HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-21-2016 BAC Agenda Packet
MISSION: The purpose of the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) is to provide oversight and policy
direction on matters related to bicycle transportation in San Luis Obispo and its relationship to bicycling
outside the City.
ROLL CALL: Peter Deragon (Chair), Jim Woolf (Vice Chair), Lea Brooks, Paula Huddleston,
Catherine Machado, Howard Weisenthal, and Randol White.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
At this time, the public is invited to address the Committee concerning items not on the agenda but are
of interest to the public and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Bicycle Advisory Committee.
The Committee may not discuss or take action on issues that are not on the agenda other than to briefly
respond to statements made or questions raised, or to ask staff to follow up on such issues.
MINUTES: Minutes of November 19, 2015. Approve or amend (Attachment 1)
PRESENTATION ITEMS:
1. Annual Traffic Safety Report (Attachment 2)
ACTION ITEMS:
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
2. Highland/Chorro Bike Access (Page A-22 of Bicycle Transportation Plan)
3. BTP Prioritization Plan
4. Committee Items
Adopt-a-Trail Sub-Committee Report
Newcomers Sub-Committee Report
5. Staff Items
Transportation Staffing Update
RRST and Bob Jones Trail Updates
Update on CIP Bike Projects
City of San Luis Obispo BFC Report Card and Feedback (Attachment 3)
ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting will be held March 17, 2016
Agenda
Bicycle Advisory Committee
Council Hearing Room, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Thursday, January 21, 2016 – 7:00 pm
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including the disabled in all of its services, programs, and
activities. Please contact the Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
PRESENTATION ITEMS:
Agenda Item #1: Annual Traffic Safety Report
City staff will present a summary of the bicycle activity in the 2014 Annual Traffic Safety Report.
Attachment 2 is an excerpt from the draft report summarizing the bicycle collision data. Additionally,
details on the top five bicycle collision locations have been provided as well as the top ten collision
locations in the last five years.
Note: This agenda item supports the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan Implementation Action 4.13.3,
“Present bicycling related statistics from the City’s Annual Traffic Safety Report to the Bicycle Advisory
Committee for their consideration and input.”
ACTION ITEMS:
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Agenda Item #2: Highland/Chorro Bike Access
The “Highland/Chorro Class I” project is discussed on page A-22 of the Bicycle Transportation Plan. The
intent is to facilitate better circulation for westbound Highland traffic turning south on to Chorro. Staff is
asking the BAC to discuss possible solutions.
Agenda Item #3: BTP Prioritization Plan
In order to reach the City’s mode share goals, prioritizing implementation of the Bicycle Transportation
Plan is necessary. Staff is requesting the BAC discuss the steps to manage this prioritization.
Agenda Item #4: Committee Items
Adopt-a-Trail Sub-Committee Report
Newcomers Sub-Committee Report
Agenda Item #5: Staff Items
Transportation Staffing Update
RRST Taft to Pepper and Bob Jones Trail Updates
Update on CIP Bike Projects
City of San Luis Obispo BFC Report Card and Feedback
Items for next meeting
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
The next meeting will be held: March 17, 2016
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Minutes of the November 19, 2015 BAC meeting
2. Annual Traffic Safety Report
3. BFC Report Card and Feedback
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
MISSION: 10
The purpose of the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) is to provide oversight and policy 11
direction on matters related to bicycle transportation in San Luis Obispo and its relationship to 12
bicycling outside the City. 13
14
ROLL CALL: 15
16
Chair Deragon called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. 17
18
Present: Peter Deragon (Chair), Jim Woolf (Vice Chair), Lea Brooks, Paula Huddleston, 19
Catherine Machado, Randol White, and Howard Weisenthal 20
21
Staff: Principal Transportation Planner Mandeville, Contract Planner Rickenbach, and 22
Recording Secretary Christian 23
24
25
PUBLIC COMMENT: 26
27
Eric Meyer congratulated the City and the Committee on achieving the Gold Bicycle Friendly 28
Community status from the League of American Bicyclists but also expressed concern that with 29
the passage of AB1193 (Class IV bike path designation) the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan 30
is out of date. 31
32
Jonathan Roberts commented that the planned San Luis Ranch project has no bicycle access 33
to roadways that he feels are useable by children. He encouraged the BAC to “lead the charge” 34
for creating a Safe-Routes-to-School bike route over Hwy. 101 via Madonna Rd. 35
36
Ken Kienow suggested a two-way protected bike lane on Madonna Road between the Hwy. 101 37
south bound on/off ramp and Laguna Lake Park, instead of the current Bicycle Transportation 38
Plan project behind the hotels on the north side of Madonna. 39
40
Myron Amerine passed out an recent report titled “Global High Shift Cycling Scenario” 41
(https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/A-Global-High-Shift-Cycling-Scenario_-Nov-42
2015.pdf) and encouraged the City to adopt the report’s recommendations. 43
44
MINUTES: September 17, 2015 45
46
Action: CM Woolf moved to approve the minutes as submitted. CM Brooks seconded the 47
motion. The motion passed unanimously. 48
49
50
Minutes
Bicycle Advisory Committee
Council Hearing Room, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 6:30 pm (early start time)
Agenda Item # 1: Avila Ranch Bicycle Facilities 1
2
Contract Planner John Rickenbach presented the project and reviewed the bicycle facilities 3
required in both the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) and The Bicycle Transportation Plan 4
(BTP). 5
6
Applicant Steve Peck noted that the project Class I bike paths will be 12’ wide and the Class II 7
lanes on Buckley will be 8’ wide. He noted that the existing creek bridge on Buckley will not be 8
replaced by the project and the existing bridge is not wide enough to accommodate two travel 9
lanes and two bike lanes. Bicyclists will have the option of being diverted to a bike path section 10
or using the travel lane to cross the bridge. He also noted that the intersection of Vachell Lane 11
and Buckley would initially be controlled by stop signs and that space is being retained for future 12
installation of either a traffic signal or a traffic circle. He described the project phasing, noting 13
specifically that the Buckley roadway extension would be part of Phase 2, but the bikeway 14
extension could occur in Phase with total project build out estimated between 10-15 years for all 15
5 phases. 16
17
The committee questioned the applicant on various items for clarification, including planned 18
widths of project interior roadways, Class II lanes widths on these roads, possible striping 19
changes for Suburban Road which is outside of the project area, the use of Class IV lanes 20
instead of Class II lanes, phasing, and build options for the Buckley Extension bikeway. 21
22
Public Comment: 23
24
James Park questioned why the project would take so long to build out. 25
26
Eric Meyer discussed the need to restripe Suburban Road, gave input that a Class IV on 27
Buckley from Hoover to Broad Street might be a more realistic solution than the planned Class I 28
and II lanes, and asked that the Committee push for early connectivity to S. Higuera St. in the 29
planned Buckley Rd. extension area. 30
31
Myron Amerine expressed agreement with Mr. Meyer concerning his suggestion along Buckley 32
Rd., stressing that a “complete streets” planning perspective should be pursued. He also 33
recommended that bike lanes be installed on Earthwood Lane. 34
35
Barry Rands stated that the intersection crossing design of Vachell Ln. should not require 36
bicyclists to dismount to cross safely citing an example solution recently implemented in Morro 37
Bay. 38
39
The public comment period was closed. 40
41
Action: 42
43
The Committee gave direction to staff and had consensus on the following: 44
Pursue the use of Class IV lanes where appropriate throughout the project, specifically 45
desiring them the entire length of Buckley Road and on Earthwood Lane. 46
Pursue a bikeway connection to S. Higuera St. in Phase 1 of the project 47
Consider on connectivity and safe routes to school access when prioritizing the 48
development of bicycling facilities. 49
Agenda Item # 2: San Luis Ranch Bicycle Facilities 1
2
Contract Planner John Rickenbach presented the project, noting its overall compliance with the 3
Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE), the types of housing, the circulation system 4
including the proposed bicycling facilities, and connectivity to the Bob Jones Trail. 5
6
Applicant representative Marshall Ochylski noted that the project area is in the County and will 7
need to be annexed in to the City. He gave an overview of the project goals for housing needs, 8
agriculture, outdoor recreation, and multimodal transportation. 9
10
Public Comment: 11
12
Myron Amerine requested clarification on project adherence to City or County standards. The 13
applicant responded it was being built to City standards. 14
15
Jonathan Roberts stressed that an improved bicycle facility on Madonna Road should be a 16
priority as it provides connectivity to the area’s only Middle School. 17
18
James Park questioned the project’s connectivity to downtown. 19
20
Eric Meyer stressed that a bikeway connection (such as Class 4 buffered bike lanes) needs to 21
be made from the project area to Madonna Road, continuing along Madonna Road and crossing 22
Hwy. 101. He stated that the City’s LUCE policies may allow for the applicant to install off-site 23
bikeway facilities as project mitigation. 24
25
The public comment period was closed. 26
27
Action: 28
29
While the Committee will provide further input during the EIR process, it gave direction to staff 30
and had consensus on the following: 31
Some focus should be given to the Madonna Road / Oceanaire Drive intersection as the 32
project will impact this already challenging intersection for bicyclists. 33
The Committee prefers the development of a crossing of Hwy. 101 at Prado Road even 34
if it is bike only, for overall bicycling facility network connectivity. 35
The Committee supports the development of Class IV facilities on Madonna Road. 36
37
38
Agenda Item # 3: 2016 Paving Areas 39
40
CM Brooks presented a listing of suggestions submitted by the Bike SLO County advocacy 41
team. 42
43
The Committee discussed the paving area bicycling facilities and possible improvement 44
opportunities, asking staff to focus on the following locations: 45
Signal detection on Murray Street at Santa Rosa. 46
Class II lanes on California Blvd. crossing the bridge near San Luis Drive. 47
Improving the intersection of Marsh and California to make left turns from Marsh Street 48
on to California Blvd. easier. 49
Consideration of installing Class IV lanes anywhere there is room. 50
51
Additionally, the Committee asked that they be allowed to provide input on all future repaving 52
projects so they can provide input on roadway restriping. 53
54
Public Comment: 1
2
Myron Amerine stated that he is willing to bring in videos showing on-pavement problems in the 3
pavement areas being discussed. 4
5
Eric Meyer commented that he thought there should be some set threshold that formally brings 6
the BAC to the table when any roadway improvements are considered. 7
8
9
Agenda Item # 4: SLOCOG’s Highway 227 Operational Analysis 10
11
Jeff Brubaker of San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) presented both the near-12
term and long-term needs and objectives for the project, stressing that a multimodal analysis is 13
being used. He stated that the analysis will include bicycling and pedestrian data collection, a 14
review of Safe Routes to School information, the Edna Price Canyon Trail Study, a review of 15
pedestrian crossing needs, and consideration of transit service and park-and-ride options. More 16
project information is available at the SLOCOG website: 17
http://slocog.org/studies-underway/227-operational-analysis-study 18
19
He also summarized the Edna Price Canyon Trail alignment options along with the proposed 20
phasing for buildout of the trail. He commented that the trail design guidelines are taking in to 21
account the City of SLO, County of SLO, City of Pismo Beach, and the ASHTO design 22
guidelines for bicycling and pedestrian facilities. More information on the trail is available at the 23
following web site: 24
http://slocog.org/slo-anza-trails 25
26
CM Brooks shared a list of discussion points from the Bike SLO County Advocacy Committee 27
and referred to a study by the National Center for Sustainable Transportation which concludes 28
that increasing highway capacity is unlikely to relieve traffic congestion. 29
30
Public Comment: 31
32
Myron Amerine stressed that buffered bike lanes should be included, and that there should be 33
pedestrian facilities including places to cross the roadway. He encouraged a focus on 34
multimodal transportation planning. 35
36
James Park suggested transit facilities at the airport and near the elementary school. 37
38
39
DISCUSSION ITEMS: 40
41
Agenda Item # 5: Committee Items 42
43
Adopt-a-Trail Sub-Committee Report: 44
CM Brooks commented that the goal is to have a pilot work party and that City staff 45
is ready to accommodate the first work party. She poled the Committee to identify 46
interest in participating in the pilot. The work party date is to be determined. 47
Newcomers Sub-Committee Report: 48
The report was continued to the next meeting. 49
50
1
2
Agenda Item # 6: Staff Items 3
4
SLOCOG’s Edna Price Trail Draft Plan: 5
Discussed with Item 4. No further presentation or discussion. 6
Bicycle Friendly Community Award: 7
The City was upgraded from Silver to Gold level by the League of American Bicyclists. 8
The City is one of four with this level in the State. 9
Railroad Safety Trail and Bob Jones Trail Updates: 10
- The City received a $3.2 million grant for the Railroad Safety Trail section from Taft 11
to Pepper Street. 12
Transportation Staffing Update: 13
- The new Transportation Planner/ Engineer I position has been hired and will begin 14
in January, 2016. 15
- Principal Transportation Planner Mandeville is retiring from the City at the end of 16
December. 17
18
ADJOURN: 19
20
The meeting at 9:42 p.m. to the next regular meeting of January 21, 2016. 21
22
23
24
Respectfully submitted, 25
26
Kevin Christian 27
Recording Secretary 28
Public Works and Police Department
January 2016
2014 Annual Traffic Safety Report
1 2014 Traffic Safety Report
December 2015
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 2
CITYWIDE COLLISION TRENDS ............................................................................. 3
INJURY COLLISION TREND .................................................................................................................. 3
FATAL COLLISION TREND ................................................................................................................... 3
OVERALL COLLISION TREND ............................................................................................................... 4
PEDESTRIAN COLLISION TREND ........................................................................................................... 5
BICYCLE COLLISION TREND ................................................................................................................. 5
TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT MEASURES ............................................................................. 6
CITATION TRENDS ............................................................................................................................ 6
DUI ARRESTS .................................................................................................................................. 6
CITATIONS BY VEHICLE CODE SECTION 2014 ........................................................................................ 7
TRAFFIC SAFETY EDUCATION CAMPAIGNS .................................................................... 8
2014 HIGH COLLISION RATE LOCATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. 9
PEDESTRIANS................................................................................................................................... 9
PEDESTRIAN LOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 10
BICYCLES ...................................................................................................................................... 11
BICYCLE LOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 12
ARTERIAL/ARTERIAL INTERSECTIONS ................................................................................................. 13
ARTERIAL/ARTERIAL INTERSECTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 14
ARTERIAL/COLLECTOR INTERSECTIONS ............................................................................................... 15
ARTERIAL/COLLECTOR INTERSECTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 15
ARTERIAL/LOCAL INTERSECTIONS ...................................................................................................... 16
ARTERIAL/LOCAL INTERSECTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 17
COLLECTOR/COLLECTOR INTERSECTIONS ............................................................................................ 18
COLLECTOR/LOCAL INTERSECTIONS ................................................................................................... 18
COLLECTOR/LOCAL INTERSECTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 18
LOCAL/LOCAL INTERSECTIONS .......................................................................................................... 19
ARTERIAL SEGMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 20
ARTERIAL SEGMENTS RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 21
COLLECTOR SEGMENTS ................................................................................................................... 22
2 2014 Traffic Safety Report
December 2015
Executive Summary
The Public Works & Police Departments are pleased to present the 14th cycle of
the City’s annual traffic safety program. The Annual Traffic Safety Program
began in 2002 in an attempt to identify high collision locations within the City. In
addition, the program actively pursues corrective measures that may reduce
collision rates and improve safety for the citizen of San Luis Obispo. This
program has had continued success with 55% collision reduction since the
program began despite increasing traffic volumes. In 2009 the City received the
International Public Agency Achievement award from the Institute of Traffic
Engineers (ITE) for this program. This award is one of the highest recognitions a
public agency can receive for its traffic engineering practices.
This safety program has had long lasting success and again in 2014, total
collisions are the lowest on record, down by 4% from the previous year.
However, to ensure that the most serious collisions are analyzed, the safety
report program will begin to focus on collisions with injury. Injury collisions require
a police report to be taken, along with an investigation by a peace officer. These
reports give a clearer picture of the collision circumstances, and can establish a
more reliable year-to-year trend as policies change with regard to collision
response. In 2014, injury collisions decreased by 3% from the previous year, and
are 16% lower since the safety program began.
The program also includes thorough evaluations of bicycle and pedestrian safety.
Bicycle collision trends continue to decline since peaking in 2009, with a 21%
drop over 2013 numbers. Overall annual pedestrian collisions have been relative
static since 2008, in 2013 there was a significant peak however in 2014 the
number of pedestrian collision have returned to the historical trend. The was one
fatality in 2014 involving a pedestrian crossing S. Higuera near the County line
south of Los Osos Valley Road.
The following report displays trends in collision history, traffic safety measures
and identifies high collision rate locations in 2014. As in previous Traffic Safety
Reports, staff reviewed all high collision rate intersections and segment locations
and has recommended mitigation measures to increase safety at the top five
locations in each category. Additionally, the report tracks the enforcement of
traffic citations and DUI arrests in the City, to address trends in the types of
violations which cause collisions.
Our goal is that the combination of thorough analysis, appropriate mitigation, and
consistent and focused education and enforcement will continue to reduce traffic
collisions and injuries and improve the safety of our motoring, walking and
bicycling public.
3 2014 Traffic Safety Report
December 2015
Citywide Collision Trends
Injury collisions are the most accurate representation of City collision trends
because these types of collision are most consistently reported and investigated.
In 2014 the sustained downward trend since the beginning of the safety program
continues with a 3% reduction from 2013.
Injury Collision Trend
It’s difficult to identify a trend in fatal collisions because these types of collisions
are typically sporadic, uncommon, and occur under unusual circumstances. The
single collision in 2014 occurred on S. Higuera Street near the City limits south of
Los Osos Valley Road and involved a pedestrian standing in the roadway during
evening hours.
Fatal Collision Trend
24
0
26
7
26
8
30
9
30
8
31
5
28
5
25
0
25
7
24
0
23
6
23
3
22
0
19
1
20
7
20
1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
In
j
u
r
y
C
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n
s
Year
2 2
1 1
4
3
2
1 1
3
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Fa
t
a
l
C
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n
s
Year
4 2014 Traffic Safety Report
December 2015
Overall Collision Trend
The Overall Collision chart does not represent all collisions that occur in the City,
merely all reported collisions for which a report is generated. Many collisions are
unreported by the involved parties, are reported by the parties without an officer
investigation, or there is no response to the collision by emergency services.
Therefore, the actual total collisions may vary between years. A more accurate
measure are the injury and fatal collision trends, as police always respond to
collisions where the reporting party indicates there is an injury.
91
0
10
2
3
11
4
0
12
5
6
10
9
7
12
0
7
10
8
9
87
3
86
6
79
3
68
3
59
8
61
9
59
4
57
0
54
8
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
To
t
a
l
C
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n
s
Year
5 2014 Traffic Safety Report
December 2015
Pedestrian & Bicycle Collision Trends
Despite rising pedestrian volumes, pedestrian collisions have remained relatively
static since 2008. In 2013 there was an unexplained spike, however total
pedestrian collisions in 2014 have return to the historical trend.
Pedestrian Collision Trend
Despite rising bicycle volumes, bicycle collisions have actually been on the
decline since 2009, bicycle collision are down by almost 30% over the last 5
years, 20% in just the last year. These reductions can be attributed to the City’s
investment is bicycle improvements, education, and enforcement.
Bicycle Collision Trend
24 37 19 41 24 41 26 27 18 25 24 22 24 26 39 24 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
C
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n
s
Year
52 46 45 53 55 50 55 61 59 59 73 69 67 69 63 50 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
C
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n
s
Year
6 2014 Traffic Safety Report
December 2015
Traffic Enforcement Measures
Citation Trends
DUI Arrests
20
0
1
17
9
1
22
4
3
25
5
0
89
6
78
9
93
4
17
6
9
31
2
0
20
9
8
28
0
6
14
7
4
15
2
4
15
7
1
14
0
7
67
4
1
71
1
4
65
0
8
48
0
2
26
6
3
34
5
4
35
8
5
44
8
8
74
3
7
59
4
7
46
8
6
41
2
4
61
9
5
52
9
3
29
9
2
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Ci
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
Year
Hazardous Total Citations
39
6
50
2
41
0
30
4
31
2
41
2
33
1
33
9
24
8
21
3
24
1
25
6
37
7
44
5
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
DU
I
A
r
r
e
s
t
s
Year
7 2014 Traffic Safety Report
December 2015
Citations by Vehicle Code Section 2014
Distraction and
Driving Offenses
(§23100-23135)
17%
Insurance related
(§16000-17714)
16%
Traffic Control
Devices (§21350-
21468)
15%
Driver's License
related (§12500-
15325)
13%
Speed (§22348-
22413)
12%
Stop sign (§22450-
22456)
11%
Right side of
Roadway (§21650-
21664)
4%
Turning & Signals
(§22100-22113)
4%
Bicycle related
(§21200-21212)
3%
Failure to Yield
(§21800-21809)
3%
Pedestrian Related
(§21949-21971)
2%
8 2014 Traffic Safety Report
December 2015
Traffic Safety Education Campaigns
Partnership with the California Office of Traffic Safety
A Selective Enforcement Grant funds a full-time DUI officer position. This
officer is utilized specifically for DUI enforcement in an effort to further reduce the
number of alcohol and drug related driving incidents.
Bicycle Rodeo
The City hosts a hands-on bicycle training class targeting youth teaching
bicycle skills & operations.
Pedestrian Halloween Safety Campaign
The City provides reflective Halloween bags with safety tips to local schools
free of cost.
Impaired Driver Offender Classes
City officers attend and supplement DUI offender courses to provide a unique
positive opportunity to discuss, face to face, the impacts of driving under the
influence.
Every Fifteen Minutes Program
The City participates in a multi department and agency event simulating the
psychological effects of student fatalities as a result of traffic collisions.
Child Car Seat Instruction & Assistance
The City provides child safety seat installation and inspection free of cost.
Channel 20 Public Safety Announcements
Bicycle Safety Posters
City of SLO Partnerships:
SLO County Bicycle Coalition
• Safety Education Courses
• Elementary School Safety Assemblies
• Safety Brown Bag Lunch at Participating Businesses
SLO Rideshare
• Safe Routes to School Program
9 2014 Traffic Safety Report
December 2015
2014 High Collision Rate Locations & Recommendations
Pedestrians
2014
Rank Prev. Rank Intersection
2014
Collisions
5 Yr.
Collisions
PH Veh.
Vol
PH Ped.
Vol REV
1 Not Ranked Santa Rosa & Walnut 2 3 2606 13 3007
2 1 Foothill & Santa Rosa 1 3 3907 87 674
3 2 Monterey & Santa Rosa 1 3 2159 128 253
4 Not Ranked Higuera & Nipomo 3 3 1115 138 121
5 3 Broad & Higuera 1 5 1052 469 56
PH = Peak Hour
REV = Relative Exposure Value
The method for evaluating pedestrian collision locations identifies all locations where at least
one pedestrian collision has occurred in 2014 and ranks those locations based on a “relative
exposure value” (REV) for the previous five year pedestrian collision history, with three or more
pedestrian related collisions.
10 2014 Traffic Safety Report
December 2015
Pedestrian Location Recommendations
2014
Rank Prev. Year
Rank Intersection 5 Yr.
Collisions
PH Veh.
Vol
PH Ped.
Vol REV
1 Not Ranked Santa Rosa & Walnut 3 2606 13 3007
Pattern: Turning traffic failing to yield to pedestrians.
Recommendation: Intersection under State Jurisdiction. Forward to Caltrans for study &
continue to monitor in 2015.
2 1 Foothill & Santa Rosa 3 3907 87 674
Pattern: Turning traffic failing to yield to pedestrians.
Recommendation: Forward to Caltrans for study. Continue to monitor in 2015.
3 2 Monterey & Santa Rosa 3 2159 128 253
Pattern: Left turning traffic not yielding to pedestrians.
Recommendation: Yield to Pedestrian signs installed in April of 2011. Investigate
Flashing Yellow Arrow and Advanced Pedestrian Phasing options as part of minor signal
upgrade. Continue to monitor in 2015.
4 Not Ranked Higuera & Nipomo 3 1115 138 121
Pattern: Driving under the influence.
Recommendation: Conduct focused DUI enforcement downtown and continue to
monitor in 2015.
5 3 Broad & Higuera 5 1052 469 56
Pattern: Ped vs. Left Turns from Broad to Higuera and Higuera to Broad
Recommendation: Pedestrian warning signs upgraded in 2014, one collision since.
Continue to monitor in 2015.
11 2014 Traffic Safety Report
December 2015
Bicycles
2014
Rank
Prev. Yr
Rank Intersection
2014
Collisions
5 yr
Collisions
PH Veh.
Volume
PHBike
Volume REV
1 unranked Santa Rosa & Walnut 2 6 2606 18 4343
2 unranked Broad & Orcutt 2 4 3276 23 2849
3 6 California & Taft 2 6 1746 19 2757
4 unranked Santa Rosa & Boysen 1 3 2750 20 2063
5 7 101 N/b On/off Ramp & California 2 4 1548 17 1821
6 3 California & Monterey 1 6 1935 40 1451
7 unranked Broad & Santa Barbara / South 1 3 2762 36 1151
8 4 Foothill & Santa Rosa 2 4 3907 71 1101
9 unranked California & Foothill 1 6 1995 88 680
10 unranked Grand & Mill 1 3 722 20 542
11 8 California & Mill 1 4 1031 47 439
12 9 California & Palm 1 3 1000 44 341
13 unranked Higuera & Garden 1 3 875 40 328
PH = Peak Hour
REV = Relative Exposure Value
The method for evaluating for bicycle collision locations identifies all locations where at least
one bicycle collision has occurred in 2014 and ranks those locations based on a “relative
exposure value” (REV) for the previous five year bicycle collision history, with three or more
bicycle related collisions. This method of evaluation is often chosen over pure numbers
because the number of collisions generally increases within proportion to bicycle volumes.
These values are used to identify locations where more collisions are occurring than would be
expected.
12 2014 Traffic Safety Report
December 2015
Bicycle Location Recommendations
2014
Rank Prev. Year
Rank Intersection 5 yr.
Collisions
PH Veh.
Volume
PH. Bike
Volume REV
1 unranked Santa Rosa & Walnut 6 2606 18 4343
Pattern: Cyclists vs. NB Motorists turning Right onto Walnut.
Recommendation: Intersection under state jurisdiction. Green bike lane extensions thru
intersection were installed in July of 2015, monitor as part of 2015 Traffic Safety Report.
2 unranked Broad & Orcutt 4 3276 23 2849
Pattern: No discernible pattern.
Recommendation: Green bike lane extensions thru intersection were installed in August of
2015, Monitor as part of 2015 Traffic Safety Report.
3 6 California & Taft 6 1746 19 2757
Pattern: Cyclists vs. SB motorists Left Turning onto Taft.
Recommendation: Location approved for roundabout control as part of General Plan. Staff
is actively pursuing grant funding and will prepare a CIP request in the upcoming budget.
Cal Poly Housing EIR identified this as an impacted intersection and established a fair share
cost responsibility for the University. Also grant funding for Railroad Safety Trail Extension
thru this location approved, work expected to begin in Spring of 2016.
4 unranked Santa Rosa & Boysen 3 2750 20 2063
Pattern: Cyclists vs. NB Motorists turning Left onto Boysen.
Recommendation: Intersection under state jurisdiction. Forward to Caltrans for study &
continue to monitor in 2015.
5 7 101 N/b On/off Ramp
& California 4 1548 17 1821
Pattern: Cyclists vs. SB Motorists turning Left onto 101 On-Ramp.
Recommendation: Intersection under state jurisdiction. Green bike lane extensions thru
intersection were installed in Summer of 2014, monitor as part of 2015 Traffic Safety
Report.
PH = Peak Hour
REV = Relative Exposure Value
13 2014 Traffic Safety Report
December 2015
Arterial/Arterial Intersections
Rank Intersection Control Collisions Volume Rate*
1 California & Monterey Signal 6 21,052 0.781
2 Grand & Monterey Signal 4 14,312 0.766
3 Marsh & Santa Rosa Signal 5 18,383 0.745
4 Los Osos Valley & Madonna Signal 10 38,376 0.714
5 California & 101 Nb On/Off Ramp Stop 4 15,758 0.695
6 Monterey & Santa Rosa Signal 6 26,656 0.617
7 Chorro & Marsh Signal 3 14,032 0.586
8 Foothill & Santa Rosa Signal 9 50,288 0.490
9 Broad & South / Santa Barbara Signal 6 34,841 0.472
10 California & Foothill Signal 4 23,589 0.465
11 Higuera & Madonna Signal 5 32,600 0.420
12
101 N/B On/Off Ramp & Los Osos
Valley Signal 4 27,350 0.401
13 Broad & Orcutt Signal 5 34,988 0.392
14 Higuera & Prado Signal 3 21,385 0.384
15 Higuera & Tank Farm Signal 4 29,470 0.372
16 Broad & Tank Farm Signal 5 40,333 0.340
17 101 N/B On/Off Ramp & Madonna Signal 3 27,776 0.296
18 101 S/B On/Off Ramp & Madonna Signal 3 28,518 0.288
*Rate = Collision frequency per million vehicles entering the intersection
14 2014 Traffic Safety Report
December 2015
Arterial/Arterial Intersections Recommendations
Rank Intersection Control Collisions Volume Rate*
1 California & Monterey Signal 7 21,052 0.911
Pattern: No discernible pattern.
Recommendation: Continue to monitor in 2015.
2 Grand & Monterey Signal 4 14,312 0.766
Pattern: Permissive EB Left Vs. WB Thru
Recommendation: Evaluate conversion of permissive left turn phasing to protected left turn
phasing and continue to monitor in 2015.
3 Marsh & Santa Rosa Signal 5 18,383 0.745
Pattern: Permissive SB Left Vs. NB Thru
Recommendation: Evaluate conversion of permissive left turn phasing to protected left turn
phasing and continue to monitor in 2015.
4 Los Osos Valley & Madonna Signal 10 38,376 0.714
Pattern: EB & WB rear ends, driver inattention.
Recommendation: Continue to monitor in 2015.
5 California & 101 NB On/Offramp Stop 4 15,758 0.695
Pattern: Cyclists vs. SB Motorists turning Left onto 101 On-Ramp.
Recommendation: Intersection under state jurisdiction. Green bike lane extensions thru
intersection were installed in Summer of 2014, monitor as part of 2015 Traffic Safety Report.
*Rate = Collision frequency per million vehicles entering the intersection
15 2014 Traffic Safety Report
December 2015
Arterial/Collector Intersections
Rank Intersection Control Collisions Volume Rate*
1 California & Mill Signal 3 11,937 0.689
2 Osos & Pismo Signal 3 14,439 0.569
3 Madonna & Oceanaire Signal 4 24,184 0.566
4 Broad & Foothill Signal 3 18,977 0.433
5 Mill & Santa Rosa Signal 3 22,889 0.359
In 2014 there were 5 Arterial/Collector intersection locations that had 3+ collisions
Arterial/Collector Intersections Recommendations
Rank Intersection Control Collisions Volume Rate*
1 California & Mill Signal 3 11,937 0.689
Pattern: Red light violations.
Recommendation: Upgrade 8” signal indications to 12” and continue to monitor in 2015.
2 Osos & Pismo Signal 3 14,439 0.569
Pattern: No discernible pattern.
Recommendation: Continue to monitor in 2015.
3 Madonna & Oceanaire Signal 5 24,184 0.566
Pattern: No discernible pattern.
Recommendation: Continue to monitor in 2015.
4 Broad & Foothill Signal 3 18,977 0.433
Pattern: EB Thru Vs. WB Left right of way violations.
Recommendation: Upgrade 8” signal indications to 12” indications & continue to monitor in
2015.
5 Mill & Santa Rosa Signal 3 22,889 0.359
Pattern: EB & WB Mill Red Light Violations.
Recommendation: Upgrade 8” signal indications to 12” indications & continue to monitor in 2015.
Continue to monitor in 2015.
*Rate = Collision frequency per million vehicles entering the intersection
16 2014 Traffic Safety Report
December 2015
Arterial/Local Intersections
Rank Intersection Control Collisions Volume Rate*
1 Monterey & Osos Signal 5 6,822 2.008
2 Marsh & Morro Signal 4 11,222 0.977
3 California & Taft Stop 6 17,813 0.923
4 Calle Joaquin & Los Osos Valley Signal 10 33,320 0.822
5 Garden & Higuera Stop 3 10,120 0.812
6 Higuera & Osos Signal 3 12,313 0.668
7 Froom Ranch & Los Osos Valley Signal 7 37,440 0.512
8 Santa Rosa & Walnut Signal 6 33,171 0.496
9 Breck & Johnson Stop 3 17,932 0.458
10 Higuera S & Suburban Signal 4 25,792 0.425
11 Olive & Santa Rosa Signal 5 44,039 0.311
12 Auto Park & Los Osos Valley Stop 3 30,968 0.265
*Rate = Collision frequency per million vehicles entering the intersection
17 2014 Traffic Safety Report
December 2015
Arterial/Local Intersections Recommendations
Rank Intersection Control Collisions Volume Rate*
1 Monterey & Osos Signal 5 6,822 2.008
Pattern: Red Light Violations All Directions
Recommendation: Reconstruct signal with mast arms to increase visibility of indications.
Project is funded as part of current CIP, construction is expected in 2016.
2 Marsh & Morro Signal 4 11,222 0.977
Pattern: No discernible pattern.
Recommendation: Continue to monitor in 2015.
3 California & Taft Stop 6 17,813 0.923
Pattern: Broadside Collisions.
Recommendation: Location approved for roundabout control as part of General Plan. Staff is
actively pursuing grant funding and will prepare a CIP request in the upcoming budget as
well. Cal Poly Housing EIR identified this as an impacted intersection and established a fair
share cost responsibility for the University.
4 Calle Joaquin & Los Osos
Valley Signal 10 33,320 0.822
Pattern: Rear End and Broadside Collisions.
Recommendation: Intersection being reconfigured as part of the LOVR Interchange Project,
continue to monitor after construction is complete.
5 Garden & Higuera Stop 3 10,120 0.812
Pattern: Parking Maneuvers
Recommendation: Intersection being reconfigured as part of Garden Street Terraces project.
Continue to monitor after construction is complete.
*Rate = Collision frequency per million vehicles entering the intersection
18 2014 Traffic Safety Report
December 2015
Collector/Collector Intersections
No Locations Ranked Under this Category
Collector/Local Intersections
Rank Intersection Control Collisions Volume Rate*
1 Chorro & Peach Stop 4 6,774 1.618
In 2014 there was a single Collector/Local intersection location that had 3+ collisions
Collector/Local Intersections Recommendations
Rank Intersection Control Collisions Volume Rate*
1 Chorro & Peach Stop 4 6,774 1.618
Pattern: Pattern: EB and WB vs. SB
Recommendation: Lane reconfigurations to Chorro Street near this intersection were completed
in 2015, continue to monitor.
*Rate = Collision frequency per million vehicles entering the intersection
19 2014 Traffic Safety Report
December 2015
Local/Local Intersections
No Locations Ranked Under this Category
20 2014 Traffic Safety Report
December 2015
Arterial Segments
Rank Prev.
Rank Segment Collisions Volume Segment
Length Rate Type Location
1 Not
Ranked
Santa Rosa, 200-
600 Block 8 13390 0.27 6.063 Arterial Oak to Walnut
2 3 Foothill, 1000-1200
Block 12 16527 0.33 6.028 Arterial Santa Rosa to
California
3 1 Higuera, 500-700
Block 6 23991 0.25 2.763 Arterial Nipomo to Garden
4 6 Broad, 2900-3200
Block 7 27108 0.40 1.769 Arterial Sweeny to
Rockview
5 Not
Ranked LOVR, 12000 Block 13 32027 0.82 1.356 Arterial NB 101 on/off
ramps to Froom
*Rate = Collision frequency per million vehicle miles traveled along the segment
21 2014 Traffic Safety Report
December 2015
Arterial Segments Recommendations
Rank Prev.
Rank Segment Collisions Volume Segment
Length Rate Type Location
1 Not
Ranked
Santa Rosa, 200-
600 Block 8 13390 0.27 6.063 Arterial Oak to Walnut
Pattern: Rear end collisions in congestion
Recommendation: Interchange planned for upgrade to address congestion as part of City General plan and regional
transportation plan. Intersection under state jurisdiction, forward finding to CalTrans.
2 3 Foothill, 1000-1200
Block 12 16527 0.33 6.028 Arterial Santa Rosa to
California
Pattern: Drivers entering and exiting driveways, failure to yield right of way.
Recommendation: Work with property management companies to distribute safety fliers for residents of housing
complexes along corridor.
3 1 Higuera, 500-700
Block 6 23991 0.25 2.763 Arterial Nipomo to Garden
Pattern: Parking maneuvers.
Recommendation: Update any parking stalls that do not conform to current City Standards.
4 6 Broad, 2900-3200
Block 7 27108 0.40 1.769 Arterial Sweeny to
Rockview
Pattern: Rear end collisions, attributed to vehicles turning at driveways.
Recommendation: Pursue funding for and implementation of Broad St. Median, Signalized Intersections, and Victoria
Ave. Extension as adopted under the South Broad Street Area Plan. Apply access management practices for new
development projects along corridor.
5 Not
Ranked LOVR, 12000 Block 13 32027 0.82 1.356 Arterial NB 101 on/off
ramps to Froom
Pattern: Rear end collisions. Construction of the LOVR 101 Overpass is a contributing factor.
Recommendation: No recommendation, due to construction activities. Continue to monitor in 2015.
22 2014 Traffic Safety Report
December 2015
Collector Segments
No Locations Ranked Under this Category
=
»Continue to expand the bike network, especially
through the use of different types of bicycle facilities,
such as buffered and protected bike lanes. On roads
where automobile speeds regularly exceed 35 mph, it is
recommended to provide protected bicycle infrastructure
such as protected bike lanes/cycle tracks, buffered bike
lanes or parallel 10ft wide shared-use paths (in low density
areas).
»Ensure that there are bicycle education opportunities
specifically for seniors, non-English speaking populations,
and other specific demographic groups. By specifically
targeting education opportunities to certain groups you
can ensure that those groups are better reached and their
specific concerns are addressed by the curriculum.
»Riding on a sidewalk is often a sign that a bicyclist
does not feel comfortable riding in the street. This is
best addressed through street design and education.
Prohibiting bicyclists from riding on sidewalks in all areas
of a community can be counter-productive because it
discourages new riders and other riders who are not
comfortable riding with traffic.
»Congratulations on setting ambitious goals for the
level of bicycle use in your community. Ensure that there
is enough data collection to monitor progress and be
responsive to continue progress.
sAn luis obisPo, cAliforniA
100%
21%
excellent
10.75%
Very Good
ActiVe
Meets
eVery two
Months
few/Good
yes
1 Per 22.6K
10 Building Blocks of
a Bicycle friendly community San Luis
ObispoAverage Platinum
Arterial Streets
with Bike Lanes
Total Bicycle Network Mileage
to Total Road Network Mileage
Public Education Outreach
Share of Transportation Budget
Spent on Bicycling
Bike Month and
Bike to Work Events
Active Bicycle Advocacy Group
Active Bicycle Advisory Committee
Bicycle–Friendly Laws & Ordinances
Bike Plan is Current and is Being
Implemented
Bike Program Staff to Population
78%
45%
ExCELLENT
INSuFFICIENT
d ATA
ExCELLENT
ACTIvE
ACTIvE
vERY GOOd
YES
1 PER 20k
leArn More » www.biKeleAGue.orG/coMMunities suPPorted by
category scores
enGineerinG
Bicycle network and connectivity
educAtion
Motorist awareness and bicycling skills
encourAGeMent
Mainstreaming bicycling culture
enforceMent
Promoting safety and protecting bicyclists' rights
eVAluAtion & PlAnninG
Setting targets and having a plan
key outcomes
ridershiP
Percentage of daily bicyclists
sAfety MeAsurescrAshes
Crashes per 10k daily bicyclists
sAfety MeAsuresfAtAlities
Fatalities per 10k daily bicyclists
key steps to platinum
PoPulAtion density
3500.045,119
totAl PoPulAtion
totAl AreA (sq. miles)
12.9
# of locAl bicycle
friendly businesses
# of locAl bicycle
friendly uniVersities
Fall 2015
5 /10
6 /10
4 /10
5 /10
4 /10
San Luis
7.4%
357
1.24
Average Platinum
12%
90
0.5
1
na
1
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
Fall 2015
Our Bicycle Friendly Community review panel
was very pleased to see the current efforts and
dedication to make San Luis Obispo a safe,
comfortable and convenient place to bicycle.
Below, reviewers provided recommendations to
help you further promote bicycling in San Luis
Obispo. Key recommendations are
highlighted in bold. Underlined phrases are
links to further information and resources
online.
We strongly encourage you to use this feedback
to build on your momentum and improve your
community for bicyclists.
There may also be initiatives, programs, and
facilities that are not mentioned here that
would benefit your bicycling culture, so please
continue to try new things to increase your
ridership, safety, and awareness.
The cost of bicycle facilities and possible
funding options are discussed on the last page
of this report.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Engineering
Increase road safety for all users by
reducing traffic speeds. Lower the
speed limit especially downtown,
around schools, and in
neighborhoods. Use traffic calming
measures and low speed design principles
to achieve high compliance rates. Speed has
been identified as a key risk factor in road
traffic injuries, influencing both the risk of a
road traffic crash as well as the severity of
the injuries that result from crashes. For
instance, pedestrians and cyclists have a
90% chance of survival if hit by a car
travelling at a speed of 20 mph or below,
but less than a 50% chance of surviving an
impact of 30 mph or above. Studies also
generally report a positive association
between traffic safety (perceived and/or
measured) and walking and cycling,
particularly among women.
Continue to expand the bike network,
especially through the use of different
types of bicycle facilities, such as
buffered and protected bike lanes. On
roads where automobile speeds
regularly exceed 35 mph, it is
recommended to provide protected
bicycle infrastructure such as
protected bike lanes/cycle tracks,
buffered bike lanes or parallel 10ft
wide shared-use paths (in low density
areas).
Education
Continue efforts to expand adult bicycle
education opportunities. Classes that teach
skills that improve bike commuting can
help people make what is possible practical.
Education can also be helpful for adults
who are recommended exercise by health
care providers, check to see if any area
doctors or hospitals are interested in
partnering for education programming.
2
Ensure that there are bicycle education
opportunities specifically for seniors, non-
English speaking populations, and other
specific demographic groups. By specifically
targeting education opportunities to certain
groups you can ensure that those groups are
better reached and their specific concerns
are addressed by the curriculum.
Encouragement
Offer a ‘Ciclovia’ or Open Streets type event,
closing off a major corridor to auto traffic
and offering the space to cyclists and
pedestrians. See Open Streets in action.
This event can also be a great place to
engage people about improvements they
would like in their community and barriers
to biking more often that they experience.
Provide a variety of targeted bicycle
events to engage women, seniors, and
other demographic groups that may
benefit from non-traditional or
group-specific bicycle events. Targeted
events may help to encourage groups that
have specific concerns about bicycling or
which have not previously been engaged in
supporting bicycling improvements.
Launch a bike share system that is open to
the public. Bike sharing is a convenient,
cost effective, and healthy way of
encouraging locals and visitors to make
short trips by bike and to bridge the “last
mile” between public transit and
destinations. Learn more about bike share
in the United States and current efforts to
make bike share more equitable.
Encourage California Polytechnic
State University and Cuesta
Community College to promote
cycling to students, staff, and faculty
and to seek recognition through
the Bicycle Friendly University
program. Many colleges and universities
have embraced the growing enthusiasm for
more bicycle-friendly campuses by
incorporating bike share programs, bike co-
ops, bicycling education classes and policies
to promote bicycling as a preferred means
of transportation. The community will
benefit as well: Communities near BFUs
have a higher number of regular bicyclists
(as many students bike to campus, shops
and restaurants), less congestion around
campus, safer streets, and university-hosted
public bicycle events, programs, and
classes. The League offers many tools to
help promote the Bicycle Friendly
University program in your community.
Enforcement
Continue to ensure that police
officers are educated on traffic laws
as they apply to bicyclists and
motorists and bicycling skills. Ensure
that law enforcement officers who are not
certified or trained as bicycle patrol officers
nevertheless have basic training or
experience with bicycling in your
community in order to foster great
3
interactions between bicyclists and police
officers.
Riding on a sidewalk is often a sign that a
bicyclist does not feel comfortable riding in
the street. This is best addressed through
street design and education. Prohibiting
bicyclists from riding on sidewalks in all
areas of a community can be counter-
productive because it discourages new
riders and other riders who are not
comfortable riding with traffic.
Evaluation & Planning
Ensure that your bicycle counts capture the
gender of cyclists. If women ride
significantly less than men, this gender gap
can be addressed through infrastructure
improvements, and targeted education and
encouragement efforts. Learn more at
bikeleague.org/womenbike.
Local reviewers indicated that minority and
low-income communities could be better
engaged and involved by bicycling and
transportation-related decision-making
processes. Consider how planning and
outreach efforts might help involve more
members of the community in decisions.
Ensure that there is a feedback
mechanism to help the community
meet goals for the implementation of
your bicycle plan.
Congratulations on setting ambitious
goals for the level of bicycle use in
your community. Ensure that there is
enough data collection to monitor progress
and be responsive to continue progress.
Adopt a Vision Zero plan to improve
road safety for all road users. To learn
more about Vision Zero, visit
visionzeronetwork.org.
COSTS AND FUNDING
OPTIONS
Costs
Building a new roadway for motor vehicles can
cost millions of dollars to construct, and many
of the pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure
facilities are extremely low-cost in comparison.
Use this database to review up-to-date
estimates of infrastructure costs of pedestrian
and bicycle treatments from states and cities
across the country.
Federal Funding
Since 1992 bicycle and pedestrian projects
have been eligible for federal transportation
funding. To learn more about what federal
funds are available for bicycle projects, use
Advocacy Advance’s interactive Find it, Fund it
tool to search for eligible funding programs by
bike/ped project type or review the same
information as a PDF here.
State Funding
Biking and walking dollars aren't only available
from the federal government. States can also
4
have their own revenue sources that can be used
to fund active transportation. Use this report
and an online tool to explore your state’s
funding sources for bicycle and pedestrian
improvements.
Local Funding
Local governments can also create their own
revenue streams to improve conditions for
bicycling and walking. Three common
approaches include: special bond issues,
dedications of a portion of local sales taxes or a
voter-approved sales tax increase, and use of
the annual capital improvement budgets of
Public Works and/or Parks agencies. Bicycle
facility improvements can also be tagged on to
larger projects to create economies of scale that
results in reduced costs and reduced impacts to
traffic, businesses, and residents. For example,
if there is an existing road project, it is usually
cheaper to add bike lanes and sidewalks to the
project than to construct them separately. To
learn more about public funding of bicycle
infrastructure improvements, visit
pedbikeinfo.org/planning/funding_governmen
t.cfm.
Resources and Support
Advocacy Advance offers several tools,
resources, and workshops to help advocates and
agency staff maximize eligible funding
programs.