Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-26-2019 ATC Agenda Packet - SpecialCity of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission Agenda ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Tuesday, February 26, 2019 6:00 p.m. SPECIAL MEETING Council Hearing Room 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA MISSION: The purpose of the Active Transportation Committee (ATC) is to provide oversight and policy direction on matters related to bicycle and pedestrian transportation in San Luis Obispo and its relationship to bicycling and walking outside the City. CALL TO ORDER Chair Lea Brooks ROLL CALL : Committee Members Jenna Espinosa, Timothy Jouet, Briana Martenies, Paul Orton, Jonathan Roberts, Vice Chair Ken Kienow, and Chair Lea Brooks PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Committee about items not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their name and address. Comments are limited to three minutes per person. Items raised at this time are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Committee is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting. DISCUSSION ITEM 1. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN BICYCLE NETWORK (FUKUSHIMA – 110 MINUTES) This item will be the first of likely several meetings to update the bicycle network for the Active Transportation Plan. To aid in the update, a couple of resources have been developed. One of the barriers to increasing bicycle mode share involves perceptions of safety and comfort of riding in traffic. To help in understanding this, a Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS) analysis has been completed that can be a useful tool in updating the network and identifying gaps and challenge areas. Also, to help in the discussion, an online viewer of the existing bicycle network has been created. This viewer will help in updating the network over the course of the Plan update. The viewer can be found at: https://tinyurl.com/y6fgqyej Active Transportation Committee Agenda February 26, 2019 Page 2 During the meeting staff will give more detailed information on the BLTS analysis as well as the network viewer. Committee members should peruse both resources and begin considering possible updates to the network. Attachment 1: 5 Types of Transportation Bicyclists in San Luis Obispo Attachment 2: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Analysis Attachment 3: Sample Active Transportation Plans ADJOURNMENT The next Regular Meeting of the Active Transportation Commi ttee is scheduled for Thursday, March 21 , 201 9, at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7107. Agenda related writings and documents are available online or for public inspection at the Public Works Department, 919 Palm Street, SLO. Meeting audio recordings can be found at the following web address: http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/1/fol/60965/Row1.aspx Attachment 1, Page 1 of 1 Reservior Canyon Natural Reserve Johnson Ranch Open Space Irish Hills Natural Reserve Laguna Lake Natural Reserve £¤101 CaliforniaPolytechnicState University SAN LUIS OBISPO MAP 1: LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS N00.5 1 MILES LTS 1 (Most Comfortable) LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 (Least Comfortable) Source: City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, ESRI Map Created: January 2019 Trails Roads Rail !Train Station Water Parks South Hills Natural Reserve Attachment 2, Page 1 of 8 Reservior Canyon Natural Reserve Johnson Ranch Open Space Irish Hills Natural Reserve Laguna Lake Natural Reserve £¤101 CaliforniaPolytechnicState University SAN LUIS OBISPO MAP 2: LOW-STRESS CONNECTIVITY ANALYSIS N00.5 1 MILES Source: City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, ESRI Map Created: January 2019 Trails Roads Rail !Train Station Water Parks South Hills Natural Reserve Attachment 2, Page 2 of 8 To: Adam Fukushima, City San Luis Obispo From: Alta Planning + Design Date: February 22, 2019 Re: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Methodology and Results Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Analysis Overview The Level of Traffic Stress Analysis was adapted from the 2012 Mineta Transportation Institute Report 11 -19: Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity. A level of comfort for bicyclists is determined based on factors including posted speed limit, street width, and the presence and character of bicycle lanes. The combination of this criteria separates the bicycle network into one of four scores: • LTS 1: Low-stress roadway suitable for all ages and abilities • LTS 2: Roadway comfortably ridden by the mainstream adult population • LTS 3: Roadway ridden by “enthused and confident” cyclists • LTS 4: Roadway ridden by the “strong and fearless” cyclists In general, a separated bicycle facility, such as a trail or a Class IV separated bike lane, would qualify as a low-stress (LTS 1) bikeway, while roadway shared with motor vehicle traffic operating at high speeds would receive a higher -stress score. The results of the LTS analysis helps identify existing areas with a high level of service as well as focus areas for imp rovement. LTS provides an intuitive framework to describe the benefits of bicycle infrastructure, and demonstrates that some roadways need more intervention than others to provide a truly comfortable experience. For example, the only time a standard bike lane is considered all ages and abilities is a 6-foot-wide facility on a roadway with posted speed of 30 miles per hour or lower, and the best LTS score you can achieve on a roadway with four or more travel lanes without installing a Class IV separated bike lane is LTS 3. Attachment 2, Page 3 of 8 Methodology The Level of Traffic Stress analysis is completed through an assessment of street segments, intersection approaches, and intersections using spatial data and aerial imagery. Broadly, every street link (a section of roadway) receives three scores based on its characteristics: one score for its segment, the space of roadway between intersecting streets; one score for the approach to an intersection, accounting for right turn lanes; and one score for its intersection, where one segment crosses another. See Table 1 below for more information about data limitations and assumptions. Figure 1 helps illustrate the three possible sections of a roadway that are scored. Figure 1. A street link showing the three possible scores it could receive. Because not all links have these three sections, some links may instead receive one or two scores. The scores assigned are based on a link’s characteristics that affect a bicyclist’s perception of safety and comfort. The sco res range from 1 to 4, where 1 represents the lowest stress, and 4 represents highest stress and discomfort. These three scores determine the overall LTS score. It is important to note that LTS scores are assigned based on a weakest link principle; this means that while a segment may provide a relatively low-stress path, a high-stress intersection will result in an overall high- stress score. Tables 2-6 below summarize the scoring methodology used in this analysis. Attachment 2, Page 4 of 8 Table 1: Data Assumptions and Limitations The following tables specify the scoring criteria based on roadway configuration, bike lane and parking presence, crossing condition, and presence of right turn lane. The criteria are adapted from the original 2012 Mineta Institute report. These tables are used in combination to create the segment, approach, and intersection scores described above. Inputs Notes Assumptions Bicycle Facilities Bicycle lanes have a positive impact on bicycle level of travel stress and are a primary input for developing a BLTS model. The width of facilities can have an impact on the associated comfort level. Wider facilities and buffered facilities provide greater comfort, especially on higher speed roadways. Facilities separated from motor vehicles, such as a Class I facility, are considered an LTS 1 and provide the highest level of comfort along a segment. Bicycle facility location and widths, including buffer widths, were provided by the city. Speed Limit Higher speed roadways are considered to be less comfortable for bicyclists, particularly in mixed traffic or with minimal separation from motor vehicles. Low-speed roadways are considered more comfortable. Speed limit data was available for a subset of roadways within the city limits. The LTS evaluation was completed only for those roadways with speed limit data available. The city also provided 85th-percentile speeds for roadways where higher prevailing speeds were known. Presence and width of on- Street Parking adjacent to bicycle lanes On-Street Parking is particularly important for corridors on which bicycle lanes are present. Bicycle levels of travel stress are greater on bicycle lanes adjacent to parking than on bicycle lanes without parking due to the potential for ‘dooring’ incidences. A standard width of 7.5 feet was assumed for all parking lanes. Trail Location Class I facilities can be a vital component of a municipality’s active transportation network. Increased separation from motor vehicles can improve comfort and safety; however, trails are still impacted by both the quality of roadway crossings and the separation type and width from the roadway. Class I facilities are reflected on the analysis map as an LTS 1. Roadway crossings were evaluated; however most crossings occurred at a signalized intersection based on a visual inspection of the roadway network. For future iterations of this analysis, Class I and Class IV facilities should consider both the type of separation and width of separation from motor vehicles. For trails adjacent to a roadway with traffic speeds of 40 mph or greater and a setback of less than 5 feet from the nearest travel lane, a score of LTS 2 should be used. Attachment 2, Page 5 of 8 Table 2a: Criteria for Level of Traffic Stress in Mixed Traffic Prevailing Speed or Speed Limit (mph) Street Width 2-3 Lanes 4-5 Lanes 6+ Lanes ≤ 25 LTS 1 or 2* LTS 3 LTS 4 30 LTS 2 or 3* LTS 4 LTS 4 ≥ 35 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 *Lower value is used for streets without marked centerlines or classified as residential with fewer than 3 lanes. Residential roadway were determined in this analysis based on land use data. Table 2b: Mixed Traffic Adjustment Factors for Roadway Volume* ADT Posted Speed (mph) <30 >30 >1,500 No Change LTS 3 >3,000 LTS 3 LTS 3 >5,000 LTS 4 LTS 4 *Mixed traffic roadways were evaluated based on ADT values. This modification was applied regardless of the number of lanes f or roadways on which ADT data was available. Table 3: Criteria for Bike Lanes Not Alongside a Parking Lane LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Street Width (Through lanes per direction) 1* 2 More than 2 (no effect) Bike Lane Width 6 feet or more 5.5 feet or less (no effect) (no effect) Speed Limit (mph) 30 mph or less (no effect) 35 mph 40 mph or more *2 lane roadways with a bike lane were further evaluated based on reported volume. The LTS score assigned was adjusted based on the following factors: • Volume ≤1500: No change • Volume >1500 and ≤5000: LTS 2 • Volume >5000: LTS 3 Table 4: Criteria for Bike Lanes Alongside a Parking Lane LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Street Width (Through lanes per direction) 1 (no effect) 2 or more (no effect) Attachment 2, Page 6 of 8 Sum of Bike Lane Width + Parking Lane Width 15 feet or more 14 or 14.5 feet 13.5 feet or less (no effect) Speed Limit (mph) 25 mph or less 30 mph 35 mph 40 mph or more Table 5: Criteria for Unsignalized Crossings1 Speed Limit of Street Being Crossed Width of Street Being Crossed Up to 3 Lanes 4-5 Lanes 6+ Lanes Up to 25 mph LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 4 30 mph LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 4 35 mph LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 40 mph or more LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 Table 6: Approach Criteria Configuration LTS Single right-turn lane with length less than or equal to 75 feet No effect on LTS Single right-turn lane with length between 75 and 150 feet LTS 3 Otherwise LTS 4 Findings Map 1 (attached) presents the findings of the LTS analysis on arterial and collector roadway within San Luis Obispo. Roadways located in Downtown typically provide lower-stress travel for bicyclists as compared to the roadways leading out from the city. Lower speeds and fewer number of lanes contribute to this condition. It is important to note that many roadways scoring as higher stress (LTS 3 or 4) include bicycle lanes and buffered bicycle lanes; the greater number of lanes and higher posted speeds impact the ability of bicycle lanes to improve the comfort along these roadways. In some cases, 1 Signalized crossings provide a dedicated cycle for roadway crossings. Signalized intersections are not considered to have a negative impact to crossing locations and are not evaluated in this analysis. Attachment 2, Page 7 of 8 however, Class I facilities located along higher speed roadway provide a separated, low-stress connection for bicyclists. Where possible, separation should be considered, especially along high-stress corridors. The addition of ADT data on mixed traffic roadways, combined with prevailing speed where available, results in several roadways scoring as an LTS 3 or 4 despite posted speed and lane configurations supporting a lower score. These roadways should be considered for designated facilities or other traffic calming measures to provide a lower stress facility. Leading away from the downtown, high speeds and crossing conditions result in higher stress roadways. Frequent signalized intersections help limit the impact of high-stress crossings, but the presence of long right turn lanes and right turn lanes located mid-block increase potential conflict points for bicyclists and further increase the level of stress. These high-stress roadways, particularly outside of the center city area, effectively create barriers for travel among neighborhoods and other lower-stress roadways. Although neighborhood roadways are not scored in this analysis, a low -speed, 2-lane roadway through a neighborhood will typically provide a low-stress pathway. However, unsignalized crossings of a high- stress roadway limits the ability to comfortably cross the high-stress roadway. Examples of these high-stress roadways include: Foothill, South, Madonna, Los Osos Valley, and Broad. Signalized crossings can facilitate connections and should be located to help limit significant out-of-direction travel for bicyclists. Low-Stress Connectivity Analysis Map 2 (attached) analyzes the connectivity of existing low-stress connections. Low-stress roadways that provided for continuous travel are displayed in the same color; when the color of a collection of roadways changes, this indicates that a high stress roadway or crossing is impeding travel among low-stress network links. For the purposes of this analysis, neighborhood roadways not included in the LTS analysis were assumed to qualify as low -stress—either an LTS 1 or 2. The results of this exercise demonstrate that large portions of the city can be reached through travel on low-stress network links. For example, the majority of the downtown area is connected; although roadways such as Broad or Monterey are considered to be high-stress, signalized crossings provide opportunities to travel comfortably across them. North of Highway 101, Santa Rosa creates a barrier between the western portion of the city and the Cal Poly campus. Further, roadways bounding Los Osos Valley and those located in the southeastern extent of the city are disconnected from the central city. Low-stress bicycle travel is not currently possible between these areas and downtown or other destinations. While these results depict large areas of connected low-stress roadways, it is important to consider the potential out-of- direction travel that is associated with reaching crossing opportunities in areas where a major roadway otherwise creates a barrier. Attachment 2, Page 8 of 8 Walk Bike Northampton, January 2017 Northampton, MA population: 28,483 (2016) https://www.northamptonma.gov/DocumentCenter/ View/6665/Walk-Bike-Northampton-Comprehen- sive-Plan_1-3-2017-Final?bidId= Following on the heles of the 2017 plan, ValleyBike - their electric-assist bike share program, launched this past summer. The bike share is for not just the town of Northampton, but includes 5 towns in the area. https://www.valleybike.org/ Active Transportation Plans Comparisons San Luis Obispo City Population: 47,536 (2016) County Population: 283,405 (2017) Logan City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Octover 2015 Logan, UT (Alta) population: 50,676 (2016) http://www.loganutah.org/docs/Logan%20Bicycle%20 &%20Pedestrian%20Master%20Plan%20FINAL.pdf College town in Northern Utah of similar size with a strong local bicycle culture. Roads are not great over- all and a lot needs to be done to make the city more pedestrian and bicycle friendly. Lots of nice analysis to provide back up for facility recommendations within this plan. Bicycle Facilities Master Plan Missoula, MT (Alta) population: 72,364 (2016) https://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/DocumentCenter/ View/39172/2016-Bicycle-Facilities-Master-Plan?bidId= Focused only on bikes, but it has a nice LTS section that might be similar to an analysis for SLO. City of Coalinga Active Transportation Plan, March 2017 Coalinga, CA Population: 16,598 (2016) (Alta) https://www.coalinga.com/uploads/1509042353_Coal- ingaATP-I-WEB.pdf 1/3 size of SLO, but only 97 miles away. Good example of a full featured California ATP with a nice aesthetic. Connect Northglenn, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Northglenn, CO DRAFT (Alta) population: 38,982 (2016) https://www.northglenn.org/Departments/Plan- ning%20&%20Development/Planning/Connect%20 Northglenn/Connect_Northglenn_Final.pdf Northglenn is more suburban than SLO, but this plan shows how a substantial amount of technical analysis (text) can integrate with a visual plan. This plan has more content, but still reads well. Good balance be- tween pedestrian and bicycle analysis and recommen- dations. Pedestrians do not take second place. Attachment 3, Page 1 of 2 City of Clovis, Active Transportation Plan, October 2016 Clovis, CA (Fehr and Peers ) Population: 106,583 (2016) https://www.ci.clovis.ca.us/Portals/0/Documents/ Engineering/Bikeways/Clovis%20ATP%20FINAL%20 Oct%202016.pdf?ver=2016-11-14-114154-650 Well-organized Other Active Transportation Plans Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, Sept 2017 Jacksonville, FL (Toole) executive summary: http://www.coj.net/departments/ planning-and-development/docs/transportation-plan- ning/bike-ped/jacksonville-layout_executive-summary. aspx full plan: http://www.coj.net/departments/plan- ning-and-development/docs/transportation-planning/ bike-ped/2017_9_21_jacksonville-final-report.aspx Bicycle/Pedestrian Mobility Plan For the Miami Down- town Development Authority Area, 2010 Miami Dade (Kimley-Horn) http://miamidadetpo.org/library/studies/bicycle-pe- destrian-mobility-plan-for-miami-downtown-2011-03. pdf Active Transportation Plans Comparisons San Luis Obispo City Population: 47,536 (2016) County Population: 283,405 (2017) Santa Cruz Active Tranportation Plan July 2018 population: 64,465 (2016) http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/Home/ShowDocu- ment?id=53296 This is an example of the Do-It-Yourself approach from another community in California. They used the Cal- trans guidelines to develop their own ATP, and those guidelines serve to organize the plan. It’s text-heavy, but looks to cover many of the bases of an ATP. City of Norfolk Bicycle and Pedestrian Strategic Plan Sept 2014 (Toole / Kimley-Horn) population: 45,115 (2016) online: https://issuu.com/norfolk/docs/2015_norfolk_ strategic_bike_ped_pla pdf: https://www.norfolk.gov/DocumentCenter/ View/22781 Toole developed this plan, with a focus on corri- dor-scale implementation. Each corridor has a 1-pg section that includes images of current street, maps and diagrams of proposed enhancements. Since mul- tiple property owners can be challenging, Table 2 is helpful in organizing key partners by corridor. The funding sources covers the federal and state bases, and includes both the typical infrastructure as well as health and wellness-related funding sources. Portsmouth Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2014 Portsmouth, NH (Toole) population: 21,485 (2016) https://www.cityofportsmouth.com/planportsmouth/ bicycle-pedestrian-plan The plan identifies a city-wide bicycle network and pe- destrian facilities focused on increasing walkability and access to transit. In addition to physical recommenda- tions, the plan developed new policies and programs that seek to make walking and bicycling a part of daily life. The plan was approved by the City’s planning council in September, 2014 Attachment 3, Page 2 of 2