Loading...
CC 2015-07-28_10a Roadway Striping_Fair Oaks 2MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: TERESA MCCLISH, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY: MATT HORN, CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF REVISED ROADWAY STRIPING FOR FAIR OAKS AVENUE BETWEEN TRAFFIC WAY AND WOODLAND DRIVE DATE: JULY 28, 2015 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council approve plans to revise roadway striping and marking configurations on Fair Oaks Avenue, between Traffic Way and Woodland Drive, to incorporate bicycle lanes. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: The cost associated with this work is currently included within the contract approved by City Council at the June 23, 2015 meeting. The contract cost for the revised roadway striping and signage is $11,550. Cost savings would likely be realized by not completing this work and replacing the existing striping on Fair Oaks Avenue in kind. This cost savings would require negotiations with the contractor and the total amount of savings is unknown at this time. BACKGROUND: Introduction The City completes roadway maintenance work on an annual basis. Roadway maintenance work typically consists of roadway sealing or milling with an asphalt concrete overlay. Fair Oaks Avenue between Traffic Way and Woodland Drive is currently in the process of being sealed. After Fair Oaks Avenue is sealed, the City will have the opportunity to modify the roadway striping, to better convey bicycle traffic. Roadway design work has various design manuals that engineers may use as guidelines for recommendations to both improve existing roads as well as the design of new roads. These guideline documents include:  Highway Design Manual (HDM)  Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (HDM)  American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO): A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets  AASHTO: Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities Item 10.a. - Page 1 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF REVISED ROADWAY STRIPING FOR FAIR OAKS AVENUE BETWEEN TRAFFIC WAY AND WOODLAND DRIVE JULY 28, 2015 PAGE 2 Additionally, there are numerous other technical bulletins and studies prepared by:  Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)  Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)  National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)  National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) A decade ago the term Complete Streets was created. The term defines an approach that requires streets to be planned, designed, operated, and maintained to enable safe, convenient and comfortable travel and access for users of all ages and abilities regardless of their mode of transportation. Complete Streets allow for safe travel by those walking, bicycling, driving automobiles and riding public transportation. Complete Streets are promoted as offering improved safety, health, economic, and environmental outcomes. Complete Streets emphasize the importance of safe access for all users, not just automobiles. A current Federal statute, United States Code, Title 23, Chapter 2, Section 217 (23 USC 217), mandates that: "bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways shall be considered, where appropriate, in conjunction with all new construction and reconstruction of transportation facilities, except where bicycle and pedestrian use are not permitted." The HDM Section 1000.1 states: “The needs of non motorized transportation are an essential part of all highway projects. Mobility for all travel modes is recognized as an integral element of the transportation system.” California Assembly Bill 1358 (Chapter 657, Statutes 2008) is known as the Complete Streets Bill. Effective in 2011, the bill requires revisions to a County or City’s Circulation Element to include provisions for the accommodation of all roadway users including bicyclists and pedestrians. Accommodations include bikeways, sidewalks, crosswalks, and curb extensions. In response to bicycle needs, the City completed the Bicycle and Trails Master Plan in 2012. Bicycle facilities are classified as either: a. Class 1: Provides a completely separated right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with minimized cross-flows by motorists. Item 10.a. - Page 2 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF REVISED ROADWAY STRIPING FOR FAIR OAKS AVENUE BETWEEN TRAFFIC WAY AND WOODLAND DRIVE JULY 28, 2015 PAGE 3 b. Class 2: Provides a restricted right-of-way designated for the exclusive or semi- exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and cross-flows by pedestrians and motorists permitted. For example, a marked lane for one-way bicycle travel on a street or highway. c. Class 3: Provides a right-of-way designated by signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians or motorists. Non-motorized Traffic – Bicycle and pedestrian components of traffic. d. Class 4: Assembly Bill 1193 (Chapter 495, Statutes 2014), approved by the Governor on September 20, 2014, introduced the Class 4 bicycle facility. These facilities are on-street two-way bicycle facilities that are separated from vehicles by a physical barrier. These facilities are commonly referred to as cycle tracks and the Assembly Bill requires Caltrans to release new design guidelines by January 1, 2016. e. Shared: A roadway that permits bicycle use but is not officially designated as a bikeway. As shown in the 2012 adopted Bicycle and Trails Master Plan, the City has many opportunities to install new bicycle facilities on existing roadways and a large opportunity to connect the northern portion of the City with the southern portion of the City as divided by U.S. 101. Item 10.a. - Page 3 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF REVISED ROADWAY STRIPING FOR FAIR OAKS AVENUE BETWEEN TRAFFIC WAY AND WOODLAND DRIVE JULY 28, 2015 PAGE 4 Item 10.a. - Page 4 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF REVISED ROADWAY STRIPING FOR FAIR OAKS AVENUE BETWEEN TRAFFIC WAY AND WOODLAND DRIVE JULY 28, 2015 PAGE 5 Starting in November 2014, staff began receiving requests to install better bicycle facilities on Fair Oaks Avenue. These requests included pictures below to better illustrate the need for better bicycle facilities on Fair Oaks Avenue. Item 10.a. - Page 5 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF REVISED ROADWAY STRIPING FOR FAIR OAKS AVENUE BETWEEN TRAFFIC WAY AND WOODLAND DRIVE JULY 28, 2015 PAGE 6 Item 10.a. - Page 6 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF REVISED ROADWAY STRIPING FOR FAIR OAKS AVENUE BETWEEN TRAFFIC WAY AND WOODLAND DRIVE JULY 28, 2015 PAGE 7 Existing Conditions Fair Oaks Avenue between Traffic Way and Halcyon Road is classified as a minor arterial roadway on the California Road System map maintained by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The posted speed limit on Fair Oaks Avenue is: Fair Oaks Avenue Section Posted Speed Limit Traffic Way To Orchard Avenue 35 MPH Orchard Avenue To Valley Road 40 MPH(1) Valley Road To Halcyon Road 40 MPH (1) Speed Limit revised to 35 MPH on June 23, 2015  Based upon AASHTO’s Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Fair Oaks Avenue is classified as a low speed urban roadway. 45 MPH is considered the upper limit for low speed roadways. Urban roadways are defined as those roadways Item 10.a. - Page 7 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF REVISED ROADWAY STRIPING FOR FAIR OAKS AVENUE BETWEEN TRAFFIC WAY AND WOODLAND DRIVE JULY 28, 2015 PAGE 8 that serve population areas of 5,000 or more. Fair Oaks Avenue between Traffic Way and Orchard Avenue is comprised of four travel lanes, two lanes traveling east bound and two lanes traveling west bound. Sidewalk is available on both sides of the road. Shared bicycle facilities are provided without any roadway markings. Fair Oaks between Orchard Avenue and Valley Road is comprised of four travel lanes, two lanes traveling east bound and two lanes traveling west bound. Sidewalk is available on the south side of the road. A non-standard Class 2 bicycle lane is provided in the west bound direction and a shared bicycle facility is provided in the east bound direction. Fair Oaks between Valley Road and Woodland Drive is largely comprised of four travel lanes, two lanes traveling east bound and two lanes traveling west bound reducing down to one travel lane near Woodland Drive. Sidewalk is provided on both sides of the street as well as Class 2 bicycle facilities provided in each direction. Display Showing Area of Work Item 10.a. - Page 8 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF REVISED ROADWAY STRIPING FOR FAIR OAKS AVENUE BETWEEN TRAFFIC WAY AND WOODLAND DRIVE JULY 28, 2015 PAGE 9 ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: In order to provide a greater level of bike facilities through this area, vehicle lane width reductions or vehicle lane elimination is required. Fair Oaks is an arterial roadway that supports approximately 10,000 average daily trips and provides a connection to Arroyo Grande High School and adjacent agricultural fields. Due to large morning peak demands, vehicle lane width reductions appear to provide the better balance between both vehicle and bike needs. Bicycle and Trails Master Plan The Bicycle and Trails Master Plan identifies this area for future improvement. This plan shows that Fair Oaks Avenue from Traffic Way to Orchard Avenue is planned for Class 3 bicycle facilities. Fair Oaks Avenue from Orchard Avenue to Halcyon Road is planned to have Class 2 bicycle facilities. Portion of Bicycle and Trail Master Plan Map Yellow dashed lines are proposed class 2 bicycle facilities Purple dashed lines are proposed class 3 bicycle facilities Magenta dashed lines are proposed Bike Blvd. Class 2 Class 3 Item 10.a. - Page 9 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF REVISED ROADWAY STRIPING FOR FAIR OAKS AVENUE BETWEEN TRAFFIC WAY AND WOODLAND DRIVE JULY 28, 2015 PAGE 10 Design and Design Process In order to understand the existing roadway geometry, a topographic survey of the roadway was prepared. Based upon the topographic survey, staff prepared a striping design plan and met to review the design on March 6, 2015. After that meeting, changes were made to the design prior to presentation at the Traffic Commission on March 23, 2015. Based on Traffic Commission input, staff revised the design further and presented the revised design to the Traffic Commission on April 20, 2015. The Traffic Commission approved the design at that meeting. Staff then gave the design to a traffic engineering firm for review of the plan as well as construction document preparation. On May 8, 2015 staff met with Lucia Mar Unified School District to review the design and the proposed speed limit reduction of Fair Oaks Avenue from Orchard Avenue to Valley Road. Lucia Mar Unified School District approved both the design and speed limit reductions. At the June 23, 2015 City Council meeting this item was presented as a consent item. Council requested a more thorough review of the design and the item be added to the July 28, 2015 agenda. Item 10.a. - Page 10 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF REVISED ROADWAY STRIPING FOR FAIR OAKS AVENUE BETWEEN TRAFFIC WAY AND WOODLAND DRIVE JULY 28, 2015 PAGE 11 Fair Oaks Reach Existing Section Proposed Section Traffic Way to Station Way WB Bike: WB #2: WB #1: EB #1: EB #2: EB Bike: Shared 13.7 feet 11.5 feet 12 feet 11.7 feet Shared WB Bike: WB #2: WB #1: EB #1: EB #2: EB Bike: Shared 14.5 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 5 feet Station Way to HWY 101 SB Off-ramp WB Bike: WB #2: WB #1: EB #1: EB #2: EB Bike: Shared 13 feet 11.1 feet 12.2 feet 12.8 feet Shared WB Bike: WB #2: WB #1: EB #1: EB #2: EB Bike: Shared 11.8 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 5 feet HWY 101 SB Off-ramp To California Street WB Bike: WB #2: WB #1: EB #1: EB #2: EB Bike: Shared 13 feet 11.1 feet 12.2 feet 12.8 feet Shared WB Bike: WB #2: WB #1: EB #1: EB #2: EB Bike: Shared 11.4 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 5 feet California Street to Valley Road WB Bike: WB #2: WB #1: EB #1: EB #2: EB Bike: Shared 15.5 13.8 feet 11.1 feet 12.8 feet Shared WB Bike: WB #2: WB #1: EB #1: EB #2: EB Bike: 4.7 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 5 feet Valley Road to Mortuary WB Bike: WB #2: WB #1: EB #1: EB #2: EB Bike: 4.5 feet 11.8 feet 11.7 feet 12.3 feet 11.5 feet 5.5 feet WB Bike: WB #2: WB #1: EB #1: EB #2: EB Bike: 5.6 feet 11 feet 11 feet 11 feet 11 feet 6 feet Mortuary to Woodland WB Bike: WB #2: WB #1: EB #1: EB #2: EB Bike: 13.8 feet 0 12.2 feet 11.6 feet 0 12.3 feet WB Bike: WB #2: WB #1: EB #1: EB #2: EB Bike: 6 feet 0 feet 11 feet 11 feet 0 7 feet On Fair Oaks Avenue between Traffic Way and Valley Road the west bound bike lane is a shared travel lane with vehicle traffic. This is both the existing and proposed condition. Use of shared lane markings or sharrows is proposed for this area in addition to roadway signage indicating the bicycles may use the entire travel lane. Item 10.a. - Page 11 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF REVISED ROADWAY STRIPING FOR FAIR OAKS AVENUE BETWEEN TRAFFIC WAY AND WOODLAND DRIVE JULY 28, 2015 PAGE 12 NCHRP Report 766 – Recommended Bicycle Lane Widths for Various Roadway Characteristics indicate that the use of sharrows: Increased the distance of the passing car from the bike by 2.25 feet for the shared-lane marking and by 2 ft for the bike-in-house symbol. These increases were all statistically significant. The authors also found that the shared-lane marking significantly reduced the number of cyclists riding on the shoulder and the number of cyclists traveling in the wrong direction. Sharrow Roadway Signage Reduce Lane Size Existing travel lane widths on Fair Oaks Avenue vary from a minimum existing width of 11.1 feet to 15.5 feet. In order to provide for enhanced bicycle facilities on Fair Oaks Avenue these travel lane widths must be narrowed. The proposed lane width on Fair Oaks Avenue from Traffic Way to Valley Road are 10 feet wide. The proposed lane width on Fair Oaks Avenue from Valley Road to Woodland Drive is 11 feet. Traveling at 35 MPH the likelihood of injury is greater in a vehicle versus bicycle conflict than a vehicle versus vehicle conflict. Based on this principal the proposed design provides the minimum readily acceptable vehicle lane widths while still providing enhanced facilities to bicycles. The FHWA Office of Safety Programs has published an article (attachment 2) concerning lane width recommendations indicating acceptable travel lane widths for Item 10.a. - Page 12 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF REVISED ROADWAY STRIPING FOR FAIR OAKS AVENUE BETWEEN TRAFFIC WAY AND WOODLAND DRIVE JULY 28, 2015 PAGE 13 different types of roadways. Type of Roadway Rural Urban US (feet)US (feet) Freeway 12 12 Ramps (1-lane) 12-30 12-30 Arterial 11-12 10-12 Collector 10-12 10-12 Local 9-12 9-12 Based on this same guidance article, the ramifications of such a change will impact travel speeds by reducing the free flowing speeds 6.6 MPH. The potential adverse impacts of narrowing travel lanes are an increased likelihood of vehicle sideswipes and large vehicles tracking outside of the travel lane. Staff has evaluated the risks and benefits of this design. During peak travel times vehicular speeds are low and large vehicle trucks and farm equipment are not present. AASHTO: A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets – Section 4.3 Lane Widths provides the following guidance: The lane width of a roadway influences the comfort of driving, operational characteristics, and, in some situations, the likelihood of crashes. Lane widths of 9 to 12 feet are generally used, with a 12 foot lane predominant on most high- speed, high-volume highways. In urban areas where pedestrian crossings, right-of-way, or existing development become stringent controls on lane widths, the use of 11 foot lanes may be appropriate. Lanes 10 foot wide are acceptable on low-speed facilities, and lanes 9 foot wide may be appropriate on low-volume roads in rural and residential areas. The California MUTCD has recognized and endorsed other design aids include guidelines prepared by NACTO: On April 11, 2014, Caltrans endorsed the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Street Design Guide as a valuable resource when making planning and design decisions about the State Highway System and local streets and roads. The NACTO Urban Street Design Guide includes many concepts contained in Main Street, California: A Guide for Improving Community Transportation Vitality. Similarly, much of the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide is consistent with the guidance provided in the CA MUTCD for related topics. We continue to analyze NACTO guidance and will work with all stakeholders to ensure flexibility and innovation in the design and operation of California streets and highways. Item 10.a. - Page 13 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF REVISED ROADWAY STRIPING FOR FAIR OAKS AVENUE BETWEEN TRAFFIC WAY AND WOODLAND DRIVE JULY 28, 2015 PAGE 14 The NACTO published guidance on travel lane widths indicate that: Lane widths of 10 feet are appropriate in urban areas and have a positive impact on a street’s safety without impacting traffic operations. Travel lanes are striped to define the intended path of travel for vehicles along a corridor. Historically, wider travel lanes (11–13 feet) have been favored to create a more forgiving buffer to drivers, especially in high-speed environments where narrow lanes may feel uncomfortable or increase potential for side-swipe collisions. Lane widths less than 12 feet have also historically been assumed to decrease traffic flow and capacity, a claim new research refutes. The relationships between lane widths and vehicle speed is complicated by many factors, including time of day, the amount of traffic present, and even the age of the driver. Narrower streets help promote slower driving speeds which, in turn, reduce the severity of crashes. Narrower streets have other benefits as well, including reduced crossing distances, shorter signal cycle, less stormwater, and less construction material to build. Lane widths of 10 feet are appropriate in urban areas and have a positive impact on a street's safety without impacting traffic operations. For designated truck or transit routes, one travel lane of 11 feet may be used in each direction. In select cases, narrower travel lanes (9–9.5 feet) can be effective as through lanes in conjunction with a turn lane The NCHRP Report 766: Recommended Bicycle Lane Widths for Various Roadway Characteristics indicates that: “Travel lanes between 10 and 12 feet in width are appropriate for streets with a bicycle lane.” As shown above, narrowing of travel lanes to 10 feet is not a unique or non-standard design. Agencies have been using this technique for years in order to provide for additional modes of travel as well as calming vehicular traffic speeds. Accident History Between 2010 and 2015 the City has records of 63 accidents occurring on Fair Oaks Avenue between Traffic Way and Valley Road including intersections. These accidents have been categorized as follows: Type Number of Occurrences Broadside / T-Bone 14 Broadside / T-Bone – Involving Bike 2 Information Exchange 23 Head-On 2 Hit and Run 2 Hit Object 1 Rear End 8 Sideswipe 10 Item 10.a. - Page 14 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF REVISED ROADWAY STRIPING FOR FAIR OAKS AVENUE BETWEEN TRAFFIC WAY AND WOODLAND DRIVE JULY 28, 2015 PAGE 15 A map of the accident locations is provided as attachment 7 to this report. As expected, a large majority of these accidents are related to roadway intersections, driveways, or entrances / exits of Arroyo Grande High School. With reduced lane widths, average vehicle speed is typically reduced. This reduction in speed may have a postive impact on rear end type of collisions but could increase the number of sideswipe type of collisions. Two vehicle versus bicycle accidents are recorded at the most easterly exit of Arroyo Grande High School. These bicycles were riding on the sidewalk and not seen by drivers exiting Arroyo Grande High School. Staff anticipates the elimination of broadside accidents involving bicycles. Both document accidents of broadside collisions involving bicycles occurred while bicyclists were riding on the sidewalk. This likely occurred because the bicyclist was unwilling to use the vehicle travel lanes of Fair Oaks Avenue due to safety concerns or an unwillingness to take a travel lane for their exclusive use. June 22, 2015 Concerns At the June 22, 2015 City Council meeting, both the Council and public comment on this item presented concerns with the design. Some concerns regarding the narrowing of vehicular travel lanes and inadequate space for bicycles on Fair Oaks Avenue between Traffic Way and Valley Road were stated. This section of roadway is straight and flat and narrowing of travel lanes in this condition will reduce traffic speeds and provide for better spaces for bicyclist. Vehicles are provided adequate spaces, bicycles are provided areas for exclusive uses and some areas required shared usage. In areas of shared usage, reduction in shared space size is considered negligible. Some bicyclists feel safer to take the entire lane and not share the lane with a vehicle. A bicycle that is required to take a 13’ travel lane for exclusive use in the existing condition will be required to take a 11.5’ to 12.5’ travel lane which will likely make the action of taking a lane both easier for the bicyclist and more understandable to vehicular traffic. Additionally, the use of sharrows in this section of the roadway statistically provides for greater clearance between passing vehicles and bicyclists. Currently, some bicyclists avoid this roadway section due to lack of facilities, which may eliminate bicycling as a viable mode for transportation due to inadequate alternate routes. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:  Approve staff recommendations;  Do not approve staff recommendations: City Council could determine the revised roadway striping plan is not appropriate for Fair Oaks Avenue at this time and direct staff to replace the existing roadway striping in the existing configuration after roadway maintenance work is complete; or  Provide direction to staff. Item 10.a. - Page 15 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF REVISED ROADWAY STRIPING FOR FAIR OAKS AVENUE BETWEEN TRAFFIC WAY AND WOODLAND DRIVE JULY 28, 2015 PAGE 16 ADVANTAGES: Approving the Fair Oaks Avenue roadway striping as presented will allow for further enhancement of bicycle facilities on an arterial roadway which allows for connection between the northern and southern section of the City as divided by U.S. 101 adjacent to Arroyo Grande High School. By approving the design, it further implements the approved Bicycle and Trails Master Plan. Additionally, the presented design also complies with direction received from the City Council’s advisory group on roadway related matters, the Traffic Commission. Lucia Mar Unified School district approves of the design and agrees with the implementation of bicycle facilities adjacent to Arroyo Grande High School and favors work that lowers the vehicular travel speed adjacent to the High School and provides for alternative modes of transportation. DISADVANTAGES: Approval of the recommendation will reduce vehicular travel lane size. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 (c). PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, July 23, 2015. The Agenda and staff report were posted on the City’s website on Friday, July 24, 2015. No public comments were received. Attachments: 1. Letters – Oceano Elementary School 2. FHWA Office of Safety Programs 3. The Influence of Lane Widths on Safety and Capacity 4. Highway Functional Classifications: Concepts, Criteria, and Procedures 5. Resolution and Engineering and Traffic Survey 6. Roadway Striping Plans 7. Accident Map 8. Letter – Arroyo Grande High School Principal Item 10.a. - Page 16 Dear Mayor, Hello, I am Trinidad Meza, and I am in the 6th grade currently attending Oceano Elementary and I am 11 years old. I am asking for you to fix the bike lanes in front of the A.G. High School. This month is bike month and we are going to be riding our bikes to Doc Burnstein's. I am writing this letter because other cities in the U.S. have great bike lanes. But lots of parts in A.G., like in front of the High School, there aren't bike lanes. I would like you to help our community to keep the bicyclist safe, including my teacher and I, who both ride our bikes in A.G. The problem for the bicyclists who ride when there is no bike lane is their safety. Cars tend to travel at high speeds and when another car is in the bike lane, the bicyclist then has to go into the road and risk their safety. When they get on the road and people in cars don't see them ... BAM!! They hit you. That's why we should make our bike lanes safer. Please install bike lanes in front of the Arroyo Grande High School. More people will ride and make our community better. Thank You, Trinidad Meza Attachment 1 Item 10.a. - Page 17 Dear Mayor of Arroyo Grande My name is Paola Ramirez. I am a student at Oceano Elementary School. May is the best month for bikers because it is Bike Month. For bike month our class is doing a number of things during P.E I learn about bike safety on the road. I am writing this letter because bicycling is better when there are more bike lanes. In other cities there is space for families and kids to ride their bikes. But here in Arroyo Grande it's not as safe whenever I pass bye Arroyo Grande High School it's scary because there is four lanes and no bike lanes for bikers. In our community riding bikes is fun, but my family doesn't ride because they say it's dangerous in the streets without no bike lanes. I'm part of the Oceano Bike posse. We ride to Doc Burnsteins. The most dangerous place on the trip is Arroyo (:\f ( Grande High School. There ·ts no bike but thereJour lanes for cars with crazy drivers. In the future I would really want see more bike lanes for bikers. The more bikers the better. It should be safer for families to ride their bikes to get ice cream. Please do me the honor and try to make biking safer for my friends and I. Thank you Paola Ramirez Attachment 1 Item 10.a. - Page 18 Attachment 1 Item 10.a. - Page 19 Attachment 1 Item 10.a. - Page 20 t I \, Attachment 1 Item 10.a. - Page 21 Attachment 1 Item 10.a. - Page 22 Dear Mayor, My name is A.J. Farias I go to Oceano Elementary School. I'm 12 yrs. old and I play soccer. I live in Oceano. This month is bike month and we are having a bike week. Bike week is in May, and we get prizes each day for riding our bikes to school. I'm writing this letter because we need a bigger and better safer and less dangerous bike lane in front of the A.G.H.S. We should have bike lanes like in Copenhagen where they have elevated bike lanes about 2-3 inches above ground and more bikes. There should be more space for bikes on roads than cars. Making cycle tracks would encourage student to ride their bikes every day to school. The problem with the community is that the roads are big and bikes space is smaller. We also have too many cars. We don't have too many bikes. I would like to see safer lanes. It would make safer for my friends and to ride on our bikes in front of A.G.H.S. I don't to die riding to get ice cream at Doc Burnstein's. It would be very helpful to put bigger bike lanes. Thank you, A.J. Farias Attachment 1 Item 10.a. - Page 23 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 202-366-4000 Safety Lane Width The adopted criteria describe design values for through travel lanes, auxiliary lanes, ramps, and turning roadways. There are also recommended widths for special-purpose lanes such as continuous two-way left-turn lanes. AASHTO also provides guidance for widening lanes through horizontal curves to provide for the off-tracking requirements of large trucks. Lane width does not include shoulders, curbs, and on-street parking areas. Table 3 summarizes the range of lane widths for travel lanes and ramps. TABLE 3 Ranges for Lane Width Type of Roadway RuralUrban US (feet)Metric (meters)US (feet)Metric (meters) Freeway 12 3.6 12 3.6 Ramps (1-lane)12-30 3.6-9.2 12-30 3.6-9.2 Arterial 11-12 3.3-3.6 10-12 3.0-3.6 Collector 10-12 3.0-3.6 10-12 3.0-3.6 Local 9-12 2.7-3.6 9-12 2.7-3.6 (Source: A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO) Page 1of 7Mitigation Strategies For Design Exceptions -Safety | Federal Highway Administration 6/28/2015http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/geometric/pubs/mitigationstrategies/chapter3/3_lanewidth.cfm Attachment 2 Item 10.a. - Page 24 It is FHWA policy that the requirement of a formal design exception for lane width is applicable for all travel lanes, including auxiliary lanes and ramps. With respect to the practice of widening lanes through horizontal curves, a formal design exception is not necessary for cases not providing additional lane width, but the decision should be documented in project records. Exhibit 7-3 in the Green Book describes minimum lane widths for two-lane rural highways for a range of design speeds and design-year traffic. The table entries show a 24-foot traveled way (12-foot lanes) for most conditions. Careful inspection of this table (see subnote [a]) shows that 11-foot lanes are acceptable and within policy for reconstruction projects in which an existing 22-foot dimension is operating in a satisfactory manner. For such cases the designer should document this is the case, but retention of the 11-foot width would not require a design exception. Safety Speed is a primary consideration when evaluating potential adverse impacts of lane width on safety. On high-speed, rural two-lane highways, an increased risk of cross-centerline head-on or cross- centerline sideswipe crashes is a concern because drivers may have more difficulty staying within the travel lane. On any high-speed roadway, the primary safety concerns with reductions in lane width are crash types related to lane departure, including run-off-road crashes. The mitigation strategies for lane width presented in Chapter 4 focus on reducing the probability of these crashes. In a reduced-speed urban environment, the effects of reduced lane width are different. On such facilities, the risk of lane-departure crashes is less. The design objective is often how to best distribute limited cross-sectional width to maximize safety for a wide variety of roadway users. Narrower lane widths may be chosen to manage or reduce speed and shorten crossing distances for pedestrians. Lane widths may be adjusted to incorporate other cross-sectional elements, such as medians for access control, bike lanes, on-street parking, transit stops, and landscaping. The adopted ranges for lane width in the urban, low-speed environment normally provide adequate flexibility to achieve a desirable urban cross section without a design exception. Designers should understand the interrelationships among lane width and other design elements. On high-speed roadways with narrow lanes that also have narrow shoulders, the risk of severe lane- departure crashes increases. Drivers on rural two-lane highways may shift even closer to the centerline as they become less comfortable next to a narrow shoulder. At other times, they may shift closer to the shoulder edge and are at greater risk of driving off the paved portion of the roadway (and over potential edge drop-offs) as they meet oncoming traffic. Horizontal alignment is another factor that can influence the safety of lane width reductions. Curvilinear horizontal alignments increase the risk of lane departure crashes in general, and when combined with narrow lane widths, the risk will further increase for most high-speed roadways. In addition, trucks and other large vehicles can affect safety and operations by off-tracking into adjacent lanes or the shoulder. This affects the safety of other drivers, as well as non-motorized users such as bicyclists who may be using the adjacent lane or shoulder. It is important to understand this interaction of design elements when a design exception for lane with is being evaluated. Substantive Safety Figure 6 shows accident modification factors for variations in lane width on rural two-lane highways. Note that there is little difference between 11- and 12-foot lanes. Page 2of 7Mitigation Strategies For Design Exceptions -Safety | Federal Highway Administration 6/28/2015http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/geometric/pubs/mitigationstrategies/chapter3/3_lanewidth.cfm Attachment 2 Item 10.a. - Page 25 FIGURE 6 Accident Modification Factors for Lane Width on Rural Two-Lane Highways. (Source: Prediction of the Expected Safety Performance of Rural Two-Lane Highways, FHWA) Figure 6 is a graph. The "x" axis is labeled "Average Daily Traffic Volume (veh/day)," and is marked in increments of 500; 1,000; 1,500; 2,000; and 2,500. The "y" axis is "labeled Accident Modification Factor," and is marked in decimal increments of 1.00, 1.10, etc., through 1.70. A note at the top of the "x" axis states, "This factor applies to single-vehicle run-off-road, multiple-vehicle same direction sideswipe accidents, and multiple-vehicle opposite-direction accidents." The accident modification factors for the various lane widths begin as horizontal lines showing a very minor difference in crash risk. As traffic exceeds 500 vpd, the AMFs increase linearly and at 2000 vpd, the AMFs return to horizontal lines. At this point the AMF for 12-foot lanes is 1.00, for 11-foot lanes is 1.05, for 10-foot lanes is 1.30, and for 9-foot lanes is 1.50, illustrating that the expected crash risk is significantly higher for 9- and 10-foot lanes on rural two-lane highways. For multilane urban arterials and multilane rural arterials, the expected difference in substantive safety for variations in lane width is much lesson the order of a few percentage points when comparing lane widths of 10 to 12 feet. Traffic Operations Page 3of 7Mitigation Strategies For Design Exceptions -Safety | Federal Highway Administration 6/28/2015http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/geometric/pubs/mitigationstrategies/chapter3/3_lanewidth.cfm Attachment 2 Item 10.a. - Page 26 Lane width has an effect on traffic operations and highway capacity, particularly for high-speed roadways. The interaction of lane width with other geometric elements, primarily shoulder width, also affects operations. When determining highway capacity, adjustments are made to reflect the effect of lane width on free- flow speeds. Lane widths of less than 12 feet (3.6 meters) reduce travel speeds on high-speed roadways, as summarized in Tables 4 and 5. TABLE 4 Operational Effects of Freeway Lane Widths Lane width (ft)Reduction in Free-Flow Speed (mi/h) 12 0.0 111.9 106.6 Lane width (m)Reduction in Free-Flow Speed (km/h) 3.60.0 3.51.0 3.42.1 3.33.1 3.25.6 3.18.1 3.010.6 Source: Highway Capacity Manual Page 4of 7Mitigation Strategies For Design Exceptions -Safety | Federal Highway Administration 6/28/2015http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/geometric/pubs/mitigationstrategies/chapter3/3_lanewidth.cfm Attachment 2 Item 10.a. - Page 27 TABLE 5 Operational Effects of Lane and Shoulder Width on Two-Lane Highways Lane width (ft) Reduction in Free-Flow Speed (mi/h) Shoulder Width (ft) ≥0<2 ≥2<4 ≥4<6 ≥6 9<10 6.4 4.8 3.5 2.2 ≥10<11 5.3 3.7 2.4 1.1 ≥11<12 4.7 3.0 1.7 0.4 >3.6 4.2 2.6 1.3 0.0 Lane width (m) Reduction in Free-Flow Speed (km/h) Shoulder Width (m) ≥0.0<0.6≥0.6<1.2≥1.2<8 ≥1.8 2.7<3.010.3 7.7 5.6 3.5 ≥3.0<3.38.5 5.9 3.8 1.7 ≥3.3<3.67.5 4.9 2.8 0.7 ≥3.6 6.8 4.2 2.1 0.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual Summary Page 5of 7Mitigation Strategies For Design Exceptions -Safety | Federal Highway Administration 6/28/2015http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/geometric/pubs/mitigationstrategies/chapter3/3_lanewidth.cfm Attachment 2 Item 10.a. - Page 28 Table 6 summarizes the potential adverse impacts to safety and operations for a design exception for lane width. TABLE 6 Lane Width: Potential Adverse Impacts to Safety and Operations Safety & Operational IssuesFreewayExpressway Rural Two- Lane Urban Arterial Run-off-road crashesXXX Cross-median crashesXX Cross-centerline crashesX Sideswipe (same direction) crashesXXX Rear-end crashes if operations deteriorate (abrupt speed reduction)XXX Reduced free-flow speedsXXXX Large vehicles off-tracking into adjacent lane or shoulder XXXX Freeway: high-speed, multi-lane divided highway with interchange access only (rural or urban). Expressway: high-speed, multi-lane divided arterial with interchange and at-grade access (rural or urban). Rural 2-Lane: high-speed, undivided rural highway (arterial, collector, or local). Urban Arterial: urban arterials with speeds 45 mi/h (70 km/h) or less. Lane Width Resources •A Policy on Design Standards Interstate System, AASHTO, 2005. •A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO, 2004. •Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, AASHTO, 2004. Page 6of 7Mitigation Strategies For Design Exceptions -Safety | Federal Highway Administration 6/28/2015http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/geometric/pubs/mitigationstrategies/chapter3/3_lanewidth.cfm Attachment 2 Item 10.a. - Page 29 •A Guide for Reducing Collisions on Horizontal Curves, NCHRP Report 500, Volume 7, Transportation Research Board, 2004. •A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Pedestrians, NCHRP Report 500, Volume 10, Transportation Research Board, 2004. •A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Heavy Trucks, NCHRP Report 500, Volume 13, Transportation Research Board, 2004. •A Guide for Addressing Head-On Collisions, NCHRP Report 500, Volume 4, Transportation Research Board, 2003. •A Guide for Addressing Run-Off-Road Collisions, NCHRP Report 500, Volume 6, Transportation Research Board, 2003. •Roadside Design Guide, AASHTO, 2002. •Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads (ADT ≤ 400), AASHTO, 2001. •Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000. •Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, AASHTO, 1999. •Highway Safety Design and Operations Guide, AASHTO, 1997. •Use of Shoulders and Narrow Lanes to Increase Freeway Capacity, NCHRP Report 369, Transportation Research Board, 1995. •Roadway Widths for Low-Traffic Volume Roads, NCHRP Report 362, Transportation Research Board, 1994. •Effective Utilization of Street Width on Urban Arterials, NCHRP Report 330, Transportation Research Board, 1990. •FHWA Roadside Hardware Web site http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/policy_guide/road_hardware/ Back to the Table of Contents Page last modified on October 15, 2014. Page 7of 7Mitigation Strategies For Design Exceptions -Safety | Federal Highway Administration 6/28/2015http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/geometric/pubs/mitigationstrategies/chapter3/3_lanewidth.cfm Attachment 2 Item 10.a. - Page 30 The Truth About Lane Widths Page 1 of 4 T:\website\The Influence of Lane Widths on Safety and Capacity w graphics.doc Graphic by John Williams The Influence of Lane Widths on Safety and Capacity: A Summary of the Latest Findings Theodore Petritsch, P.E. PTOE Director of Transportation Services Sprinkle Consulting Problem – The competition for space within a roadway right-of-way is fierce. It isn’t just sidewalks and bike lanes battling “motor vehicle lanes” for the space. Drainage and utilities are also vying for their share of the right-of-way. And money for additional right-of-way is hard to come by. Also, adjacent property owners are not usually “friendly sellers” of land for roadway projects. Often times, something gets squeezed out – usually, it is the bicycle and/or the pedestrian facilities. Background - When faced with having bike lanes, and possibly sidewalks, eliminated from a roadway project, advocates for bike and ped facilities may ask, “Can’t we narrow the travel lanes to less than twelve feet?” Very likely, the engineers will list apparently good reasons for not wanting to reduce the travel lane widths: twelve foot lanes are the AASHTO standard; reducing lane widths reduces safety; narrowing lane widths reduces the roadway capacity. Surely, given these well known facts, no one would seriously suggest narrowing lanes. But what if these well known facts aren’t true? What if we could narrow the lanes on a roadway without adversely impacting the operations of the roadway? These questions have been asked and, in large part, answered. The following is The Truth about Lane Widths. Solution - What is “the Standard”? The AASHTO Green Book1 is a guide. On the first page of its Foreword it states, “The intent of this policy is to provide guidance…” Many states, however, have adopted the values in AASHTO as “standards.” However, when considering using its specified values for design criteria, one must keep in mind two other statements from the Green Book’s Foreword, “Minimum values are either given or implied by the lower value in a given range of values. The larger values …will normally be used where the social, economic, and environmental impacts are not critical.” With these fundamentals in mind, let’s review the actual lane width guidance for urban arterial streets. 1 AASHTO. Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, pg. xliii, AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2004. Attachment 3 Item 10.a. - Page 31 The Truth About Lane Widths Page 2 of 4 T:\website\The Influence of Lane Widths on Safety and Capacity w graphics.doc According to the AASHTO Green Book, for rural and urban arterials, lane widths may vary from 10 to 12 feet. It goes on to say that 12-foot lanes should be used where practical on higher speed, free flowing, principal arterials. However, under interrupted-flow (roads with signals) conditions operating at low speeds (45 mph or less) narrower lane widths are normally quite adequate and have some advantages.2 Given the above statements from AASHTO, 10-foot lanes should be considered the minimum standard. But what about Safety? Safety is another oft cited reason for maintaining 12-foot lane widths. However, much research has been performed evaluating the crash impacts of narrowing lanes. This research found little to no support for the safety argument (with respect to urban roadways). Some of this research is summarized below: NCHRP 330 Effective Utilization of Street Width on Urban Arterials,3 in its implementation guidelines states, “Narrower lane widths (less than 11 ft) can be used effectively in urban arterial street improvement projects where the additional space can be used to relieve traffic congestion or address specific accident patterns” It goes on to note that, “all projects evaluated during the study that consisted exclusively of lane widths of 10 feet or more resulted in accident rates that were either reduced or unchanged.” And recommends, “Where streets cannot be widened, highway agencies should give strong consideration to the use of 10-ft lanes where they are necessary as part of a geometric improvement to improve traffic operations or alleviate specific accident patterns.” Most recently, the Midwest Research Center4 reported, “A safety evaluation of lane widths for arterial roadway segments found no indication, except in limited cases, that the use of narrower lanes increases crash frequencies. The lane width effects in the analyses conducted were generally either not statistically significant or indicated that narrower lanes were associated with lower rather than higher crash frequencies. There were limited exceptions to this general finding.” [emphasis added] 2 AASHTO. Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, pg. 473, AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2004. 3 NCHRP Report 330 Effective Utilization of Street Width on Urban Arterials, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1990. 4 Ingred B. Potts, Harwood, D., Richard, K., Relationship of Lane Width to Safety for Urban and Suburban Arterials, Transportation Research Board, 2007 Annual Meeting. Attachment 3 Item 10.a. - Page 32 The Truth About Lane Widths Page 3 of 4 T:\website\The Influence of Lane Widths on Safety and Capacity w graphics.doc And went on to say, The research found three situations in which the observed lane width effect was inconsistent—increasing crash frequency with decreasing lane width in one state and the opposite effect in another state. These three situations are: • lane widths of 3.0 m (10 ft) or less on four-lane undivided arterials. • lane widths of 2.7 m (9 ft) or less on four-lane divided arterials. • lane width of 3.0 m (10 ft) or less on approaches to four-leg STOP-controlled arterial intersections. Because of the inconsistent findings mentioned above, it should not be inferred that the use of narrower lanes must be avoided in these situations. Rather, it is recommended that narrower lane widths be used cautiously in these situations unless local experience indicates otherwise. Based upon the above cited research, it appears that narrowing lanes to less than the “standard” 12-ft width does not usually degrade safety. Yes, but there’s still the capacity issue. The Highway Capacity Manual5 (HCM) is the primary document used by planners and engineers to determine the capacity of roadways and intersections. In Chapter 16, pages 16-10 and 16-11, the HCM describes those factors which impact the capacity of signalized intersections – including an adjustment factor based upon lane widths. Essentially, the HCM shows that the saturation flow rate (capacity) of a lane at a signalized intersection is reduced by 3.33 percent for each foot of lane width less than 12 feet. Consequently, according to the HCM, the capacity of a 10-foot lane is only 93 percent of the capacity of a 12-foot lane. However, in 2007 a literature search was performed as part of the Florida Department of Transportation Conserve By Bike Program Study.6 This literature search was to evaluate findings of recent research from across the United on impacts to urban street capacity resulting States from lane narrowings. The findings are “The measured saturation flow rates are similar for lane widths between 10 feet and 12 feet. For lane widths below 10 feet, there is a measurable decrease in saturation flow rate. Thus, so long as all other geometric and traffic signalization conditions remain constant, there is no measurable decrease in urban street capacity when through lane widths are narrowed from 12 feet to 10 feet”.7 [emphasis added] Capacity, therefore, is not degraded until lane widths are reduced to less than 10 feet. 5 Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000. 6 Sprinkle Consulting, Conserve By Bike Program Study Final Report, FDOT, Tallahassee, FL, 2007. 7 John Zegeer, P.E., (past Chair, TRB Jighway Capacity and Quality of Service Committee) in a memo to Sprinkle Consulting Engineers, March 22, 2007. Attachment 3 Item 10.a. - Page 33 The Truth About Lane Widths Page 4 of 4 T:\website\The Influence of Lane Widths on Safety and Capacity w graphics.doc 1st Avenue North at 49th Street in St. Petersburg, FL Photo Credit: Michael Frederick, Manager Neighborhood Transportation and & Parking Result – In general safety and capacity are not adversely impacted by reducing lanes widths to as little as 10 feet. If we refer back to the AASHTO Green Book’s Foreword and ask, “Are there critical social, environmental and economic reasons that would justify using less than 12-foot lanes?” The answer, in urban areas, is often “yes.” Accommodating pedestrians and bicyclists is a critical social issue: it makes our downtowns more livable, transit more viable, and provides for the mobility of those who cannot – or chose not – to drive. Accommodating more users in less space also addresses critical environmental issues: narrower lanes means less pavement (asphalt or concrete), less runoff, and less land consumed. Narrower (than 12-foot) lane widths reduce costs, a critical issue in times of shrinking budgets: smaller right-of- way costs, reduced costs for utility easements, reduced construction costs, reduced environmental mitigation costs. In addition to these obvious considerations, by reducing lane widths and better providing for the mobility of all transportation system users, we can reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and reduce motor vehicle emissions. Furthermore, increased walking and bicycling resulting from the provision of facilities will promote active lifestyles, help combat the growing obesity epidemic, and contribute to healthier more active communities. Realizing and taking advantage of the Truth about Lane Widths provides benefits for everyone. Who to contact for more information - Theodore A. Petritsch, P.E., PTOE Senior Transportation Engineer Sprinkle Consulting, Inc. 18115 US Hwy 41 N, Suite 600, Lutz, FL, 33549 813.949.7449 tap@sp rinkleconsulting.com Attachment 3 Item 10.a. - Page 34 Highway Functional Classification: Concepts, Criteria and Procedures 22 Table 3-5: VMT and Mileage Guidelines by Functional Classifications - Arterials Arterials Interstate Other Freeways & Expressway Other Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Typical Characteristics Lane Width 12 feet 11 - 12 feet 11 - 12 feet 10 feet - 12 feet Inside Shoulder Width 4 feet - 12 feet 0 feet - 6 feet 0 feet 0 feet Outside Shoulder Width 10 feet - 12 feet 8 feet - 12 feet 8 feet - 12 feet 4 feet - 8 feet AADT1 (Rural) 12,000 - 34,000 4,000 - 18,5002 2,000 - 8,5002 1,500 - 6,000 AADT1 (Urban) 35,000 - 129,000 13,000 - 55,0002 7,000 – 27,0002 3,000 - 14,000 Divided/Undivided Divided Undivided/Divided Undivided/Divided Undivided Access Fully Controlled Partially/Fully Controlled Partially/Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Mileage/VMT Extent (Percentage Ranges)1 Rural System Mileage Extent for Rural States2 1% - 3% 0% - 2% 2% - 6% 2% - 6% Mileage Extent for Urban States 1% - 2% 0% - 2% 2% - 5% 3% - 7% Mileage Extent for All States 1% - 2% 0% - 2% 2% - 6% 3% - 7% VMT Extent for Rural States2 18% - 38% 0% - 7% 15% - 31% 9% - 20% VMT Extent for Urban States 18% - 34% 0% - 8% 12% - 29% 12% - 19% VMT Extent for All States 20% - 38% 0% - 8% 14% - 30% 11% - 20% Urban System Mileage Extent for Rural States2 1% - 3% 0% - 2% 4% - 9% 7% - 14% Mileage Extent for Urban States 1% - 2% 0% - 2% 4% - 5% 7% - 12% Mileage Extent for All States 1% - 3% 0% - 2% 4% - 5% 7% - 14% VMT Extent for Rural States2 17% - 31% 0% - 12% 16% - 33% 14% - 27% VMT Extent for Urban States 17% - 30% 3% - 18% 17% - 29% 15% - 22% VMT Extent for All States 17% - 31% 0% - 17% 16% - 31% 14% - 25% Qualitative Description (Urban) • Serve major activity centers, highest traffic volume corridors, and longest trip demands • Carry high proportion of total urban travel on minimum of mileage • Interconnect and provide continuity for major rural corridors to accommodate trips entering and leaving urban area and movements through the urban area • Serve demand for intra-area travel between the central business district and outlying residential areas • Interconnect with and augment the principal arterials • Serve trips of moderate length at a somewhat lower level of travel mobility than principal arterials • Distribute traffic to smaller geographic areas than those served by principal arterials • Provide more land access than principal arterials without penetrating identifiable neighborhoods • Provide urban connections for rural collectors Qualitative Description (Rural) • Serve corridor movements having trip length and travel density characteristics indicative of substantial statewide or interstate travel • Serve all or nearly all urbanized areas and a large majority of urban clusters areas with 25,000 and over population • Provide an integrated network of continuous routes without stub connections (dead ends) • Link cities and larger towns (and other major destinations such as resorts capable of attracting travel over long distances) and form an integrated network providing interstate and inter-county service • Spaced at intervals, consistent with population density, so that all developed areas within the State are within a reasonable distance of an arterial roadway Provide service to corridors with trip lengths and travel density greater than those served by rural collectors and local roads and with relatively high travel speeds and minimum interference to through movement 1- Ranges in this table are derived from 2011 HPMS data. 2- For this table, Rural States are defined as those with a maximum of 75 percent of their population in urban centers. Attachment 4 Item 10.a. - Page 35 RESOLUTION NO. 4668 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ESTABLISHING THE SPEEDLIMIT ON FAIR OAKS AVENUE WHEREAS, the City Council of Arroyo Grandepreviously certified engineering and traffic speed surveys on various City streets in accordance with the requirementsof the California Vehicle Code; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer prepared an Engineering and Traffic Survey for Fair Oaks Avenue from Orchard Street to Valley Road, dated June 16, 2015 (the "Survey "); and WHEREAS, the Surveydeveloped a posted speed limit reduction justification for Fair Oaks Avenuethrough the analysisof the currently certifiedvehicle surveys, in accordance with the requirements of the California Vehicle Code; and WHEREAS, thePolice Chief supports the recommendationsof the City Engineer, the Community Development Director, and the Traffic Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by theCity Council of theCity of Arroyo Grande as follows: 1. TheCity Council, pursuant to the CaliforniaVehicle Code findsthat thespeed permitted by Statelaw upon Fair Oaks Avenue from Orchard Street to Valley Road is greater than is necessary for the safe operationofvehicles thereon as determined on thebasis of the June 16, 2015 Engineering and Traffic Survey- Fair Oaks Avenue from Orchard Street to Valley Road. 2. The City Council does hereby determine and declare the speed limit for Fair Oaks Avenue as follows: Fair Oaks Avenue (Valley Road to CaliforniaStreet) 35 mph 3. TheCity Council herebycertifies the June 16, 2015 Engineering and Traffic Survey- FairOaks Avenue fromOrchard Street to Valley Road, incorporated herein by this reference, which shall be kept on file at the CommunityDevelopment Department. 4. The establishment and enforcement of the speed limit listed in Section 2 of this Resolution will not become effective until speedlimit signs havebeen posted to provide for public notice. On motion by Mayor Hill, seconded by Council Member Harmon, andby the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Harmon, Brown, Guthrie, and Mayor Hill NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Barneich the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 23rd day of June, 2015. RESOLUTION NO.4668 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ESTABLISHING THE SPEED LIMIT ON FAIR OAKS AVENUE WHEREAS,the City Council of Arroyo Grande previously certified engineering and traffic speed surveys on various City streets in accordance with the requirements of the California Vehicle Code; and WHEREAS,the City Engineer prepared an Engineering and Traffic Survey for Fair Oaks Avenue from Orchard Street to Valley Road,dated June 16,2015 (the “Survey”);and WHEREAS,the Survey developed a posted speed limit reduction justification for Fair Oaks Avenue through the analysis of the currently certified vehicle surveys,inaccordance with the requirements of the California Vehicle Code;and WHEREAS,the Police Chief supports the recommendations of the City Engineer,the Community Development Director,and the Traffic Commission. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande as follows: 1.The City Council,pursuant to the California Vehicle Code finds that the speed permitted by State law upon Fair Oaks Avenue from Orchard Street to Valley Road is greater than is necessary for the safe operation of vehicles thereon asdeterminedon the basis of the June 16, 2015 Engineering and Traffic Survey-Fair Oaks Avenue from Orchard Street to Valley Road. 2.The City Council does hereby determine and declare the speed limit for Fair Oaks Avenue as follows: Fair Oaks Avenue (Valley Road to California Street)35 mph 3.The City Council hereby certifies the June 16,2015 Engineering and Traffic Survey-Fair Oaks Avenue from Orchard Street to Valley Road,incorporated herein by this reference,which shall be kept on file at the Community Development Department. 4.The establishment and enforcement of the speed limit listed in Section 2 of this Resolution will not become effective until speed limit signs have been posted to provide for public notice. On motion by Mayor Hill,seconded by Council Member Harmon,and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES:Council Members Harmon,Brown,Guthrie,and Mayor Hill NOES:None ABSENT:Council Member Barneich the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 23rd day of June,2015. Attachment 5 Item 10.a. - Page 36 RESOLUTION NO. YO/ ff PAGE 2 JIM]HILL, MAYOR TTEST: Ely, 700j, L / Fjlw..A,,W4W' CITY CLERK r' TO CONTENT: ERT I c ALL,-INTERIMCITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: H ATHER WHITHAM, CITY ATTORNEY RESOLUTION NO.L/WX PAGE2 y ‐‘\I F ‐Q JIM HILL,MAYOR TTEST: (44/Ma //Z WWW KELKY MTM'7QETCITY CLERK {/ix'gp g l\ ‘:BE 'AtL‘;"|NTER|M CITY MANAGER ‘- I' ‘ S TO CONTENT: APPROVEDAS TO FORM: fl/éfly‘ "HEATHER WHITHAM,CITY ATTORNEY Attachment 5 Item 10.a. - Page 37 OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION I, KELLY WETMORE, CityClerk of theCity of ArroyoGrande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify underpenalty of perjury, that the attached Resolution No. 4668 was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the CityCouncil of the City of ArroyoGrande on the 23 Id day of June, 2015. WITNESS my handand the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 25th dayof June, 2015. L/1 KELLY ET ORE, CITY CLERK OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION I,KELLY WETMORE,City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande,County of San Luis Obispo,State ofCalifornia,do hereby certify under penalty of perjury,that the attached Resolution No.4668 was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande on the 23rd day of June,2015. WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 25‘h day of June,2015. KELLYET ORE,CITY CLERK Attachment 5 Item 10.a. - Page 38 CITY OF AARRRROOYYOO GGRRAANNDDEE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Phone: (805) 473-5420 Fax: (805) 473-0386 E-mail: agcity@arroyogrande.org Website: www.arroyogrande.org Engineering and Traffic Survey Fair Oaks Avenue from Orchard Street to Valley Road June 16, 2015 Introduction The City completes roadway maintenance work on an annual basis. Fair Oaks Avenue between Traffic Way and Woodland Drive is planned to be sealed this summer. After Fair Oaks Avenue is sealed, the City will have the opportunity to modify the roadway striping, to better convey bicycle traffic. This revised striping was reviewed and approved by the City’s Traffic Commission on March 23, 2015 and April 20, 2015. In order to complete necessary roadway striping revisions, changes to portions of the posted speed limit on Fair Oaks Avenue must occur to comply with the California Manual for Traffic Control Device 2014 edition. This Engineering and Traffic Survey is completed in conformance with the: 1. California Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices 2014 Edition 2. California Vehicle Code Section 627 3. California Manual for Setting Speed Limits 2014 Edition Existing Roadway Conditions Fair Oaks between Traffic Way and Valley Road is comprised of four travel lanes, two lanes traveling east bound and two lanes traveling west bound. Sidewalk is available on the south side of the road. No bike lanes are provided. Fair Oaks between Valley Road and Woodland Drive is largely comprised of four travel lanes, two lanes traveling east bound and two traveling west bound reducing down to one travel lane near Woodland Drive. Sidewalk is provided on both sides of the Fair Oaks Avenue as well as bike lanes. Fair Oaks Avenue between Traffic Way and Woodland is classified as a Minor Arterial Road as defined in the California Road System maps produced by the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The posted speed limits on Fair Oaks Avenue are: Fair Oaks Reach Existing Posted Speed Limit Proposed Posed Speed LimitFrom To Traffic Way Orchard Street 35 MPH 35 MPH Orchard Street Valley Road 40 MPH 35 MPH Valley Road Woodland Drive 40 MPH 40 MPH Fair Oaks Avenue from Orchard Street to Valley Road is the subject of this survey. Attachment 5 Item 10.a. - Page 39 CITY OF AARRRROOYYOO GGRRAANNDDEE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Phone: (805) 473-5420 Fax: (805) 473-0386 E-mail: agcity@arroyogrande.org Website: www.arroyogrande.org Display showing project limits below Fair Oaks Avenue from Orchard Street to Valley Road is predominately surrounded by agricultural fields to the north and Arroyo Grande High School to the south. Adjacent to Arroyo Grande High School on the southeast side of Fair Oaks Avenue is comprised of residential housing. Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety In order to provide a greater level of bicycle facilities on Fair Oaks Avenue, vehicle lane width reductions or vehicle lane elimination is required. Due to large morning peak demands, vehicle lane width reductions provides the best balance between both vehicle and bicycle needs. Attachment 5 Item 10.a. - Page 40 CITY OF AARRRROOYYOO GGRRAANNDDEE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Phone: (805) 473-5420 Fax: (805) 473-0386 E-mail: agcity@arroyogrande.org Website: www.arroyogrande.org Fair Oaks Reach Existing Section Revised Section Traffic Way to Station Way WB Bike: WB #2: WB #1: EB #1: EB #2: EB Bike: Shared 13.7 feet 11.5 feet 12 feet 11.7 feet Shared WB Bike: WB #2: WB #1: EB #1: EB #2: EB Bike: Shared 14.5 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 5 feet Station Way to HWY 101 SB Off- ramp WB Bike: WB #2: WB #1: EB #1: EB #2: EB Bike: Shared 13 feet 11.1 feet 12.2 feet 12.8 feet Shared WB Bike: WB #2: WB #1: EB #1: EB #2: EB Bike: Shared 11.8 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 5 feet HWY 101 SB Off- ramp To California Street WB Bike: WB #2: WB #1: EB #1: EB #2: EB Bike: Shared 13 feet 11.1 feet 12.2 feet 12.8 feet Shared WB Bike: WB #2: WB #1: EB #1: EB #2: EB Bike: Shared 11.4 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 5 feet California Street to Valley Road WB Bike: WB #2: WB #1: EB #1: EB #2: EB Bike: Shared 15.5 13.8 feet 11.1 feet 12.8 feet Shared WB Bike: WB #2: WB #1: EB #1: EB #2: EB Bike: 4.7 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 5 feet Valley Road to Mortuary WB Bike: WB #2: WB #1: EB #1: EB #2: EB Bike: 4.5 feet 11.8 feet 11.7 feet 12.3 feet 11.5 feet 5.5 feet WB Bike: WB #2: WB #1: EB #1: EB #2: EB Bike: 5.6 feet 11 feet 11 feet 11 feet 11 feet 6 feet Mortuary to Woodland WB Bike: WB #2: WB #1: EB #1: EB #2: EB Bike: 13.8 feet 0 12.2 feet 11.6 feet 0 12.3 feet WB Bike: WB #2: WB #1: EB #1: EB #2: EB Bike: 6 feet 0 feet 11 feet 11 feet 0 7 feet Prevailing Speeds The existing prevailing speeds were measured on September 3, 2013 on Fair Oaks Avenue between Orchard and Valley Road. The prevailing speeds are shown below. Attachment 5 Item 10.a. - Page 41 CITY OF AARRRROOYYOO GGRRAANNDDEE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Phone: (805) 473-5420 Fax: (805) 473-0386 E-mail: agcity@arroyogrande.org Website: www.arroyogrande.org Direction of Travel Measure 85th Percentile Speed East 37.95 MPH West 38.6 MPH These measured speeds indicated that either a posted speed limit of 35 MPH or 40 MPH is appropriate. The California Manual for Setting Speed Limits Section 3.4.4 indicates: 3.4.4 Applying a 5 Mile Per Hour Reduction When a speed limit is to be posted, it shall be established at the nearest 5 mph increment to the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic, rounding as standard mathematics directs. Under some circumstances, the posted speed may be reduced by 5 mph from the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th percentile speed. If a 5 mph reduction is justified, the E&TS shall document in writing the conditions and justification for the lower speed limit and be approved by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer. The reasons for the lower speed limit shall be in compliance with CVC Section 22358. The following examples are provided to explain the application of these speed limit criteria: 1. If the 85th percentile speed in a speed survey for a location was 37 mph, then the speed limit would be established at 35 mph since it is the closest 5 mph increment to the 37 mph speed. The 35 mph established speed limit can be reduced by 5 mph to 30 mph if the conditions and justification for using this lower speed limit are documented in the E&TS and approved by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer. 2. If the 85th percentile speed in a speed survey for a location was 33 mph, then the speed limit would be established at 35 mph since it is the closest 5 mph increment to the 33 mph speed. The 35 mph established speed limit can be reduced by 5 mph to 30 mph if the conditions and justification for using this lower speed limit are documented in the E&TS and approved by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer. CVC 21400 allows for setting the speed limit at the 5 mph increment below the 85th percentile even if mathematical rounding would require the speed to be posted above the 85th percentile. If this option is used, then the additional 5 mph reduction cannot be used. In effect, this law allows an engineer to round down to the nearest increment of the 85th instead of up. The engineer cannot then take a further reduction. Accident History Since 2010 to current date of this report 39 traffic accidents have been documented. See attachment 3 for map of traffic accidents. Attachment 5 Item 10.a. - Page 42 CITY OF AARRRROOYYOO GGRRAANNDDEE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Phone: (805) 473-5420 Fax: (805) 473-0386 E-mail: agcity@arroyogrande.org Website: www.arroyogrande.org Conclusion On Fair Oaks between Traffic Way and California the west bound bike lane is a shared travel lane with vehicle traffic. This is both the existing and proposed condition. Use of shared lane markings (sharrows) is proposed for this area. The California Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices section 9C.07 provide guidance that sharrows should not be placed on roadway with a posted speed limit greater than 35 MPH. The measured speeds for Fair Oaks Avenue was completed in the existing condition. Narrowing the existing travel lanes is likely to further reduce the 85th percentile speeds on Fair Oaks Avenue. Therefore, it is recommended that Fair Oaks Avenue between Valley Road and Orchard Street post speed limit be changed from 40 MPH to 35 MPH. This change will allow for: 1. Increased bicycle safety for both directions of travel on Fair Oaks Avenue 2. Allow the use of sharrow markers to better convey to vehicular traffic bicycle presence 3. Reduce the severity of vehicle vs vehicle/bicycle/pedestrian impacts. 4. Compliant with the California Vehicle Code 5. Complaint with the California Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices 2014 Edition 6. Compliant with the California Manual for Setting Speed Limits 2014 Edition Attachments 1. Roadway Striping Plans 2. Speed Survey Worksheets 3. Accident Exhibit Complete by: Matthew A. Horn City Engineer, City of Arroyo Grande June 16, 2015 (6)6,2 2513$/'(( 15 *(7 , 16, (*((55 &/,,967 $,$17(522 ),)/&$ $:(++ 2775$ 10 1R& Attachment 5 Item 10.a. - Page 43 ∞ Attachment 5 Item 10.a. - Page 44 Attachment 5 Item 10.a. - Page 45 SHEET NO. SIGN NO. SIGN CODE SIGN MESSAGE OR DESCRIPTION "C" DIM LD SIGN SIZE (LxD) BACKGROUNDLEGEND PR O T E C T I V E O V E R L A Y FU R N I S H S I N G L E SH E E T A L U M I N U M SI G N RO A D S I D E S I G N - O N E PO S T RE M O V E R O A D S I D E S I G N RE M O V E R O A D S I D E S I G N PA N E L EX I S T I N G S I G N T O RE M A I N RE L O C A T E R O A D S I D E SI G N SH E E T I N G C O L O R RE T R O - R E F L E C T I V E AS T M T Y P E SH E E T I N G C O L O R RE T R O - R E F L E C T I V E AS T M T Y P E Unframed (0.063") (FT)(IN)(IN)(IN)Premium (SQFT)(EA)(EA)(EA)(EA)(EA) PD-11-1R2-1 SPEED LIMIT 40 7.0 1 PD-11-2S4-5 REDUCED SCHOOL SPEED LIMIT AHEAD (25 MPH)7.0363636 x 36 YELLOWXIBLACK X 9.00 1 PD-22-1 R81 (CA)BIKE LANE 1 R81B (CA)END 1 PD-22-2 D11-1 BIKE ROUTE 1 M4-11 BEGIN PD-22-3 R81 (CA)BIKE LANE 7.012812 x 8WHITEIXBLACK X 0.671 PD-22-4R10-7 DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION 7.0243024 x 30WHITEIXBLACK X 5.001 PD-2 2-5 R81 (CA)BIKE LANE 1R81A (CA)BEGIN PD-2 2-6 R4-11 BICYCLES MAY USE FULL LANE 7.0303030 x 30WHITEIXBLACK X 6.25 1 PD-22-7D11-1 BIKE ROUTE 1 PD-22-8 R81 (CA)BIKE LANE 7.012812 x 8WHITEIXBLACK X 0.671 PD-22-9D11-1 BIKE ROUTE 1 PD-2 2-10 W11-2 PEDESTRIAN 7.0 363636 x 36 YELLOWXIBLACK X 9.00 1 W16-9P AHEAD 241224 x 12 YELLOWXIBLACK X 2.00 PD-22-11R4-11 BICYCLES MAY USE FULL LANE 7.0303030 x 30 WHITEIXBLACK X 6.25 1 PD-22-12D11-1 BIKE ROUTE 1 PD-2 2-13 W11-2 PEDESTRIAN 7.0 363636 x 36YELLOWXIBLACK X 9.00 1 W16-7P ARROW 241224 x 12YELLOWXIBLACK X 2.00 PD-22-14 R1-5 YIELD HERE TO PEDESTRIANS 7.0364836 x 48 WHITEIXBLACK X 12.00 1 REDII PD-2 2-15 W11-2 PEDESTRIAN 7.0 363636 x 36YELLOWXIBLACK X 9.00 1 W16-9P AHEAD 241224 x 12YELLOWXIBLACK X 2.00 PD-2 2-16R1-5 YIELD HERE TO PEDESTRIANS 7.0364836 x 48 WHITEIXBLACK X 12.00 1 REDII PD-22-17 W11-2 PEDESTRIAN 7.0 363636 x 36YELLOWXIBLACK X 9.00 1 W16-9P AHEAD 241224 x 12YELLOWXIBLACK X 2.00 PD-2 2-18 R81 (CA)BIKE LANE 7.0 12 812 x 8WHITEIXBLACK X 0.67 1R81B (CA)END 858 x 5 WHITEIXBLACK X 0.28 PD-2 2-19W16-1P SHARE THE ROAD 7.018 24 18 x 24 YELLOWXIBLACK X 3.00 1 TOTAL 100.00 144112 Sharrow"STOP" TYPE IV ARROW (L/R) TYPE III ARROW (L/R) TYPE VI ARROW "ONLY""BIKE LANE" "BIKE LANE" ARROW "STOP AHEAD""35""40""KEEP CLEAR""SLOW""SCHOOL" LIMIT LINE YIELD LINE CROSSWALK GREEN PAINTED BIKE LANESSQFT1922152242221175316.519.5512335 QTY 868 241171744214 6 Total152132120 44 168 22 187119 212 66395192210256 42 782 846 Sum:2694 846 Attachment 5 Item 10.a. - Page 46 Attachment 5 Item 10.a. - Page 47 Attachment 5 Item 10.a. - Page 48 Attachment 5 Item 10.a. - Page 49 Attachment 5 Item 10.a. - Page 50 Attachment 5 Item 10.a. - Page 51 Attachment 5 Item 10.a. - Page 52 ∞ Attachment 6 Item 10.a. - Page 53 Attachment 6 Item 10.a. - Page 54 SHEET NO. SIGN NO. SIGN CODE SIGN MESSAGE OR DESCRIPTION "C" DIM LD SIGN SIZE (LxD) BACKGROUNDLEGEND PR O T E C T I V E O V E R L A Y FU R N I S H S I N G L E SH E E T A L U M I N U M SI G N RO A D S I D E S I G N - O N E PO S T RE M O V E R O A D S I D E S I G N RE M O V E R O A D S I D E S I G N PA N E L EX I S T I N G S I G N T O RE M A I N RE L O C A T E R O A D S I D E SI G N SH E E T I N G C O L O R RE T R O - R E F L E C T I V E AS T M T Y P E SH E E T I N G C O L O R RE T R O - R E F L E C T I V E AS T M T Y P E Unframed (0.063") (FT)(IN)(IN)(IN)Premium (SQFT)(EA)(EA)(EA)(EA)(EA) PD-11-1R2-1 SPEED LIMIT 40 7.0 1 PD-11-2S4-5 REDUCED SCHOOL SPEED LIMIT AHEAD (25 MPH)7.0363636 x 36 YELLOWXIBLACK X 9.00 1 PD-22-1 R81 (CA)BIKE LANE 1 R81B (CA)END 1 PD-22-2 D11-1 BIKE ROUTE 1 M4-11 BEGIN PD-22-3 R81 (CA)BIKE LANE 7.012812 x 8WHITEIXBLACK X 0.671 PD-22-4R10-7 DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION 7.0243024 x 30WHITEIXBLACK X 5.001 PD-2 2-5 R81 (CA)BIKE LANE 1R81A (CA)BEGIN PD-2 2-6 R4-11 BICYCLES MAY USE FULL LANE 7.0303030 x 30WHITEIXBLACK X 6.25 1 PD-22-7D11-1 BIKE ROUTE 1 PD-22-8 R81 (CA)BIKE LANE 7.012812 x 8WHITEIXBLACK X 0.671 PD-22-9D11-1 BIKE ROUTE 1 PD-2 2-10 W11-2 PEDESTRIAN 7.0 363636 x 36 YELLOWXIBLACK X 9.00 1 W16-9P AHEAD 241224 x 12 YELLOWXIBLACK X 2.00 PD-22-11R4-11 BICYCLES MAY USE FULL LANE 7.0303030 x 30 WHITEIXBLACK X 6.25 1 PD-22-12D11-1 BIKE ROUTE 1 PD-2 2-13 W11-2 PEDESTRIAN 7.0 363636 x 36YELLOWXIBLACK X 9.00 1 W16-7P ARROW 241224 x 12YELLOWXIBLACK X 2.00 PD-22-14 R1-5 YIELD HERE TO PEDESTRIANS 7.0364836 x 48 WHITEIXBLACK X 12.00 1 REDII PD-2 2-15 W11-2 PEDESTRIAN 7.0 363636 x 36YELLOWXIBLACK X 9.00 1 W16-9P AHEAD 241224 x 12YELLOWXIBLACK X 2.00 PD-2 2-16R1-5 YIELD HERE TO PEDESTRIANS 7.0364836 x 48 WHITEIXBLACK X 12.00 1 REDII PD-22-17 W11-2 PEDESTRIAN 7.0 363636 x 36YELLOWXIBLACK X 9.00 1 W16-9P AHEAD 241224 x 12YELLOWXIBLACK X 2.00 PD-2 2-18 R81 (CA)BIKE LANE 7.0 12 812 x 8WHITEIXBLACK X 0.67 1R81B (CA)END 858 x 5 WHITEIXBLACK X 0.28 PD-2 2-19W16-1P SHARE THE ROAD 7.018 24 18 x 24 YELLOWXIBLACK X 3.00 1 TOTAL 100.00 144112 Sharrow"STOP" TYPE IV ARROW (L/R) TYPE III ARROW (L/R) TYPE VI ARROW "ONLY""BIKE LANE" "BIKE LANE" ARROW "STOP AHEAD""35""40""KEEP CLEAR""SLOW""SCHOOL" LIMIT LINE YIELD LINE CROSSWALK GREEN PAINTED BIKE LANESSQFT1922152242221175316.519.5512335 QTY 868 241171744214 6 Total152132120 44 168 22 187119 212 66395192210256 42 782 846 Sum:2694 846 Attachment 6 Item 10.a. - Page 55 FAIR O A K S A V ALLEN S T PILG R I M W Y T R A F F I C W Y W CHE R R Y A V V A L L E Y R D A R R O Y O A V S T A T I O N W Y B E D L O E L N C A L I F O R N I A S T O R C H A R D A V N H W Y 1 0 1 S H W Y 1 0 1 0 100 200Feet CG 7/16/2015 Total Accidents: 63 This map shows spatial distribution of accidents on Fair Oaks Avenue, from the intersection with Traffic Way to the intersection with Valley Road, based on reports from 2010 -2015. Traffic Accident DistributionFair Oaks AvenueCity of Arroyo Grande Attachment 7 Item 10.a. - Page 56 ARROYO GRANDE HIGH SCHOOL 495 Valley Road, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 (805) 474-3200 Fax (805) 473-4222 Conan Bowers – Principal July 17, 2015 Arroyo Grande City Council: As the Principal of Arroyo Grande High School, I firmly stand behind the plan to add a bike lane on Fair Oaks Avenue. I have worked as an administrator for 13 years at Arroyo Grande High School, and I have seen my fair share of accidents and near misses in front of the school, and I strongly feel the time has come to start to address the problem on Fair Oaks Avenue. Thanks for your caring about this issue. Sincerely, Conan Bowers Principal Attachment 8 Item 10.a. - Page 57 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Item 10.a. - Page 58