Loading...
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.