City of Coronado Comprehensive Active Transportation Plan - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

City of Coronado Comprehensive Active Transportation Plan

STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE – MEETING #1 AUGUST 25, 2016

• Purpose of the Stakeholder Advisory Committee
• Project Purpose, Scope, and Schedule
• Summary of Planning Document Review
• Initial Needs Assessment Findings
• Goals, Objectives and Evaluation Criteria Brainstorm
• Review of Interview Questions

Topics to be Covered

Guide the Development of the Comprehensive Active Transportation Plan:

• Provide Local Knowledge
• Review Draft Project Deliverables
• Provide Input on the Project Methods/Approach
• Assist with Engaging Community Members

Purpose of the SAC

• Reflect Community Ideals and Priorities
• Identify Projects for Improving Walking and Cycling
• Provide Recommendations
• Plan Implementation
• Plan Phasing
• Project Funding

Purpose of the Plan

Project Scope & Schedule

Project Scope & Schedule

• San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (2015)
• San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan (2010)
• Coronado General Plan Circulation Element (amended 2012)
• Coronado General Plan Transportation Element (1987)
• Coronado Safe Routes to School Plan (2001)
• Coronado Transportation Commission Annual Report (2013 – 2014)
• Coronado City Council Meeting Notes (3/15/2011 & 9/15/2015)
• 3rd and 4th Street Study (2014)

Planning Document Review

Data Collection Summary

• US Census Data
• Infrastructure Inventory
• Collision Data
• Locations
• Party-at-Fault
• Primary Cause
• Temporal Patterns

Means of Transportation to Work (2010 - 2014)

Source: US Census, 2010 – 2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Population by Age Group (2010 - 2014)

Source: US Census, 2010 – 2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Youth & Senior Population Comparison (2010 - 2014)

Coronado City of San Diego County of San Diego

Source: US Census, 2010 – 2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Curb Ramp & Sidewalk Inventory

Marked Crosswalks

Bicycle Facilities

Pedestrian Collisions

(Jan 2011 – Dec 2015)

Bicycle Collisions

(Jan 2011 – Dec 2015)

Collisions by Roadway Location (2011 – 2015)

Bicycle Pedestrians

Source: SWITRS (2016)

Collisions by Party-at-Fault (2011 – 2015)

Pedestrians Bicycle

Source: SWITRS (2016)

Primary Pedestrian Collision Factors (2011 – 2015)

Collision Cause Collisions Percent of Total Pedestrian At-Fault Violated Pedestrian Right of Way 19 40.4%

• Pedestrian Violation

14 29.8% 14 Driving Under the Influence 2 4.3%

• Unsafe Speed

2 4.3%

• Violated Automobile Right of Way

2 4.3%

• Unknown

2 4.3%

• Improper Passing

1 2.1%

• Traffic Signals and Signs

1 2.1%

• Brakes

1 2.1%

• Other Hazardous Violation

1 2.1%

• Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian)

1 2.1%

• Unsafe Starting or Backing

1 2.1%

• Total

47 100.0% 14

Source: SWITRS (2016)

Primary Bicycle Collision Factors (2011 – 2015)

Collision Cause Collisions Percent of Total Cyclist At- Fault Violated Automobile Right of Way 45 35.2% 23 Unsafe Speed 19 14.8% 13 Improper Turning 16 12.5% 12 Other Hazardous Violation 9 7.0% 5 Wrong Side of Road 6 4.7% 5 Other 6 4.7%

• Following Too Closely

6 4.7% 4 Traffic Signals and Signs 4 3.1% 3 Unsafe Starting or Backing 3 2.3% 2 Other Improper Driving 3 2.3% 2 Not Stated 3 2.3% 1 Improper Passing 2 1.6% 1 Driving/Bicycling Under the Influence 2 1.6% 1 Violated Pedestrian Right of Way 1 0.8% 1 Pedestrian Violation 1 0.8%

• Lights

1 0.8% 1 Other than Driver (or Pedestrian) 1 0.8% 1 Total 128 100.0% 75

Source: SWITRS (2016)

Temporal Patterns – Collisions by Hour (2011 – 2015)

Source: SWITRS (2016)

Temporal Patterns – Collisions by Day (2011 – 2015)

Source: SWITRS (2016)

Temporal Patterns – Collisions by Month (2011 – 2015)

Source: SWITRS (2016)

Needs Assessment Results

• Pedestrian Environment Quality Evaluation (PEQE)
• Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)
• Active Transportation Propensity Model
• Active Transportation Detractor Model
• Active Transportation Needs Model

Pedestrian Environment Quality Evaluation

Facility Type Measure Description Scoring Segment (between two intersections) Horizontal Buffer Between the edge of the auto travelway and the edge of the clear pedestrian zone. A vertical buffer of any width, such as a fence or

• n-street parking, is also awarded full points.

0 points: < 6 feet 1 point: 6 – 14 feet 2 points: > 14 feet (or vertical buffer) Lighting Standard lighting was considered one streetlight per segment. 0 points: below standard/requirement 1 point: meets standard/requirement 2 point: exceeds standard/requirement Clear Pedestrian Zone 5’ minimum 0 points: has obstructions 2 points: no obstructions Posted Speed Limit

• 0 points > 40 mph

1 point: 30 – 40 mph 2 points: < 30 mph (or separated from roadway) Maximum Points 8 points Final PEQE Scoring Low: Medium: High: < 4 points 4 – 6 points > 6 points

Pedestrian Environment Quality Evaluation Results

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)

Street Network Classification based on Level of Stress it Causes Cyclists LTS Inputs:

• Cyclist’s Physical Separation from Vehicular Traffic
• Vehicular Traffic Speeds along the Roadway Segment
• Number of Lanes
• Presence of Right-Turn Lanes

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Results

Active Transportation Propensity Model

Combines Active Transportation Trip Attractors and Trip Generators

Generator High Medium Low Zero Multiplier 3 2 1 Population Density (residents per acre) ≥ 40 25 – 39.9 5 – 24.9 < 5 Employment Density (jobs per acre) ≥ 15 5 – 14.9 1 – 4.9 < 1 Zero-Vehicle Households (percent of households) ≥ 10% 5 – 9.9% 1 - .9% < 1% Pedestrian Commuters (percent of commuters) ≥ 4% 2 – 3.9% 1 – 1.9% < 1% Bicycle Commuters (percent of commuters) ≥ 4% 2 – 3.9% 1 – 1.9% < 1%

Trip Generators

Active Transportation Propensity Model

Trip Attractors

Land Use Attractors Weights Within ¼ Mile Between ¼ and ½ Mile Between ½ and ¾ Miles Between ¾ and 1 Mile Multiplier 1.5 1.0 0.75 0.5 Beaches 4 6 4 3 2 Regional Class I Bicycle Paths 4 6 4 3 2 Parks 3 4.5 3 2.25 1.5 High, Middle and Elementary Schools 1 1.5 1 0.7 0.5 Retail Uses 1 1.5 1 0.75 0.5 Civic Uses 1 1.5 1 0.75 0.5

Active Transportation Propensity Model

Active Transportation Detractor Model

Identifies Street Segments and Areas that may be Unappealing to Pedestrians and Cyclists Detractor Inputs:

• Pedestrian & Bicycle Collision Locations
• Average Daily Traffic Volumes
• Posted Speed Limits
• Number of Travel Lanes

Active Transportation Detractor Model

Active Transportation Needs Model

Combines the Propensity Model & the Detractor Model Identifies Areas with Increased Potential for Active Transportation

AND Areas with Increased Barriers to Active Travel

Active Transportation Detractor Model

Please Review and Grade the Existing Goals and Policies

Goals and Objectives Brainstorm

Please Help Us Identify Additional Stakeholders to Interview and Finalize the Open-ended Questions

Stakeholder Interview Question Review

SAC Meeting #2 Tentatively Scheduled for January Contact Information: Allie Scrivener Sherry Ryan Active Transportation Planner Principal City of Coronado Chen Ryan Associates (619) 522-2423 (858) 349-5330 ascrivener@coronado.ca.us sryan@chenryanmobility.com

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!