York City reported areduction in traffic injury rates—mostly reflective of pedestrian injuries—of 12 to 52 percent.This Plan proposes installation of protected or separated bikeways along 70 percent of the proposed Anholm Bikeway Route. 5 Statistics referenced from People For Bikes (www.peopleforbikes.org) and The Green Lane Project (www.greenlaneproject.org). Observed Bicycle Ridership Increase After Installation of Protected Bike Lanes in Various U.S. Cities (Source: The Green Lane Project)
Anholm Bikeway Plan III. Analysis of the Project24 September 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 impacts sight distance for drivers,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 III. Analysis of the Project25 September 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)6, 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 detailed traffic analysis findings are summarized in Appendix B. Roadway Segment and Intersection Levels of Service The Recommended Project does not include any features that modify traffic circulation, access or emergency vehicle operations, and is expected to have a negligible impact on vehicular traffic capacity/throughput. 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.7 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. Prevailing speeds on Broad, Chorro and Lincoln Street exceed established maximum neighborhood traffic speed thresholds. The proposed project is not expected to trigger any new neighborhood traffic impacts, but has potential to reduce speeds below max thresholds along Broad Street with the traffic calming measures proposed in this plan. 6 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. 7 City General Plan Maximum ADT Targets: Local Streets (1,500 veh/day); Residential Collectors (3,000 veh/day), except Broad/Chorro north of Lincoln and Margarita (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 5,000 4,211 25 26‐27 20‐25Broad Street(Mission ‐ Lincoln)Res. Collector 5,000 3,428 25 30 30Chorro Street(Meinecke ‐ Center)Res. Collector 5,000 5,816 25 31 31Chorro Street(Center ‐ Lincoln)Res. Collector 5,000 6,315 25 31 31Meinecke Street(Broad ‐ Chorro)Local Res. 1,500 1,277 25 N/A N/AMission Street(Broad ‐ Chorro)Local Res. 1,500 477 25 N/A N/ACenter Street(Broad ‐ Chorro)Local Res. 1,500 217 25 N/A N/AMountain View Street(Broad ‐ Chorro)Local Res. 1,500 170 25 N/A N/ARamona Drive(Broad to Palomar)Res. Collector 5,0004,107253030Lincoln Street(Broad ‐ Chorro)Res. Collector 3,0004,58925N/AN/ALincoln Street(Chorro to West)Local Res. 1,500417253030Vehicle 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 on Broad north of Mission anticipated to reduce prevailing speeds by 10‐20%.Segment Street TypeAverage Daily Traffic
Anholm Bikeway Plan III. Analysis of the Project26 September 2018 Driveway Access The proposed 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. However, there will likely be a learning curve for some bicyclists and drivers with the addition protected bike lanes, which are established in many other cities, but may be unfamiliar to San Luis Obispo residents. This is particularly true along Chorro and Ramona where two-way bikeways are proposed on one side of the street and cross the path of several low-volume residential driveways. The City plans to conduct focused outreach and education prior to implementation of the proposed bikeway to address potential questions (i.e. where to place waste bins for trash collection, etc.) and provide helpful safety tips for all users. As an example, Figure 6 below illustrates how driveway ingress/egress works now, and after implementation of the proposed two-way bikeway. Figure 6: Driveway Access with Two-Way Protected Bikeway 1)When exiting driveway, motorist first looks for, and yields to pedestrianswalking along sidewalk from either direction. PROPOSED STREET CONFIGURATION FOR CHORRO & RAMONA (PARKING REMOVED FOR TWO-WAY PROTECTED BIKEWAY) 2)After looking for pedestrians, motorist carefully edges towards roadway to achievea clear line of sight for oncoming vehicles and bicyclists traveling from either direction within the two-way bikeway. When all clear, motorist enters the roadway. 1)When exiting driveway, motorist first looks for, and yields to pedestrianswalking along sidewalk from either direction. EXISTING STREET CONFIGURATION (MIXED-FLOW LANES, STREET PARKING) 2)After looking for pedestrians, motorist carefully edges into parking lane toachieve a clear line of sight for oncoming vehicles and bicyclists within the travel lanes. When all clear, motorist enters the roadway. Openings in protected bikeway physical separation will be provided at driveways and intersections to allow vehicles to ingress and egress. Bikeway buffer provides clear area for residents to place waste bins for curbside collection without obstructing bikeway or auto travel lanes.Openings in protected bikeway barrier provided at driveways and intersections to allow sufficient space for drivers to enter and exit Proposed bikeway buffer (2.5’-3’ wide) provides convenient area for placing waste bins for collection. Buffer width accommodates typical residential bin size
Anholm Bikeway Plan III. Analysis of the Project27 September 2018 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 Street – 41 spaces removed on west side from Mission to Ramona to provide two-way protected bikeway;Broad Street – 15 spaces removed on west side from Mission to Ramona to provide southbound buffered/protected bike lanes; andRamona Drive – 17 spaces removed on north side from Broad to proposed SRTS Class I Path to provide two-way protected bikeway.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, Broad and Ramona, as well as within the surrounding neighborhood. This peak period was used as a baseline for evaluating project-related parking impacts. Table 4 summarizes on-street parking conditions along the proposed bikeway route with and without the project. Parking conditions are also mapped visually in Figure 7. 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 impact neighborhood quality for residents. It should be noted that the “Available Parking within 2-Minute Walk” shown in Table 4 excludes spaces located within existing parking districts and accounts for any parking deficits/spillover from nearby street segments. See Appendix B for detailed parking analysis data. Summary of Parking Analysis With the project-proposed conversion of on-street parking lanes to dedicated bike lanes along segments of Chorro Street, Broad Street and Ramona Drive, on-street parking is anticipated to be scarceduring peak periods along the following street segments:oChorro Street (Center to Venable) – While parking is generally available under project conditions along Chorro between Lincoln and Mission (70% peak occupancy), between Center andVenable, peak occupancy increases from 62% to >100% (deficit of 3 spaces).oBroad Street (Mission to Murray) – Peak occupancy increases from 63% to 100% (0 spaces available).oBroad Street (Murray to Ramona) – Peak occupancy increases from 65% to 93% (1 space available).oRamona Drive (Broad to Palomar) – Peak occupancy increases from 91% to >100% (deficit of 13 spaces).Table 4: Peak Period On-Street Parking Conditions with and without Project Street Segment Existing Conditions Project Conditions Parking Supply Peak % Occupancy Surplus (+) or Deficit (‐) Parking Loss Parking Supply Peak % Occupancy Surplus (+) or Deficit (‐) Available Parking within 2‐min walk Chorro St. (Lincoln to Mission) 81 35% 53‐41 40 70% 12 72 Broad St. (Mission to Murray) 28 68% 9‐9 19 100% 0 32 Broad St. (Murray to Ramona) 20 65% 7‐6 14 93% 1 6 (D) Ramona Dr. (Broad to Palomar) 47 91% 4‐17 30 >100%‐13 8 Notes:A. Parking data collected September‐October 2017. Parking conditions summarized for peak period (weeknight 12‐2 AM). See Appendix B for detailed summary. B. 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. C. Available on‐street parking tallied within a 2‐min walk (1‐2 blocks). Excludes parking located within established parking districts. D. Available parking within vicinity of Broad Street reflects reduced supply due to deficit/spillover from Ramona parking removal.
Anholm Bikeway Plan III. Analysis of the Project28 September 2018 EXISTING CONDITIONS PROJECT CONDITIONS Figure 7: Map of On-Street Parking Conditions with and without Project
Anholm Bikeway Plan III. Analysis of the Project29 September 2018 Of the impacted street segments listed above where projected peak parking demand nears or exceeds available supply, there is generally available street parking within one to two blocks (a 1- to 3-minute walk). For the impacted segment of Ramona Drive (Palomar to Broad)—where fronting land uses include a retail shopping center and retirement community with sufficient off-street parking—much of the existing on-street parking demand appears to be related to spillover from a nearby student housing community to the west. The proposed loss of on-street parking along this segment ofRamona is estimated to displace demand for approximately 13 spaces during peak periods, shifting this demand to other streets nearby—likely east to Meinecke Street and/or further west on Ramona.For some residents living along street segments where parking removal is proposed, lack of readily-available on-street parking fronting their home may be perceived as an unacceptable hardship inexchange for improved bicycle facilities. Some residents who favor on-street parking currently out of convenience or due to lack of garage space8 may simply park in their garage or driveway morefrequently if parking on street becomes more difficult. Informal observations made during parking data collection efforts found that on average, 30-40% of residential driveways were vacant alongChorro and Broad Streets during peak periods. Further, many occupied driveways had available capacity for one or more additional parked vehicles. That said, others living in homes with high autoownership and/or with limited off-street garage/driveway parking will likely continue to rely on street parking and may need to walk 1-2 blocks to available parking nearby, depending time of day.Potential Strategies to Address Parking Concerns Residential Parking District – If there is sufficient interest amongst Anholm residents, the City will support establishment a residential parking district to cover high parking demand areas within theneighborhood. Residential Parking Districts help manage excess on-street parking demand by requiring a city-issued parking permit to park on-street during designated hours. A limit of two permitsare made available to the property owners or residents of each home within the established district. Vehicles parked on street without a permit in these areas are subject to citation. While ResidentialDistricts are often effective at incentivizing more efficient use of off-street garage/driveway parking, they also have potential to shift excess parking demand to nearby areas outside of the districtboundary. This potential shift in spillover parking will be an important consideration in establishing any new parking district. The City Parking Services Division considers requests to establish parkingdistricts on a case-by-case basis and follows a formal process requiring public outreach opportunities, neighborhood ballots and City Council approval prior to creating new a new district or modifyingboundaries or policies of an existing district9.Phasing/Monitoring Strategies – This plan includes detailed recommendations for project implementation and monitoring (see Section V). By phasing implementation of project improvements overtime, considering use of low-cost temporary treatments where appropriate during initial rollout, the City will be able to monitor performance and identify potential design refinements needed prior tofinal construction. The monitoring plan proposes before and after parking studies to identify potential shifts in parking demand, concerns with spillover, and locations with inadequate parking supplywithin the neighborhood. If desired by the City Council, some parking removal could be implemented in phases to allow for additional monitoring and time for residents to adjust to parking conditionsand potentially pursue formation of a Residential Parking District. For example, removal of parking along Chorro Street, where demand is lower, could be implemented in an earlier project phase, withremoval of parking along higher-demand segments on Broad Street to be implemented in later phases pending results of additional monitoring studies and approval by Council.Accessible On-Street Parking – The City is not required to provide neighborhood street parking for residential uses10; however, it is important to acknowledge that there are some older residentialhomes along the Anholm Bikeway that were built to standards that do not meet current City requirements for number or design on-site driveway/garage parking. Loss of on-street parking could beparticularly inconvenient for residents with disabilities or mobility challenges that rely on street parking due to lack of accessible off-street parking within their property. While it is ultimately theresponsibility of the homeowner to comply with applicable parking and accessibility standards within their own property, the City is willing to consider limited installation of designated ADA accessibleon-street parking stalls along the segments of Anholm Bikeway where parking removal is proposed as part of the project. Provision of ADA accessible on-street parking spaces for residents will beconsidered by request on a case-by-case basis.8 Studies indicate that on average, 1 in 4 (25%) Americans do not use their garage for parking, instead choosing to use this space for excess storage, personal gyms and recreational area. A 2007 UCLA research study found that percentage to be as high as 75% among surveyed middle‐class homeowners in Southern California. These choices often result in more cars parked on street. (Source: http://www.latimes.com/style/la‐hm‐parking20mar20‐story.html) 9 More information regarding the City of San Luis Obispo Residential Parking District Program is available here: http://www.slocity.org/government/department‐directory/public‐works/parking‐services/residential‐parking‐districts 10 Per City General Plan Policy 14.1.1 (Residential Parking Spaces): Each residential property owner is responsible for complying with the City’s standards that specify the number, design and location of off‐street residential parking spaces.
Anholm Bikeway Plan III. Analysis of the Project30 September 2018 Benefits to Bicycling As mentioned in the Purpose and Need section, and as illustrated in Figure 2, existing traffic volumes and speeds along Broad and Chorro Streets exceed the levels recommended for mixed-flow conditions, 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—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 expected 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 by extending existing bike lane buffers and installing physical separation within the buffers. North ofLincoln, a two-way protected bike way is proposed along Chorro by removing on-street parking on the west side of the street from Lincoln to Mission. A one-way protected bikeway is proposed forBroad Street southbound, climbing the slight uphill grade between Mission and Ramona. A two-way protected bikeway is proposed on Ramona from Broad to the planned SRTS Class IBicycle/Pedestrian Path by removing on-street parking on the north side of Ramona. Protected bike lanes have been found to offer the greatest potential to attract new ridership.Safe Routes to School Class I Path – A Class I Bicycle/Pedestrian Path is proposed between Ramona and Foothill, completing the continuous low-stress bicycle connection between downtownand Foothill Boulevard. 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 ofFoothill, including Bishop’s Peak and Pacheco Elementary Schools and Cal Poly. It should be noted that completion of this path is contingent on the City establishing an easement or right-of-wayagreement with the LDS Church.Route Signage & Pavement Markings – Bicycle route signs are proposed at several points along the route to provide wayfinding for cyclists and to brand the route as a priority bicycle street. Dashedroadway centerlines are proposed along Broad Street to allow drivers to safely (and legally) pass cyclists.Enhanced Crossing Markings & Green Paint – Enhanced crossing markings and green paint are proposed through key intersection crossings to help bicyclists navigate the designated AnholmBikeway route and to increase visibility of bicycle-vehicle conflict areas.Traffic Calming Elements – Traffic calming elements are included along Broad Street between Mission and Ramona to reduce speeding and improve conditions for bicyclists, pedestrians andresidents along this street. Traffic calming elements include a raised crossing at Broad/Murray, potential replacement of the existing speed humps north of Mission with more effective speedhumps/cushions, corner bulbouts at the intersections of Broad/Meinecke/Ramona and Chorro/Walnut.To evaluate the bicycling environment along the Anholm Bikeway, a bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)11 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 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 11 LTS analysis applied using methodology developed by the Mineta Transportation Institute Report II‐19: Low‐Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity (2012).
Anholm Bikeway Plan III. Analysis of the Project31 September 2018 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 5 below, while LTS scores are mapped for the proposed Anholm Bikeway route in Figure 8 for conditions with and without the proposed project. Table 5: Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Definitions and Types of Bicyclists
Anholm Bikeway Plan III. Analysis of the Project32 September 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, but may present an intimidating environment for children and less-experienced adult cyclists. With implementation of the proposed project improvements, nearly all of the Anholm Bikeway route scores as LTS 1 or LTS 2, proving a low-stress bicycling environment that should appeal to users of all ages and ability levels. 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. While bicyclists traveling northbound on Broad between Mission and Ramona will operate in mixed traffic, similar to current conditions, project-proposed traffic calming improvements and addition of a dashed center line to allow drivers to more comfortably pass cyclists will improve conditions for cyclists and improve the level of stress score to LTS 2 along this segment. EXISTING CONDITIONS PROJECT CONDITIONS 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 III. Analysis of the Project33 September 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 the ultimate construction of new ADA curbramps at each 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. Enhanced crosswalk markings are recommendedat 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, Broad& Meinecke, and Broad & Ramona. Bulbouts provide several benefits to pedestrian safety and comfort, including potential to slow motor vehicle turning speeds, shorten pedestrian crossing distancesand increase visibility of pedestrians waiting to cross. A raised crossing is recommended at Broad & Murray to reduce speeds and encourage motorists 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. Depending onfunding constraints during the initial installation, locations where protected bike lanes are proposed can include interim features like planter boxes that not only provide physical separation from motorvehicle traffic, but provide opportunities to further beautify the Anholm Neighborhood, where attractive landscaping and lush, well-maintained gardens are commonplace. Ultimately, a raised concretemedian is proposed to 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 III. Analysis of the Project34 September 2018 Buffer from Motor Vehicle Traffic – The protected bike lanes proposed for Chorro, Broad and Ramona have potentialto improve not only the bicycling environment, but the pedestrian environment as well. Protected bike lanes create acontinuous buffer between sidewalks and motor vehicle travel lanes—a buffer that improves pedestrian comfort that canbe lacking along streets where on-street parking lanes do not exist, or have low utilization. Protected bike lanes can alsovisually narrow the perceived roadway width for drivers, which can help reduce motor vehicle speeds. Because thepotential risk for severe injury or death in pedestrian vs. motor vehicle collisions increases exponentially as vehicle speedsincrease, it is important to endeavor to achieve speeds within the project study area conducive to a walkable, residentialdistrict (25 mph or less).Street Lighting – The project recommends installation of new streetlighting at the Highway 101/Chorro undercrossing,and at several locations along Broad, Chorro 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 six (6)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 III. Analysis of the Project35 September 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 impacts on 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 impacton vehicular 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 Chorro, 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 other streetlights within the existing neighborhood.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, the proposed project includes traffic calming features to reduce speeding along Broad Street. The addition of physically protected bikeways on Chorro and Ramona is also likelyto reduce the perceived width of the roadway, which can provide traffic calming benefits. In addition, a monitoring plan will be implemented after installation of the initial project elements to observetraffic volumes and speeds within the study area to identify if additional traffic calming measures are warranted in the future.Improved Walkability – The Recommended Project includes addition of accessible curb ramps, enhanced intersection crossings, reduced sidewalk gaps and other amenities to contribute to a qualitywalkable neighborhood environment.Bicycle vs. Motor Vehicle Conflicts – Both motorists and bicyclists have expressed frustration with current conditions along Broad and Chorro Streets north of Lincoln, where drivers and bicyclistsare required to share the travel lanes. Motorists are inconvenienced when following slower-moving bicyclists, and bicyclists are uncomfortable getting tail gated or passed frequently by fast-movingtraffic. The project provides dedicated bicycle lanes along the majority of the proposed bikeway route, removing slower moving bicyclists from the motor vehicle lanes and providing physical separationfor bicyclists from motor vehicle traffic. Where shared street conditions remain along northbound Broad Street, a dashed centerline will be added to promote safe (and legal) passing of bicyclists.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 pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure has also been found to provide economicbenefits for properties located within proximity of these facilities. Current studies on the economic impacts of active transportation infrastructure have found that homes in walkable neighborhoods andwithin close proximity to high-quality separated bicycle facilities have higher sale prices on average than homes located in areas without these features. Further, corridors where protected bike laneshave been installed have seen either no change or increases in retail sales.1212 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.
Anholm Bikeway Plan III. Analysis of the Project36 September 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 treatments/materials for both theinterim and long-term physical separation along the protected bikeways. For the initial protected bike lane installation, planter boxes may be considered within the bike lane buffers, with potential foran “adopt a planter” program where residents can apply to install and maintain their own unique plantings, including flowers or vegetables. For the long-term installation, the City plans to install araised median within the bike lane buffers, providing the opportunity for permanent planter beds, bioswales or other green street features if sufficient funds are available.Potential Neighborhood Quality Concerns Loss of On-Street Parking – While on-street areas are part of the public street right-of-way, this parking can often be viewed as a valuable amenity for private property owners and residents. Someresidents prefer to park on-street out of convenience—to provide additional garage space for storage, to avoid backing out of their private driveway, or to park closer to their front door. For others,parking on-street is a necessity due to lack of adequate parking area within their property. To provide width for dedicated bicycle facilities and to improve safety at intersections, the project includespartial removal of on-street parking on segments of Broad Street, Chorro Street and Ramona Drive. While conversion of a portion of the public street width from parking to dedicated bicycle facilitieswas determined by the City Council to be a worthy trade-off, some residents will certainly see this as a significant inconvenience and impact to their neighborhood quality. A detailed discussion ofparking impacts and mitigation strategies is included in the “Parking Considerations” section above, and in Appendix B.Learning Curve with New Types of Bike Facilities – In other places where protected bike lanes have been installed, bicycle activity has increased—often significantly. Some residents of the Anholmneighborhood have expressed concern that the proposed two-way bikeway will be unfamiliar to drivers and the potential increase in bicycling activity will lead to increased collisions or accidental useof the bike lanes by motor vehicles, affecting overall neighborhood quality. While current studies have found that safety for all road users typically improves with installation of protected bike lanesand bicycle vs. motor vehicle collision rates most often decrease when more bicyclists are present on a given route, this will likely remain a concern from some residents of the Anholm neighborhooduntil residents become accustomed to the proposed street changes. Still, the design of the bikeway will carefully consider best practices for two-way protected bikeway design—ensuring that adequatesight lines are provided at intersection and driveway conflict areas, and providing enhanced markings and signage to improve the visibility of areas with higher potential for conflicts between driversand bicyclists. In addition, the City plans to mail out “fact sheets” to residents of properties fronting the bikeway to provide guidance regarding potential areas for confusion (i.e. where to place wastereceptacles on collection day, where not to park, safety tips for bicyclists and drivers).Overall Ability to Support Project Goals & Objectives The Anholm Bikeway Plan diverges from the concept originally envisioned for this route in the 2013 BTP, as the final project does not propose a traditional bicycle boulevard or follow Broad Street exclusively. Still, the Recommended Project strongly 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 proposed project includes real trade-offs, such as the removal of some on-street parking to provide width for dedicated bicycle facilities. However, the proposed addition of protected bike lanes along the majority of this route provides substantial potential to attract new bicycle trips and support the City’s mode share and sustainability goals. The specific design elements identified in this plan are consistent with the design objectives initially established for this project, with unique features/markings/signage that brand the Anholm Bikeway as a priority bicycle corridor, traffic calming measures to reduce motor vehicle speeds, features that separate bicyclists from motor vehicle traffic, and elements that improve the accessibility, safety and aesthetic quality of the pedestrian environment. Bicycling Means Business: How Cycling Enriches People and Cities, StreetsblogUSA.com. March 8, 2013.
Anholm Bikeway Plan IV. Project Development Process37 September 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 – Five (5) 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, aneighborhood meeting to present plans and invite feedback on the final recommendations for the Anholm Bikeway Plan, thena supplementary interactive design charrette to gather feedback for refinement of the “middle segment” between Lincoln andRamona.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 Active Transportation Committee (ATC), formally the Bicycle AdvisoryCommittee, consists of seven members who must be residents of the City, and provides oversight and policy decisions onmatters related to bicycle transportation. The ATC received multiple presentations from staff throughout development of theAnholm Bikeway Plan. The committee solicited public comments from meeting attendees and ultimately provided staff withfeedback 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. A City Council hearing was held in April 2018 to adopt Plan recommendations for the “northern”and “southern” segments of the bikeway corridor, with a final hearing in September of 2018 to adopt final recommendationsfor the “middle segment” between Lincoln and Ramona.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 August 2018, the project website has received over 1,600 unique visitors and has 190+ 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 IV. Project Development Process38 September 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, ATC 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 “low-impact” 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 the first round of 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 for the preliminary alternatives survey. The results of this survey, which are shown below, were presented during the City Council Study Session referenced above. Based on the preliminary alternatives analysis 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 ATC’ss 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 impacting trafficcirculation.Secondary Alternative – A “low-impact” option that utilizes Lincoln Street east of Chorro and establishes a bicycleroute with features such as enhanced markings, signage and minor traffic calming that can be easily implementedand does not impact street parking or traffic circulation.The “Preferred Alternative” carried forward from the Council Study Session represents the final concept represented in this plan. A second community survey was conducted to gauge support for either of these final alternatives. The results of this second survey are summarized below. Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard Project – Alternatives Analysis Community Preference Survey Results (as of 8/1/17) An initial community survey 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 IV. Project Development Process39 September 2018 Based on review of the second community survey, the majority of citywide residents (63%) supported the project alternative that featured protected bike lanes. As with the previous alternatives analysis survey, within the neighborhood, there was less support for protected bike lanes, with 55% of participants supporting the shared street concept using Lincoln Street, and 19% supporting “other” options or no improvements at all. Anholm Bikeway – Final Alternatives Community Preference Survey Results (as of 1/16/18)
Anholm Bikeway Plan V. Cost Estimates, Phasing and Performance Monitoring Strategies 40 September 2018 PhaseImprovementsCostConstructionYearPHASE 1‐ Safe Routes to School Linkage•SRTS Class I Path (Ramona to Foothill)‐‐ROW & Construction•SRTS Crossing at Foothill/Ferrini•Ramona Drive Protected Bike Lanes (Broad to SRTS Path)•Establish Residential Parking District (if approved by neighborhood)$996,000(2)2018‐19PHASE 2‐ Protected Bikeways ‐ US 101/Chorro Undercrossing Enhancements•US 101/Chorro Undercrossing Lighting & Gateway Enhancements•Chorro Protected Bike Lanes (Downtown to Lincoln) ‐ Interim Installation•Chorro Protected Bike Lanes (Lincoln to Mission) ‐ Interim Installations•Broad SB Buffered/Protected Bike Lane (Mission to Ramona)•Bikeway Route Signage & Markings$475,000 2019‐22$1,471,000PHASE 3‐ Protected Bikeways (Permanent Installation)‐ Incremental Installation of Remaining Pedestrian Features & High‐Cost Civil Improvements•Broad/Meinecke/Ramona Bulbouts•Broad/Murray Raised Crossing•Additional Street Lighting•New Sidewalk Installations (west side of Broad)•Chorro/Walnut & Chorro/Peach Pedestrian Crossing Improvements•ADA Curb Ramps (Remaining Locations)•Speed Humps/Cushions (Replace Existing Speed Humps Mission to Ramona)TBD2020 and BeyondSubtotal (Phase 1‐2)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 funded throughcombination of Anholm Bikeway and Safe Routes to School CIP Project funds.3.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.4.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.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 6 below. Table 6: Project Phasing and Planning-Level Cost Estimates CITY TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH CALTRANS TO PURSUE CLOSURE OF THE HIGHWAY 101/BROAD STREET RAMPS
Anholm Bikeway Plan V. Cost Estimates, Phasing and Performance Monitoring Strategies 41 September 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 the proposed two-way protected bikeway along Ramona between the Safe Routes to School Path and Broad Street. Improvements for this phase are expected to be funded through a combination of SRTS and Anholm Bikeway project funds. In conjunction with Phase 1, and prior to the proposed removal of on-street parking along Broad and Chorro Streets in Phase 2, it is recommended that the City work with residents of the Anholm Neighborhood to pursue formation of a Residential Parking District if sufficient support exists within the neighborhood. Phase 2 will include installation of safety lighting and streetscape enhancements at the Highway 101/Chorro Street undercrossing, and implementation of essential features required to establish the Anholm Bikeway between Downtown and Ramona Drive as pilot project. Depending on funding, for this initial rollout, protected bikeway separation and other features may be constructed using lower-cost, temporary materials where appropriate, to allow for monitoring, testing and refinement prior to installation of higher-cost permanent features. If funding is limited during initial installation, protected bikeway separation may be provided with flex posts and rubber curbing, while the permanent installation is proposed to include raised concrete islands. 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 of protected bikeway elements and remaining higher-cost civil improvements, such as concrete sidewalks and curb ramps, concrete bulbouts at Broad/Ramona/Meinecke, and the raised crossing 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 may be implemented with temporary materials during initial project phases prior to construction using permanent materialsPOTENTIAL INTERIM PERMANENT
Anholm Bikeway Plan V. Cost Estimates, Phasing and Performance Monitoring Strategies 42 September 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 7: 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 and Chorro Streetsbetween Lincoln and Mission, as well as along nearby streets where potential shifts intraffic may occur.Before ConstructionAfter Constructiono12 & 24 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 & 24 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 & 24 months after Phase 2 ImprovementsPARKING IMPACTS Collect on-street parking occupancy data to evaluate changes in parking demandwithin the vicinity of the proposed bikeway. Analysis will identify impacted streetsegments (where peak period parking demand exceeds available supply) andavailable on-street parking within reasonable walking distance of impacted segments.Peak period parking counts to be conducted along the Anholm Bikeway route andalong streets within a ¼-mile walkshed of the bikeway corridor. gBefore ConstructionAfter Constructiono12 & 24 months after Phase 2 Improvements*Additional parking data collection may be required if other events thataffect parking conditions occur concurrently with project implementation. Potential events of this type include formation of new Residential Parking Districts and/or completion of new multifamily residential or commercial development within the study area.
Anholm Bikeway Plan V. Cost Estimates, Phasing and Performance Monitoring Strategies 43 September 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 & 24 months after Phase 2 ImprovementsPERFORMANCE MONITORING REPORTING Submit staff report to City Council summarizing findings of the project PerformanceMonitoring ProgramAfter Constructiono12 & 24 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 September 2018 Appendix A: Concept Design Plan Sheets
CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:SHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE:
ANHOLM BIKEWAY PLAN
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY MAP
SHEET TITLE:PREFERRED ALTERNATIVEJANUARY 2018
BROADFOOTHILL CHORROSANTA ROSALINCOLNCHORROBROADRAMONA SERRANO MEINECKEMURRAYWEST
VENABLEMISSIONMISSIONCENTERLINCOLNCENTERALMONDPEACHMILLPALMWALNUTUS 101BENTONMTN. VIEWCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:SHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE:
SHEET TITLE:
N1" = 350'SHEET 1 SHEET 2SHEET 3SHEET 4SHEET 10SHEET 11SHEET 12
KEY MAPSHEET 8SHEET 9
SHEET 5
SHEET 7
SHEET 6
ANHOLM BIKEWAY PLANJANUARY 2018
STOPXINGPEDCHURCH OF LATTER DAYSAINTS PROPERTYRAMONASTOPBUMPBUMP
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
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE PROJECT LIMITS (FOOTHILL BLVD)CHANNELIZATION TO PROVIDE BIKE"EXIT/MERGE" ONTO RAMONASRTS BIKE PATH CONNECTINGRAMONA TO FOOTHILL BLVDUSE GREEN PAVEMENT TOINCREASE VISIBILITY OF BIKEFACILITY ACROSS DRIVEWAYSanholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewayTWO-WAY PROTECTED BIKEWAYTWO-WAY PROTECTED BIKEWAYON-STREET PARKINGON-STREET PARKINGUSE GREEN PAVEMENT TOINCREASE VISIBILITY OF BIKEFACILITY ACROSS DRIVEWAYSSTOP FOR BIKEWAYSTOP FOR BIKEWAYANHOLM BIKEWAY PLANJANUARY 2018NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. FINAL PLANS WILLBE PREPARED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTIONanholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewayPHYSICAL SEPARATION·NEAR-TERM: FLEX POSTS ANDRUBBER CURBING·LONG-TERM: CONCRETE CURBINGONLYON-STREET PARKINGEXISTING RAISED CROSSINGSHOPPING CENTERDRIVEWAY
STOPSTOPSTOPRAMONA
MEINECKESTOPSTOPBROAD
CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:2ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE:
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
SHEET TITLE:
N1" = 20'MATCH LINE 2MATCH LINE 3WATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPHIGH-VIS CROSSWALKS, ADA CURB RAMPS& SIDEWALK BULBOUTS WITH POTENTIALFOR GREEN STREET TREATMENTS12BULBOUTS SHORTEN CROSSINGDISTANCE FOR PEDESTRIANS NEARVILLAGES SENIOR COMMUNITYSIDEWALK BULBOUTNEW ADA CURB RAMPWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPADD "WATCH FOR BICYCLES"SUPPLEMENTARY SIGN TO ALLSIDE-STREET STOP SIGNS ALONGBICYCLE CORRIDORSNEW ADA CURB RAMPNEW MEDIAN ISLAND IMPROVESPEDESTRIAN CROSSINGSTRIPE NEW CROSSWALK MARKINGSanholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewayanholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewayBIKE LANEBEGINanholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewayTWO-WAY PROTECTED BIKEWAY ONLYSTOP FOR BIKEWAYBULB OUT TO TIGHTEN CORNERRADIUS TO REDUCE TURNINGSPEEDS AND IMPROVE CROSSINGANHOLM BIKEWAY PLANJANUARY 2018NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. FINAL PLANS WILLBE PREPARED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTIONanholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewayanholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewayPLEASE WALK,BIKE, AND DRIVESAFELY
BUMPBROADBUMP
STOPBROADMURRAYBUMPBUMP
CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:3ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE:
SHEET TITLE:
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
N1" = 20'N1" = 20'MATCH LINE 4MATCH LINE 4
MATCH LINE 5MATCH LINE 3EXISTING SPEED HUMP TO REMAIN,POTENTIAL TO INSTALL SPEEDCUSHION IN THE FUTURE, TYP12REMOVE PARKING ON WEST SIDE TO ADDSOUTHBOUND BUFFERED BIKE LANEPOTENTIAL FOR PHYSICAL SEPARATION IN THE FUTUREON-STREET PARKINGREMOVE PARKING ON WEST SIDE TO ADDSOUTHBOUND BUFFERED BIKE LANEPOTENTIAL FOR PHYSICAL SEPARATION INTHE FUTUREON-STREET PARKINGSINGLE DASHED CENTERLINE TOREPLACE EXISTING DOUBLE YELLOW.ALLOWS DRIVERS TO SAFELY ANDLEGALLY PASS CYCLISTSEXISTING SPEED HUMP TO REMAIN,POTENTIAL TO INSTALL SPEEDCUSHION IN THE FUTUREGREEN BACKED SHARROWSTO REPLACE EXISTING SHARROWSFOR NORTHBOUND DIRECTIONRAISED INTERSECTION (OR RAISED CROSSING DEPENDING ON FUNDS) SLOWS TRAFFIC AND IMPROVES PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGBOLLARDSBOLLARDSBOLLARDSSIDEWALK BULBOUTSWITH POTENTIAL FORGREEN STREETTREATMENTSWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPanholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewayanholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewayANHOLM BIKEWAY PLANJANUARY 2018NOT 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:
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
N1" = 20'N1" = 20'MATCH LINE 6MATCH LINE 6
MATCH LINE 7MATCH LINE 5
COMPLETE SIDEWALKNEW ADACURB RAMP12ON-STREET PARKINGON-STREET PARKINGNEW ADACURB RAMPREMOVE PARKING ON WEST SIDE TO ADDSOUTHBOUND BUFFERED BIKE LANEPOTENTIAL FOR PHYSICAL SEPARATION IN THE FUTUREEXISTING SPEED HUMP TO REMAIN,POTENTIAL TO INSTALL SPEEDCUSHION IN THE FUTUREEXISTING SPEED HUMP TO REMAIN,POTENTIAL TO INSTALL SPEEDCUSHION IN THE FUTUREGREEN BACKED SHARROWSTO REPLACE EXISTING SHARROWSFOR NORTHBOUND DIRECTIONSINGLE DASHED CENTERLINE TOREPLACE EXISTING DOUBLE YELLOWREMOVE PARKING ON WEST SIDE TO ADDSOUTHBOUND BUFFERED BIKE LANEPOTENTIAL FOR PHYSICAL SEPARATION IN THE FUTUREWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPANHOLM BIKEWAY PLANJANUARY 2018NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. FINAL PLANS WILLBE PREPARED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION
STOPMISSI
O
N
S
T
O
P
MISSION
STOPSTOPCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:5ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE:
SHEET TITLE:
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
MATCH LINE 7 N1" = 20'NEW ADACURB RAMPSNEW ADACURB RAMPSCOMPLETESIDEWALKNEW ADACURB RAMPS12BRING STOP BARSUP TO MISSIONGREEN BACKEDSHARROWS TO REPLACEEXISTING SHARROWSON-STREET PARKINGMATCH LINE 8anholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewayanholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewaySTOPANHOLM BIKEWAY PLANJANUARY 2018NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. FINAL PLANS WILLBE PREPARED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTIONBIKE LANEENDMAY USEFULL LANE
MISSIONMISSIONCITY 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
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVEGREEN BACKED SHARROWSFOR WEST AND EAST DIRECTIONSALONG MISSIONANHOLM BIKEWAY PLANJANUARY 2018NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. FINAL PLANS WILLBE PREPARED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTIONanholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewayanholmCity of San Luis Obispobikeway
STOPSTOPSTOP
MISSIONSTOP
CHORROSTOPMISSION
CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:7ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE:
SHEET TITLE:MATCH LINE 1112GREEN PAVEMENT MARKINGSENHANCE VISIBILITY OF BIKEWAYAT INTERSECTIONSN1" = 30'ON-STREET PARKINGINSTALL PHYSICAL SEPARATION·NEAR TERM: FLEX POSTS AND RUBBERCURBING·ULTIMATE: RAISED CONCRETE CURBSGAPS PROVIDED FOR DRIVEWAY ACCESSSTRIPPED BUFFERGREEN BACKED SHARROWSCHEVRONDIRECTIONALMARKINGSTWO-WAY PROTECTED BIKEWAYMATCH LINE 10PREFERRED ALTERNATIVESTOP FOR BIKEWAYanholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewayanholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewayanholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewayONLYANHOLM BIKEWAY PLANJANUARY 2018NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. FINAL PLANS WILLBE PREPARED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION
STOPVENABLE
CHORROSTOPCENTERSTOPSTOP
CHORROSTOPSTOPSTOP
CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:8ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE:
SHEET TITLE:
N1" = 30'MATCH LINE 12MATCH LINE 12 MATCH LINE 11
12N1" = 30'ON-STREET PARKING RETAINED ON EASTSIDE OF CHORRO STREETPRIVATE DRIVEWAY ACCESS RETAINEDBY PROVIDING APPROPRIATE GAPS INPHYSICAL SEPARATION WITHIN BIKEWAYNEW ADA CURB RAMPSNEW ADA CURB RAMPSAT ALL CORNERSMATCH LINE 13ON-STREET PARKINGON-STREET PARKINGON-STREET PARKINGTWO-WAY PROTECTED BIKEWAYCHEVRON MARKINGS THROUGHINTERSECTION TO HIGHLIGHTCONFLICT AREAPREFERRED ALTERNATIVETWO-WAY PROTECTED BIKEWAYSTOPWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPSTOP FOR BIKEWAYONLYONLYANHOLM BIKEWAY PLANJANUARY 2018NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. FINAL PLANS WILLBE PREPARED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTIONINSTALL PHYSICAL SEPARATION·NEAR TERM: FLEX POSTS AND RUBBERCURBING·ULTIMATE: RAISED CONCRETE CURBSGAPS PROVIDED FOR DRIVEWAY ACCESS
STOPSTOPSTOPSTOP
LINCOLN
CHORROSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOPMOUNTAINVIEWCHORRO
CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:9ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE:
SHEET TITLE:MATCH LINE 14MATCH LINE 14
MATCH LINE 1512N1" = 30'N1" = 30'ON-STREET PARKINGON-STREET PARKINGON-STREET PARKING RETAINED ONEAST SIDE OF CHORRO STREETHI-VIS CROSSWALKTWO-WAY PROTECTED BIKEWAYGREEN BIKECHANNELIZATIONSHORTEN LEFT TURNPOCKET TO 75' TOPROVIDE WIDTH FORBUFFERED BIKE LANESPREFERRED ALTERNATIVECHEVRON MARKINGSTHROUGH INTERSECTIONTO HIGHLIGHT CONFLICT AREACHEVRON MARKINGS THROUGHINTERSECTION TO HIGHLIGHTCONFLICT AREAREMOVE STRIPED MEDIANAND SHORT TURN POCKETTO PROVIDE WIDTHFOR BIKE LANE BUFFERSanholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewayanholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewayWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPONLYanholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewayPLEASE WALK,BIKE, AND DRIVESAFELYTURNING VEHICLESYIELD TO BIKES SIGNANHOLM BIKEWAY PLANJANUARY 2018NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. FINAL PLANS WILLBE PREPARED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTIONINSTALL PHYSICAL SEPARATION·NEAR TERM: FLEX POSTS AND RUBBERCURBING·ULTIMATE: RAISED CONCRETE CURBSGAPS PROVIDED FOR DRIVEWAY ACCESSanholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewayMATCH LINE 13
CHORROWALNUTSTOPSTOP CHORROCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:10ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE:
SHEET TITLE:MATCH LINE 16MATCH LINE 17MATCH LINE 15MATCH LINE 16 1" = 20'N1" = 20'NSHORTEN LEFT TURNPOCKET TO 50' TOPROVIDE WIDTH FORBUFFERED BIKE LANESGREEN THROUGH INTERSECTION12HI-VIS CROSSWALKTIGHTEN CORNER RADIUS TOREDUCE TURNING SPEEDS ANDIMPROVE CROSSINGPREFERRED ALTERNATIVE EXTEND BACK OF SIDEWALK TOACCOMMODATE PEDESTRIAN-SCALE LIGHTINGON BOTH SIDES OF CHORRO AT HIGHWAY 101UNDERCROSSINGTIGHTEN CORNER RADIUS TO REDUCETURNING SPEEDS AND IMPROVE CROSSINGWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPANHOLM BIKEWAY PLANJANUARY 2018NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. FINAL PLANS WILLBE PREPARED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTIONSTRIPED BUFFERINSTALL PHYSICAL SEPARATION·NEAR TERM: FLEX POSTS AND RUBBERCURBING·ULTIMATE: RAISED CONCRETE CURBSGAPS PROVIDED FOR DRIVEWAY ACCESS
CHORROMILLSTOPSTOPSTOP PEACH
STOPSTOPSTOPCHORROCITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:11ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE:
SHEET TITLE:MATCH LINE18MATCH LINE 19MATCH LINE 17MATCH LINE 18 1" = 20'N1" = 20'N
GREEN PAINTTHROUGH INTERSECTIONINSTALL GREEN PAINT THROUGH INTERSECTIONWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOP12HI-VIS CROSSWALKSTRIPED BUFFERPREFERRED ALTERNATIVE STRIPED BUFFERINSTALL PHYSICAL SEPARATION·NEAR TERM: FLEX POSTS AND RUBBERCURBING·ULTIMATE: RAISED CONCRETE CURBSGAPS 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 CROSSWALKWATCHFOR BICYCLESSTOPANHOLM BIKEWAY PLANJANUARY 2018NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. FINAL PLANS WILLBE PREPARED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTIONanholmCity of San Luis ObispobikewayanholmCity of San Luis Obispobikeway
PALMCHORRO
MONTEREYCHORRO
CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:12ofSHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PROJECT TITLE:
SHEET TITLE:12MATCH LINE 19 1" = 20'N1" = 20'N
MATCH LINE 20PROJECT LIMITSMATCH LINE 20 STRIPED BUFFERSHARROWS UP TO INTERSECTIONSHARROWS BETWEEN PALM AND MONTEREYPREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
ANHOLM BIKEWAY PLANJANUARY 2018NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. FINAL PLANS WILLBE PREPARED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTIONBIKE LANEENDBIKE LANEBEGINMAY USEFULL LANEMAY USEFULL LANE
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Anholm Bikeway Plan Appendix C: Adopting Resolution B-1 September 2018 Appendix B: Traffic & Parking Analysis
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Anholm Bikeway Plan Appendix B: Traffic & Parking Analysis B-2 September 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 rangeof 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 mphLEGEND1445(191
)
[121
]22(3
)
[5
]3068(255
)
[296
]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]105(16
)
[15
]105(11
)
[12
]2829(215
)
[302
]3240(335
)
[275
]3715(262)[386]2600(256)[220]3399(275)[340]2414(230)[226]2967(253)[301]2123(217)[196]30 mph30 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 STAM(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 St
14151617XXX(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 ST101MILL
STWALNUT STPALM STMONTEREY STCHORRO STMORRO STOSOS STLINCOLN STHIGUERA
STBROAD STMISS
ION
PLAZAMONTEREY 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
]98
7
(
7
3
)
[
1
0
9
]
1
4
7
7
(
1
2
7
)
[
1
5
8
]
6
82
(45
)
[
72
]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 St
130(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.Attachment 1
Anholm Bikeway Plan Appendix B: Traffic & Parking Analysis B-5 September 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)13, 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 13 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 September 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.14 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. 14 City General Plan Maximum ADT Targets: Local Streets (1,500 veh/day); Residential Collectors (3,000 veh/day), except Broad/Chorro north of Lincoln and Margarita (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 5,0003,428253025Chorro 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 5,0004,107253030Lincoln Street(Broad ‐ Chorro)Res. Collector 3,0004,58925N/AN/ALincoln Street(Chorro to West)Local Res. 1,500417253030Vehicle 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 September 2018 Parking Analysis Potential parking impacts 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 at the following locations is proposed for removal to provide width for dedicated bike lanes and crossing improvements at intersections: Chorro Street – 41 spaces eliminated on west side from Mission to Ramona;Broad Street – 15 spaces eliminated on west side from Mission to Ramona; andRamona Drive – 17 spaces eliminated on north side from Broad to proposed SRTS Class I 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 along Chorro and Broad Streets, as well as along other streets within 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—both along Chorro and Broad Streets, as well as within the surrounding neighborhood. This peak period is used in the following analysis as a baseline for evaluating project-related parking impacts. 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 September 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. Parking occupancy with and without the project is also mapped visually in Figure B4. Table B5: On-Street Parking Conditions with and without Project ParkingSupplyPeak Period DemandSurplus/ DefecitParkingLossParkingSupplySurplus (+) or Defecit (‐)Lincoln to Mountain View 161156% 16156%Mountain View to Center 21 7 14 33% 21 14 33%Center to Mission St 60 17 43 28% 60 43 28%Mission to Murray 28 19 9 68%‐9 19 0 100%Murray to Ramona 20 13 7 65%‐6 14 1 93%Ramona to Foothill 6 5 1 83% 6 1 83%Subtotal Broad Street151 62 89 41%‐15 136 74 46%Lincoln to Mountain View 16 5 11 31%‐8 8 3 63%Mountain View to Center 23 10 13 43%‐11 12 2 83%Center to Venable 21 13 8 62%‐11 10‐3130%Venable to Mission21021 0%‐11 10100%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%‐41 1213571%Broad to Chorro331023 30%332330%Subtotal Mission Street331023 30%0332330%Broad to Palomar47434 91%‐17 30‐13143%North side parking removed for bike lanes.Subtotal Ramona Drive47434 91%‐17 30‐13143%STREET SEGMENTEXISTING CONDITIONSPROJECT CONDITIONSReason for Parking LossPeak Period % OccupancyPeak Period % OccupancyWest side parking removed for bike lane.West side parking removed for bike lanes.MissionRamonaNotes: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, 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 Street35%70%↑Parking RemovalProposed↑ Parking RemovalProposedBroad StreetParking RemovalProposed↓Parking RemovalProposed↓67%97%
Anholm Bikeway Plan Appendix B: Traffic & Parking Analysis B-9 Figure B4: Map of On-Street Parking Conditions with and without Project EXISTING CONDITIONS PROJECT CONDITIONS September 2018
Anholm Bikeway Plan Appendix B: Traffic & Parking Analysis B-10 September 2018 As shown in Table B5 and Figure B4, during the peak demand period, on-street parking occupancy is highest in the northern portion of the study area closest to Foothill Boulevard. This is likely related to a higher concentration of commercial uses and high student-oriented housing within these neighborhoods. With the parking reductions resulting from the Recommended Project, peak on-street parking occupancy along the Anholm Bikeway is affected as follows: Chorro Street (Lincoln to Mission) – Peak parking occupancy increases from 35% to70% (surplus of 12 spaces).Mission Street (Chorro to Broad) – No change, peak occupancy at 30%.Broad Street (Mission to Ramona) – Peak parking occupancy increases from 67% to97% (surplus of 1 space).Ramona Drive (Broad to Palomar) – Peak parking occupancy increases from 91% to>100% (deficit of 13 spaces).A parking occupancy rate of 85%-90% is typically considered the “practical capacity”, 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 impact neighborhood quality for residents. For street segments where peak parking demand exceeds the practical capacity, drivers may have trouble finding available parking directly in front of their desired destination. This is already a common experience during peak-demand periods along some street segments in the Anholm Neighborhood (and within other neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo). If on-street parking is scarce during peak periods on certain blocks, it is important to ask—is there available parking within a short walk? While scarcity of readily available on-street parking on a specific block will likely be considered an unacceptable inconvenience for some residents, overall, it is important to understand if there remains available parking within reasonable walking distance. To study this further, available parking spaces were tallied within reasonable walking distance of street segments along the Anholm Bikeway where parking demand is projected to near or potentially exceed the practical capacity—specifically, segments where peak parking occupancy is at 75% or greater with addition of the project (see red and orange segments in Figure B4). For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the maximum walking distance that an average person will tolerate traveling to/from available parking is approximately 1-2 blocks (300-600 feet), or about a 1- to 3-minute walk. Figure B5 shows the available parking spaces within reasonable walking distance of high-occupancy street segments along the proposed bikeway corridor. Figure B5: Available On-Street Parking Near Impacted Street Segments Note: On-street parking within existing residential parking districts (Tassajara/Luneta/Verde, Palomar/Serrano, Murray) excluded from tally of available supply. RAMONA DRIVE (BROAD TO PALOMAR) Peak Parking Demand with Project: >100% (Deficit of 13 spaces) Available On-Street Parking Nearby: Within 1-minute walk: 1 spaceWithin 2-minute walk: 8 spacesWithin 3-minute walk: 18 spacesBROAD STREET (MISSION TO MURRAY) Peak Parking Demand with Project: 100% Available On-Street Parking Nearby: Within 1-minute walk: 13 spacesWithin 2-minute walk: 32 spacesWithin 3-minute walk: 48 spacesCHORRO STREET (MT. VIEW TO VENABLE) Peak Parking Demand with Project: 83% to >100% (Deficit of 3 spaces between Center and Venable) Available On-Street Parking Nearby: Within 1-minute walk: 35 spacesWithin 2-minute walk: 72 spacesBROAD STREET (MURRAY TO RAMONA) Peak Parking Demand with Project: 97% (1 available space) Available On-Street Parking Nearby: (Unadjusted) Within 1-minute walk: 6 spacesWithin 2-minute walk: 16 spacesWithin 3-minute walk: 22 spaces(Adjusted‐‐Reflects Deficit/Spillover from Ramona) Within 1-minute walk: 5 spacesWithin 2-minute walk: 6 spaces
Anholm Bikeway Plan Appendix B: Traffic & Parking Analysis B-11 September 2018 It should be noted that the available parking totals summarized in Figure B5 exclude spaces located within existing parking districts and accounts for parking deficits/spillover from adjacent segments. Summary of Potential Parking Concerns With the project-proposed conversion of on-street parking lanes to dedicated bike lanes along segments of Chorro Street, Broad Street and Ramona Drive, on-street parking is anticipated to be scarceduring peak periods along the following specific street segments:oChorro Street (Mountain View to Venable) – Between Mountain View and Center, peak occupancy increases from 43% to 83% (1 available space); Between Center and Venable, peakoccupancy increases from 62% to >100% (deficit of 3 spaces).oBroad Street (Mission to Murray) – Peak occupancy increases from 63% to 100% (0 spaces available).oBroad Street (Murray to Ramona) – Peak occupancy increases from 65% to 93% (1 space available).oRamona Drive (Broad to Palomar) – Peak occupancy increases from 91% to >100% (deficit of 13 spaces).For some residents living along street segments where parking removal is proposed, lack of readily-available on-street parking fronting their home may be perceived as an unacceptable trade-off forimproved bicycle facilities. Some residents who favor on-street parking currently out of convenience or due to lack of garage space15 may simply park in their garage or driveway more frequently ifparking on street becomes more difficult. Informal observations made during on-street parking data collection efforts found that on average, 30-40% of residential driveways were vacant along Chorroand Broad Streets between Lincoln and Ramona. Further, many occupied driveways had available capacity for one or more additional parked vehicles. That said, others living in homes with high autoownership and/or with limited off-street garage/driveway parking will continue to rely on street parking and may need to walk to available parking nearby, depending time of day.Of the impacted street segments listed above where projected peak parking demand nears or exceeds available supply, there is generally available street parking within one to two blocks (a 1- to 3-minute walk). For the impacted segment of Ramona Drive (Palomar to Broad)—where fronting land uses include a retail shopping center and retirement community with sufficient off-street parking—much of the existing on-street parking demand appears to be related to spillover from a nearby student housing community to the west. The proposed loss of on-street parking along this segment ofRamona is estimated to displace approximately 13 parked cars during peak periods, shifting this demand to other streets nearby—likely east to Meinecke Street and/or farther west on Ramona Drivebeyond Tassajara.Potential Strategies to Address Parking Concerns Residential Parking District – If there is sufficient interest amongst Anholm residents, the City is able to assist with establishing a residential parking district to cover high parking demand areaswithin the neighborhood. Residential Parking Districts help manage excess on-street parking demand by requiring a city-issued parking permit to park on-street during designated hours. A limit of twopermits are made available to the property owners or residents of each home within the established district. Vehicles parked on street without a permit in these areas are subject to citation. WhileResidential Districts are often effective at incentivizing more efficient use of off-street garage/driveway parking, they also have potential to shift excess parking demand to nearby areas outside of thedistrict boundary. This potential shift in spillover parking will be an important consideration in establishing any new parking district. The City Parking Services Division considers requests to establishparking districts on a case-by-case basis and follows a formal process requiring public outreach opportunities, neighborhood ballots and City Council approval prior to creating new a new district ormodifying boundaries or policies of an existing district16.15 Studies indicate that on average, 1 in 4 (25%) Americans do not use their garage for parking, instead choosing to use this space for excess storage, personal gyms and recreational area. A 2007 UCLA research study found that percentage to be as high as 75% among surveyed middle‐class homeowners in Southern California. These choices often result in more cars parked on street. (Source: http://www.latimes.com/style/la‐hm‐parking20mar20‐story.html) 16 More information regarding the City of San Luis Obispo Residential Parking District Program is available here: http://www.slocity.org/government/department‐directory/public‐works/parking‐services/residential‐parking‐districts
Anholm Bikeway Plan Appendix B: Traffic & Parking Analysis B-12 Phasing/Monitoring Strategies – This plan includes detailed recommendations for project implementation and monitoring (see Section V). By phasing implementation of project improvements overtime, including use of low-cost temporary treatments during initial rollout, the City will be able to monitor performance and identify potential design refinements needed prior to final construction. Themonitoring plan proposes before and after parking studies to identify potential shifts in parking demand, concerns with spillover, and locations with inadequate parking supply within the neighborhood.If desired by the City Council, some parking removal could be implemented in phases to allow for additional monitoring and time for residents to adjust to parking conditions and potentially pursueformation of a Residential Parking District. For example, removal of parking along Chorro Street, where demand is lower, could be implemented first, with removal of parking along higher-demandsegments on Broad Street to be implemented in later phases pending results of additional monitoring studies and approval by Council.Accessible On-Street Parking – The City is not required to provide neighborhood street parking for residential uses17; however, it is important to acknowledge that there are residential homes alongthe Anholm Bikeway that were built several years ago and do not meet current City requirements for number or dimensions of on-site driveway/garage parking. Loss of on-street parking could beparticularly inconvenient for residents with disabilities or mobility challenges that rely on street parking due to lack of accessible off-street parking within their property. While it is ultimately theresponsibility of the homeowner to comply with applicable parking and accessibility standards within their own property, the City is willing to consider limited installation of designated ADA accessibleon-street parking stalls along the segments of Anholm Bikeway where parking removal is proposed as part of the project. Provision of ADA accessible on-street parking spaces for residents will beconsidered by request on a case-by-case basis.17 Per City General Plan Policy 14.1.1 (Residential Parking Spaces): Each residential property owner is responsible for complying with the City’s standards that specify the number, design and location of off‐street residential parking spaces. September 2018
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Attachment 1
Anholm Bikeway Plan Appendix C: Adopting Resolution C-1 September 2018 Appendix C. Adopting Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 10937 (2018 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE
ANHOLM BIKEWAY PLAN
WHEREAS, the Bicycle Transportation Plan and the Land Use and Circulation Elements
to the General Plan support reducing use of single -occupant motor vehicles by supporting
alternatives, such as walking and bicycling; and
WHEREAS, the Circulation Element to the General Plan has modal split objectives of 20
percent for bicycles and 18 percent for walking, carpools, and other forms of transportation; and
WHEREAS, the Anholm Bikeway Plan calls for implementation of bicycle facilities that
have been shown in other communities to provide substantial benefits to bicycle safety and
increase bicycle mode share; and
WHEREAS, the City has identified Multi -Modal Transportation as a Major City Goal,
with the purpose of prioritizing implementation of the Bicycle Transportation Plan, pedestrian
safety, and the Short -Range Transit Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Bicycle Transportation Plan recommends development of a low -traffic
route for bicyclists and pedestrians connecting the downtown core to Foothill Boulevard as a "first
priority" project; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted a Vision Zero policy to eliminate all fatal traffic deaths
and severe injuries by 2030, with a focus on improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety; and
WHEREAS, the City coordinated with neighbors and other community members on
outreach and public input through community meetings and other methods; and
WHEREAS, during the April 10, 2018 City Council meeting, the City Council adopted
Resolution 10881 (2018 series) adopting the Anholm Bikeway Plan, which called to further
evaluate Broad, Mission, Chorro and Lincoln Streets to determine if a Class III Shared Street with
traffic calming and diversion on Broad, coupled with measures to mitigate impacts on Lincoln and
other streets is acceptable to the community; and
WHEREAS, the City performed additional outreach to the community after April 10, 2018
on the "middle section" of the Anholm Bikeway Plan including a design charrette, meetings with
community members, and public hearings before the Active Transportation Committee and
Planning Commission; and
R 10937
Resolution No. 10937 (2018 Series) Page 2
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September
4, 2018 for the purpose of considering amendments to the Anholm Bikeway Plan; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Action. Based upon all the evidence, consideration of staff
recommendations, input from interested parties, and public testimony, the City Council does
hereby adopt an amendment, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, to the Anholm Bikeway
Plan (previously adopted on April 10, 2018) to include the following:
Installation of two-way protected bikeway on Chorro Street between Lincoln and
Mission
Installation of southbound buffered/protected bike lane on Broad between Mission and
Ramona.
Improved bikeway pavement markings and guide signage within Class III shared lane
in northbound direction
R 10937
Resolution No. 10937 (2018 Series) Page 3
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. Per Section 15304 of the State California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project is categorically exempt from CEQA
under Class 1, Existing Facilities; Section 15301 and Class 4, Minor Alterations to Land, because
the project would be constructed on existing city streets within the public right of way. The project
will be constructed in an area that has no value as habitat for biological resources and would not
be located in agricultural areas. The proposed street lights would be located in an urban area and
would not significantly increase light or glare beyond existing conditions. The project has no
potentially significant traffic impacts. The project is consistent with General Plan policies that
promote an integrated system of bikeways, walkways, and traffic calming measures that promote
a safe, multimodal transportation network.
Upon motion of Council Member Rivoire, seconded by Council Member Gomez, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Gomez and Rivoire, and Mayor Harmon
NOES: Council Member Pease and Vice Mayor Christianson
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 4"' day of
ATTEST:
Teresa Purrington, City Cler
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
stine Dietrick, City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this 71 1 day of , 2b 1
Teresa Purrington, City Cler
R 10937