Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard City Council Study Session Summary ...
Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard City Council Study Session Summary Overview: On August 15th, 2017, a City Council Study Session was held to invite community input and request City Council guidance on a preferred alternative to carry forward for the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard project. Specifically, regarding the most challenging portion of the proposed route, the segment between Lincoln Street and Ramona Drive. City staff, Jake Hudson (Transportation Manager) and Luke Schwartz (Transportation Planner-Engineer), provided an introductory presentation summarizing the project background, purpose and need for improvements, and an overview of three primary concept alternatives, as well as other variants of these alternatives open for consideration. Staff identified the unique benefits and significant trade-offs associated with each project alternative and variant. Staff acknowledged that ultimately, the solution that best balances the priorities of the project (improve safety and mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists) with the priorities of the neighborhood (retain traffic circulation and neighborhood quality) may reflect one of the three primary concept alternatives, a variant of these three options, or a combination of elements not yet considered. Concluding the presentation, staff requested input from meeting attendees and Council. Following the staff presentation, the Study Session was opened to public comment. The meeting was well-attended, with a sizable contingent of Anholm District residents, business owners, active transportation advocates and other interested community stakeholders. A significant portion of the public comments reflected general concern regarding the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard project. The comments predominantly focused on concerns about potential impacts to neighborhood livability, particularly impacts to traffic access, circulation, parking and emergency services. Several attendees disputed the need for significant street improvements at all, favoring minor bicycle signage/marking enhancements and more focused police enforcement of unsafe bicycling behavior as a preferred course of action. Other attendees affirmed the need for infrastructure investments in this area to support the City’s goals to improve multimodal safety & mobility, and to make tangible progress in achieving the City’s public health and circulation goals to increase mode share for active forms of transportation. Even amongst those in support of the project, there was not a clear consensus for one specific concept alternative.
Council Direction:
Following public comment, the City Council deliberated the project elements and asked staff to confirm information regarding on-street parking utilization and the potential benefits/trade-offs of providing dedicated bicycle facilities on Chorro vs. creating a less-direct bicycle route on Lincoln Street east of Chorro using markings/signage only. Ultimately, Council directed staff to take the following actions:
Continue with refinement of a Recommended Alternative that retains current property access and traffic circulation: 1
o Provide dedicated bicycle facilities on Chorro Street with removal of onstreet parking on one side of Chorro to provide width for a two-way protected bikeway from Lincoln to Mission. o Route bicyclists from Chorro to Broad Street via Mission Street, using pavement markings and signage. No parking removal on Mission Street. o Provide dedicated bicycle facilities on Broad Street from Mission to Ramona with removal of on-street parking on one or both sides of Broad to provide width for buffered or protected bicycle lanes.
Consider a Secondary Alternative as a fallback option that limits removal of on-street parking: o Establish a bicycle boulevard with treatments such as pavement markings, signage and low-impact traffic calming measures that require little-to-no modifications to traffic circulation or parking. o The recommended route should utilize Lincoln Street parallel to Chorro north to Mission; Mission Street from Chorro to Broad; and Broad north of Mission to Ramona.
For final alternatives, consider low-impact traffic calming elements, pedestrian crossing improvements and safety lighting enhancements that do not significantly impact circulation or parking to improve safety and neighborhood livability along Broad and Chorro Streets.
Collect additional parking data once local schools and Cal Poly students return to session to further study existing on-street parking utilization and evaluate potential impacts associated with on-street parking removal, as proposed under the Recommended Alternative.
Once the refined concepts are developed and analyzed, staff will present the updated plans to the public via an additional community meeting in fall of 2017. Staff will then return to the City Bicycle Advisory Committee and City Council for present the final plan for consideration, and potential adoption—likely in early 2018. Meeting minutes from the August 15th Council Study Session will be posted on the City’s website when available. The primary features of the Recommended Alternative and Secondary Alternative are provided in Attachment A. A copy of the staff PowerPoint presentation is included in this document as Attachment B. Please visit the Project Website (https://www.peakdemocracy.com/3444) for past meeting summaries, project documents and meeting updates. Contact Project Managers Luke Schwartz ([email protected]) or Jennifer Rice ([email protected]) with any questions.
2
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
Recommended Project Typical Cross Section: Chorro Street (Lincoln to Mission)
Note: Form of physical protection between bicycle lanes and traffic lanes will be determined when project enters detailed design phase. Example treatments to be considered are illustrated below:
ATTACHMENT A
Recommended Project Typical Cross Section: Mission Street (Chorro to Broad)
ATTACHMENT A
Recommended Project Typical Cross Section: Broad Street (Mission to Meinecke)
Note: Detailed parking studies to be conducted to guide selection of recommended configuration for Broad Street
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
Secondary Alternative Typical Cross Section: Chorro/Lincoln/Broad
Note:
On‐street parking and travel lane widths remain as exist currently, with addition of pavement marking & signage. Broad Street section has narrower parking & travel lanes than shown in example graphic above.
ATTACHMENT B
Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard Project Alternatives Study Session City Council, August 15th, 2017 Presenters: Jake Hudson, Transportation Manager Luke Schwartz, Transportation Planner-Engineer
• Introductions & Background • Present 3 Alternatives for Northern Segment (Lincoln to Ramona) • Discuss Other Project Options • Community Feedback • Open Discussion
ATTACHMENT B
Focus Areas: • Northern Segment • Foothill to Hwy 101 •
Southern Segment • Hwy 101 to Monterey
•
Bike/Ped Crossing of Hwy 101
ATTACHMENT B
What is a Bicycle Boulevard & what makes a “low-stress” bicycle street?
• Bicycle Boulevard o o o o
Shared Street Low auto volumes/speeds Prioritizes bikes/peds, accommodates cars Branded signs & pavement markings
• Low Stress Bicycling Environment o Separation from vehicle lanes o Low traffic volumes & speeds o Existing Broad/Chorro volumes & speeds exceed recommended levels for bike blvd. o Comfortable for users of varying ages & ability levels
ATTACHMENT B
Public Outreach Activities 3 community meetings Including interactive design charrette ≈ 45 people attended each meeting Online Forum 1,000+ visitors to project site 120+ comments Community Survey Mailed to 1,200+ residents in project area 239 responses Online survey available community-wide 240 responses
Social Media Platforms Press Releases City Website E-Blasts Tribune KSBY Neighborhood Mailers
ATTACHMENT B
Three Concept Alternatives Alternative 1: Bicycle boulevard with traffic diversion along Broad Street Alternative 2: One-way “couplet”: Broad southbound, Chorro northbound Alternative 3: Traffic calming on Broad and Chorro without traffic diversion
*Final solution may be variant of these options or other strategies*
ATTACHMENT B
Alternative 1: Bicycle Boulevard with Traffic Diversion Along Broad
PROS
CONS
• Significant speed reduction on Broad.
• With traffic diversion, increased traffic volumes on Chorro, Meinecke and Lincoln exceed established maximum neighborhood traffic thresholds.
• Decreases traffic volume on Broad to provide a comfortable biking & pedestrian environment. • Strong potential to establish a low-stress, convenient bicycle route on Broad. • Can be installed for interim testing with lowcost temporary materials. • Most favorable option for emergency response providers
• Less convenient access to properties on Broad. • Degraded conditions for residents, drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians on Chorro with traffic diversion. • Loss of on-street parking: 16 on Broad ; 0 on Chorro
ATTACHMENT B
Alternative 1: Bicycle Boulevard with Traffic Diversion Along Broad
ATTACHMENT B
Alternative 1: Bicycle Boulevard with Traffic Diversion Along Broad
SPEED AND VOLUME THRESHOLDS FOR SHARED BICYCLE STREET 12,000
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME
Maximum 10,000
Preferred
CHORRO ST (ALT 1)
8,000
6,000
CHORRO ST (EXISTING)
MAX NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC THRESHOLD
4,000
BROAD ST BROAD ST (EXISTING) (EXISTING)
2,000
BROAD ST (ALT 1) 0 0
5
10
15
20
MOTOR VEHICLE SPEED (MPH)
25
30
35
40
ATTACHMENT B
Alternative 2: Broad/Chorro One-Way Couplet System
PROS
CONS
• Moderate speed reduction on Broad.
• Meinecke and Lincoln volumes exceed neighborhood traffic thresholds, although lower than with Alt. 1.
• Traffic volumes more evenly distributed between Broad/Chorro.
• Less convenient access to properties on Broad and Chorro.
• Bicycles fully separated from auto traffic.
• Higher cost & more challenging to test/install with interim treatments.
• Significant potential to establish low-stress, convenient bicycle route for users of varying ages & ability levels.
• Loss of on-street parking: 9 on Broad; 22 on Chorro.
• Most potential to attract new bicycle ridership.
• Least-desirable option for emergency response providers. • • • •
Modifies primary response route Response time to DT increased by apx. 60 sec.; but not beyond minimum Limits use of ladder truck & available space for crew to operate in Expectation that Fire will occupy cycle track lanes during a response
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
Alternative 2: Broad/Chorro One-Way Couplet System PROTECTED BIKEWAY (CYCLE TRACK)
BUFFERED BIKE LANES
ATTACHMENT B
Alternative 3: Bicycle Boulevard with out Traffic Diversion on Broad Street
PROS
CONS
• Significant speed reduction on Broad and moderate speed reduction on Chorro with traffic calming.
• Near-term volumes on Broad and Chorro remain above level for low-stress bicycle boulevard. Long-term closure of Highway 101 ramps would reduce Broad volumes into acceptable range, but timeframe TBD.
• No impact to circulation or property access. • Moderate potential to establish a low-stress, convenient bicycle route on Broad • Can be installed for interim testing with low-cost, temporary materials. • Little impact to emergency response
• No new impact, but Chorro volumes continue to exceed max neighborhood traffic thresholds. • Loss of on-street parking: 20 on Broad ; 0 on Chorro. • Least potential to attract new bicycle ridership.
ATTACHMENT B
Alternative 3: Bicycle Boulevard with out Traffic Diversion on Broad Street
ATTACHMENT B
Alternative 3: Bicycle Boulevard with out Traffic Diversion on Broad Street
SPEED AND VOLUME THRESHOLDS FOR SHARED BICYCLE STREET 12,000
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME
Maximum 10,000
Preferred
8,000
CHORRO ST (ALT 3)
6,000
CHORRO ST (EXISTING)
MAX NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC THRESHOLD
4,000
BROAD ST (EXISTING)
BROAD ST (ALT 3)
2,000
0 0
5
10
15
20
MOTOR VEHICLE SPEED (MPH)
25
30
35
40
ATTACHMENT B
Other Variations Considered & Suggestions from Public Comment:
• On-Street Parking Removal on One Side of Chorro and/or Broad to provide protected bikeway in-lieu of one-way couplet conversion
ATTACHMENT B
Other Variations Considered & Suggestions from Public Comment: Example Chorro Street Two-Way Circulation with Protected Bikeway
Example Broad Street Two-Way Circulation with OneExample Broad Street w/ Shared Lanes with (Existing) Example Broad Street Two-Way Circulation Way Protected Bikeway (Parking Removal One Side) Protected Bikeway (Parking Removal Both Sides)
ATTACHMENT B
Other Variations Considered & Suggestions from Public Comment: • Lincoln Street Alignment 30+% longer trip Broad St
ATTACHMENT B
Other Variations Considered & Suggestions from Public Comment: • Pre-emptive Cut-Through Mitigation on Lincoln St. • Alt 2. (One-Way Couplet): Reverse couplet direction and/or reverse Broad one-way bike lane • Align route so cyclists avoid difficult uphill grades: • Broad (NB Mountain View to Mission) • Chorro (SB/NB approaching Murray & Meinecke)
• Replace existing speed humps on Broad w/ Speed Cushions • Replace existing stop signs on Chorro w/ Traffic Circles • Consideration for Aesthetics
ATTACHMENT B
Interim vs. Permanent Features
ATTACHMENT B
Interim vs. Permanent Features
ATTACHMENT B
Interim vs. Permanent Features
ATTACHMENT B
BAC Feedback • SLO Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) received presentation and public input at 7/20 meeting. • BAC deliberation focused on challenging balance between improving bicycling vs. neighborhood trade-offs • Formal BAC recommendation to pursue Alternative 2 (Broad/Chorro One-Way Couplet) for further development to promote highest potential to increase bike safety & mode share
ATTACHMENT B
Community Feedback
ATTACHMENT B
Funding • Included as CIP Project in 2017-19 Financial Plan • FY2017/18 – Phase 1 installation:
$105k
• FY 2018/19 – Phase 2 installation: $180k • FY 2019/20 – Phase 2 installation: $270k TOTAL
$555k
• Funding Source: General Fund • 36% from SB1 Transportation Funding • 64% from General Capital Outlay
ATTACHMENT B
Where to Go From Here Council Study Session on Alternatives (8/15): • Invite questions & additional public input • Request Council guidance on preferred direction Plan Refinement • Refine designs & analysis for preferred concept • Prepare plan documenting process and final recommendations Final Community Meeting (4th Quarter 2017) • Present refined concept and analysis for preferred alternative Final Plan (early 2018) • Present Final Plan to BAC & Council for adoption • Phase 1 rollout 2018
ATTACHMENT B
Staff Recommendation: • Receive presentation and public input on project alternatives; and • Provide guidance to staff regarding Council’s preferred alternative; and • Direct staff to complete Broad Street Bicycle Plan.
Council Direction:
Following public comment, the City Council deliberated the project elements and asked staff to confirm information regarding on-street parking utilization and the potential benefits/trade-offs of providing dedicated bicycle facilities on Chorro vs. creating a less-direct bicycle route on Lincoln Street east of Chorro using markings/signage only. Ultimately, Council directed staff to take the following actions:
Continue with refinement of a Recommended Alternative that retains current property access and traffic circulation: 1
o Provide dedicated bicycle facilities on Chorro Street with removal of onstreet parking on one side of Chorro to provide width for a two-way protected bikeway from Lincoln to Mission. o Route bicyclists from Chorro to Broad Street via Mission Street, using pavement markings and signage. No parking removal on Mission Street. o Provide dedicated bicycle facilities on Broad Street from Mission to Ramona with removal of on-street parking on one or both sides of Broad to provide width for buffered or protected bicycle lanes.
Consider a Secondary Alternative as a fallback option that limits removal of on-street parking: o Establish a bicycle boulevard with treatments such as pavement markings, signage and low-impact traffic calming measures that require little-to-no modifications to traffic circulation or parking. o The recommended route should utilize Lincoln Street parallel to Chorro north to Mission; Mission Street from Chorro to Broad; and Broad north of Mission to Ramona.
For final alternatives, consider low-impact traffic calming elements, pedestrian crossing improvements and safety lighting enhancements that do not significantly impact circulation or parking to improve safety and neighborhood livability along Broad and Chorro Streets.
Collect additional parking data once local schools and Cal Poly students return to session to further study existing on-street parking utilization and evaluate potential impacts associated with on-street parking removal, as proposed under the Recommended Alternative.
Once the refined concepts are developed and analyzed, staff will present the updated plans to the public via an additional community meeting in fall of 2017. Staff will then return to the City Bicycle Advisory Committee and City Council for present the final plan for consideration, and potential adoption—likely in early 2018. Meeting minutes from the August 15th Council Study Session will be posted on the City’s website when available. The primary features of the Recommended Alternative and Secondary Alternative are provided in Attachment A. A copy of the staff PowerPoint presentation is included in this document as Attachment B. Please visit the Project Website (https://www.peakdemocracy.com/3444) for past meeting summaries, project documents and meeting updates. Contact Project Managers Luke Schwartz ([email protected]) or Jennifer Rice ([email protected]) with any questions.
2
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
Recommended Project Typical Cross Section: Chorro Street (Lincoln to Mission)
Note: Form of physical protection between bicycle lanes and traffic lanes will be determined when project enters detailed design phase. Example treatments to be considered are illustrated below:
ATTACHMENT A
Recommended Project Typical Cross Section: Mission Street (Chorro to Broad)
ATTACHMENT A
Recommended Project Typical Cross Section: Broad Street (Mission to Meinecke)
Note: Detailed parking studies to be conducted to guide selection of recommended configuration for Broad Street
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
Secondary Alternative Typical Cross Section: Chorro/Lincoln/Broad
Note:
On‐street parking and travel lane widths remain as exist currently, with addition of pavement marking & signage. Broad Street section has narrower parking & travel lanes than shown in example graphic above.
ATTACHMENT B
Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard Project Alternatives Study Session City Council, August 15th, 2017 Presenters: Jake Hudson, Transportation Manager Luke Schwartz, Transportation Planner-Engineer
• Introductions & Background • Present 3 Alternatives for Northern Segment (Lincoln to Ramona) • Discuss Other Project Options • Community Feedback • Open Discussion
ATTACHMENT B
Focus Areas: • Northern Segment • Foothill to Hwy 101 •
Southern Segment • Hwy 101 to Monterey
•
Bike/Ped Crossing of Hwy 101
ATTACHMENT B
What is a Bicycle Boulevard & what makes a “low-stress” bicycle street?
• Bicycle Boulevard o o o o
Shared Street Low auto volumes/speeds Prioritizes bikes/peds, accommodates cars Branded signs & pavement markings
• Low Stress Bicycling Environment o Separation from vehicle lanes o Low traffic volumes & speeds o Existing Broad/Chorro volumes & speeds exceed recommended levels for bike blvd. o Comfortable for users of varying ages & ability levels
ATTACHMENT B
Public Outreach Activities 3 community meetings Including interactive design charrette ≈ 45 people attended each meeting Online Forum 1,000+ visitors to project site 120+ comments Community Survey Mailed to 1,200+ residents in project area 239 responses Online survey available community-wide 240 responses
Social Media Platforms Press Releases City Website E-Blasts Tribune KSBY Neighborhood Mailers
ATTACHMENT B
Three Concept Alternatives Alternative 1: Bicycle boulevard with traffic diversion along Broad Street Alternative 2: One-way “couplet”: Broad southbound, Chorro northbound Alternative 3: Traffic calming on Broad and Chorro without traffic diversion
*Final solution may be variant of these options or other strategies*
ATTACHMENT B
Alternative 1: Bicycle Boulevard with Traffic Diversion Along Broad
PROS
CONS
• Significant speed reduction on Broad.
• With traffic diversion, increased traffic volumes on Chorro, Meinecke and Lincoln exceed established maximum neighborhood traffic thresholds.
• Decreases traffic volume on Broad to provide a comfortable biking & pedestrian environment. • Strong potential to establish a low-stress, convenient bicycle route on Broad. • Can be installed for interim testing with lowcost temporary materials. • Most favorable option for emergency response providers
• Less convenient access to properties on Broad. • Degraded conditions for residents, drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians on Chorro with traffic diversion. • Loss of on-street parking: 16 on Broad ; 0 on Chorro
ATTACHMENT B
Alternative 1: Bicycle Boulevard with Traffic Diversion Along Broad
ATTACHMENT B
Alternative 1: Bicycle Boulevard with Traffic Diversion Along Broad
SPEED AND VOLUME THRESHOLDS FOR SHARED BICYCLE STREET 12,000
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME
Maximum 10,000
Preferred
CHORRO ST (ALT 1)
8,000
6,000
CHORRO ST (EXISTING)
MAX NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC THRESHOLD
4,000
BROAD ST BROAD ST (EXISTING) (EXISTING)
2,000
BROAD ST (ALT 1) 0 0
5
10
15
20
MOTOR VEHICLE SPEED (MPH)
25
30
35
40
ATTACHMENT B
Alternative 2: Broad/Chorro One-Way Couplet System
PROS
CONS
• Moderate speed reduction on Broad.
• Meinecke and Lincoln volumes exceed neighborhood traffic thresholds, although lower than with Alt. 1.
• Traffic volumes more evenly distributed between Broad/Chorro.
• Less convenient access to properties on Broad and Chorro.
• Bicycles fully separated from auto traffic.
• Higher cost & more challenging to test/install with interim treatments.
• Significant potential to establish low-stress, convenient bicycle route for users of varying ages & ability levels.
• Loss of on-street parking: 9 on Broad; 22 on Chorro.
• Most potential to attract new bicycle ridership.
• Least-desirable option for emergency response providers. • • • •
Modifies primary response route Response time to DT increased by apx. 60 sec.; but not beyond minimum Limits use of ladder truck & available space for crew to operate in Expectation that Fire will occupy cycle track lanes during a response
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
Alternative 2: Broad/Chorro One-Way Couplet System PROTECTED BIKEWAY (CYCLE TRACK)
BUFFERED BIKE LANES
ATTACHMENT B
Alternative 3: Bicycle Boulevard with out Traffic Diversion on Broad Street
PROS
CONS
• Significant speed reduction on Broad and moderate speed reduction on Chorro with traffic calming.
• Near-term volumes on Broad and Chorro remain above level for low-stress bicycle boulevard. Long-term closure of Highway 101 ramps would reduce Broad volumes into acceptable range, but timeframe TBD.
• No impact to circulation or property access. • Moderate potential to establish a low-stress, convenient bicycle route on Broad • Can be installed for interim testing with low-cost, temporary materials. • Little impact to emergency response
• No new impact, but Chorro volumes continue to exceed max neighborhood traffic thresholds. • Loss of on-street parking: 20 on Broad ; 0 on Chorro. • Least potential to attract new bicycle ridership.
ATTACHMENT B
Alternative 3: Bicycle Boulevard with out Traffic Diversion on Broad Street
ATTACHMENT B
Alternative 3: Bicycle Boulevard with out Traffic Diversion on Broad Street
SPEED AND VOLUME THRESHOLDS FOR SHARED BICYCLE STREET 12,000
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME
Maximum 10,000
Preferred
8,000
CHORRO ST (ALT 3)
6,000
CHORRO ST (EXISTING)
MAX NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC THRESHOLD
4,000
BROAD ST (EXISTING)
BROAD ST (ALT 3)
2,000
0 0
5
10
15
20
MOTOR VEHICLE SPEED (MPH)
25
30
35
40
ATTACHMENT B
Other Variations Considered & Suggestions from Public Comment:
• On-Street Parking Removal on One Side of Chorro and/or Broad to provide protected bikeway in-lieu of one-way couplet conversion
ATTACHMENT B
Other Variations Considered & Suggestions from Public Comment: Example Chorro Street Two-Way Circulation with Protected Bikeway
Example Broad Street Two-Way Circulation with OneExample Broad Street w/ Shared Lanes with (Existing) Example Broad Street Two-Way Circulation Way Protected Bikeway (Parking Removal One Side) Protected Bikeway (Parking Removal Both Sides)
ATTACHMENT B
Other Variations Considered & Suggestions from Public Comment: • Lincoln Street Alignment 30+% longer trip Broad St
ATTACHMENT B
Other Variations Considered & Suggestions from Public Comment: • Pre-emptive Cut-Through Mitigation on Lincoln St. • Alt 2. (One-Way Couplet): Reverse couplet direction and/or reverse Broad one-way bike lane • Align route so cyclists avoid difficult uphill grades: • Broad (NB Mountain View to Mission) • Chorro (SB/NB approaching Murray & Meinecke)
• Replace existing speed humps on Broad w/ Speed Cushions • Replace existing stop signs on Chorro w/ Traffic Circles • Consideration for Aesthetics
ATTACHMENT B
Interim vs. Permanent Features
ATTACHMENT B
Interim vs. Permanent Features
ATTACHMENT B
Interim vs. Permanent Features
ATTACHMENT B
BAC Feedback • SLO Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) received presentation and public input at 7/20 meeting. • BAC deliberation focused on challenging balance between improving bicycling vs. neighborhood trade-offs • Formal BAC recommendation to pursue Alternative 2 (Broad/Chorro One-Way Couplet) for further development to promote highest potential to increase bike safety & mode share
ATTACHMENT B
Community Feedback
ATTACHMENT B
Funding • Included as CIP Project in 2017-19 Financial Plan • FY2017/18 – Phase 1 installation:
$105k
• FY 2018/19 – Phase 2 installation: $180k • FY 2019/20 – Phase 2 installation: $270k TOTAL
$555k
• Funding Source: General Fund • 36% from SB1 Transportation Funding • 64% from General Capital Outlay
ATTACHMENT B
Where to Go From Here Council Study Session on Alternatives (8/15): • Invite questions & additional public input • Request Council guidance on preferred direction Plan Refinement • Refine designs & analysis for preferred concept • Prepare plan documenting process and final recommendations Final Community Meeting (4th Quarter 2017) • Present refined concept and analysis for preferred alternative Final Plan (early 2018) • Present Final Plan to BAC & Council for adoption • Phase 1 rollout 2018
ATTACHMENT B
Staff Recommendation: • Receive presentation and public input on project alternatives; and • Provide guidance to staff regarding Council’s preferred alternative; and • Direct staff to complete Broad Street Bicycle Plan.
