CITIMP'CO City Council Agenda Report Meeting Date: May 3rd, 2016
TO: City Council
FROM: Public Work Director - Engineering, Brendan Ottoboni, 879-6901
RE: ESPLANADE CORRIDOR SAFETY AND ACCESSABILITY STUDY - Reconsideration of 4/14/16
Council Actions
INTRODUCTION:
At its Special City Council meeting of April 14, 2016, the City Council provided direction to staff on 11 differentcomponents of the Esplanade Safety and Accessibility Study. At its meeting of April 19,2016, the City Council voted unanimously to suspend its Council meeting procedures as outlined in AP&P 10-10 regarding reconsideration of prioractions. Council then voted unanimouslyto agendize reconsideration of what were Items # 9,10, and 11 of the staff report (Attachment A) for the April 14,2016 Special Council meeting, and thereby reconsider the alternatives presented. This is effectively a reconsideration of the intersections atthe Esplanade and E 1St Avenue, Lincoln Avenue, Sacramento Avenue and Memorial Way. Items 1 through 8, of that same report will proceed with the Council approved direction and be included in the scope of work intended for grant funding program applications to fund preliminary design. Any final project designs would be subject to Council approval in the future.
Based on additional public input received, it is recommended that Items 9,10 and 11 "not" be included in the set of improvements in the current round of grant applications, allowing additional time for staff to further discuss the opportunities to best mitigate the known safety issues at these intersections. Further, additional input on the Chico High School congestion and circulation elements would be furtherdiscussed with the previously mentioned items. It is recommended, that Items 9 - 11 be delayed until the firstquarter of 2017, which will provide staff with additional time to identify other solutions and options to address the safety issues.
Recommendation: The Public Works Director-Engineering recommends thatthe City Council: (1) modify its prior actions pertaining to Items 9- 11; and (2) direct staffto pursue other solutions and options to address the safety concerns at those intersections and return with that information in the first quarter of 2017.
Reviewed By: Approved By:
r Ba=
Brendan Ottoboni, Public Works Director-Engineering Mark Orme, City Manager
DISTRIBUTION:
City Clerk (3)
Attachment:
Attachment "A" - 4/14/16 Staff Report * CITY„,CHICO City Council Agenda Report Meeting Date: April 14, 2016 * '.2 I
TO: City Council
FROM: Public Work Director - Engineering, Brendan Ottoboni, 879-6901
RE: ESPLANADE CORRIDOR SAFETY AND ACCESSABILITY STUDY - Updated Recommendations
INTRODUCTION:
The City continues to be engaged in a transportation safety and accessibility study of the Esplanade corridor between Memorial Way and 11 th Avenue, including a segment of the parallel facility, Oleander Avenue.
At the Council's direction on April 5th, 2016, a Special Session has been scheduled to further discuss this item and make recommendations to be included in the overall plan.
The overall goal of this study is to improve the safety and accessibility of the Esplanade for all modes of transportation while maintaining the tree-lined "Boulevard" design so iconic to Chico.
It is anticipated that following this discussion, Staff will prepare the Draft Esplanade Corridor Safety and Accessibility Study which will include traffic data and analysis, results of the public outreach effort, and the preferred design recommendations for Council's adoption in May. With City Council approval, the resultant study will serve as a guiding document for future grantapplications to fund recommended improvements. The City currently does not have funding for the proposed improvements. Staff intends to submit applications for grant programs through Caltrans or other funding agencies, as appropriate, when they become available (anticipated Call for Projects to be due in mid-June of 2016). The improvements being considered will be used as a guide on the grant applications, however, a complete engineered project design will be completed once the funding source(s) have been identified.
Recommendation: The Public Works Director-Engineering recommends that the City Council select the preferred set of roadway improvements for inclusion in the Draft Esplanade Corridor Safety and Accessibility Study.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Similar to other traffic studies, the cost of conducting the data collection, traffic analysis, public outreach and ultimate preparation of the Esplanade Corridor Safety and Accessibility Study has been funded through Capital Project account# 307-000-8801/16011-307-4110 (Traffic Safety Improvements). The total cost to complete the Study is estimated at $143,623.00 and will establish eligibility for federal and state grant programs, such as the Active Transportation Program (ATP), Highway Safety Improvement Program, and others. When grant dollars are secured, they will be incorporated into a separate Capital Project and utilized to fund project design and construction, as appropriate, to implement the recommendations of the Study. The intent of this corridor study is to develop a plan of improvements that, if approved by the Council, will enable the Cityto compete favorably for federal and state grant opportunities to fund the safety improvements. RE: Esplanade Corridor Study - Updated Recommendations Meeting: 4/14/16 CC Special Session Page: 2 of 11
DISCUSSION:
The following list of improvements is provided to assist in navigating through the complexities of the corridor and make decisions based on each item. The staff report from the April 5th, 2016 meeting will continue to be used as a reference to provide visual diagrams of some of the proposed options. These references will be made at the specific locations where applicable with each option. In each scenario, ALTERNATIVE 1 is the staff recommended option, with alternative solutions provided for Council to discuss.
CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS:
1. ADA Ramps and Sidewalks (Select one alternative)
ALTERNATIVE 1: Install ADA Ramps at all locations and sidewalk connectivity at currently missing locations (includes west side of Esplanade between 7th Ave and 8'h Ave, 10th Avenue between Esplanade and Oleander, and Oleander from 10th Avenue to 7th Avenue):
This is required to be completed based on Federal and State requirements in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
OR
ALTERNATIVE 2: Keep sidewalks and sidewalk ramps in theircurrent state, however, Caltrans would not allow funding if ADA deficiencies are not addressed.
2. ADA Pedestrian Refuge on Crossing Islands (Select one alternative)
ALTERNATIVE 1: ADA consistent Pedestrian Refuge Islands at all Signalized and Un- Signalized Intersections on the corridor at both center islands and islands separating travel lanes from frontage roads.
This is required to be completed based on Federal and State requirements in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and will add a level of protection at intersections.
OR
ALTERNATIVE 2: Keep current median island geometry, however, Caltrans would not allow funding if ADA deficiencies are not addressed.
3. Traffic Signal Equipment (Select one alternative)
ALTERNATIVE 1: Traffic Signal Equipment Upgrades, specifically, installation of pedestrian countdown signal heads with adequate time to cross the Esplanade (signal timing options are discussed in Item 5).
This will improve the pedestrian crossing conditions consistent with the standards in the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
OR RE: Esplanade Corridor Study - Updated Recommendations Meeting: 4/14/16 CC Special Session Page: 3 of 11
ALTERNATIVE 2: Keep existing traffic signal equipment in its current setup which will continue to have the pedestrian crossing conditions not in compliance with minimum standards.
4. General Pavement Markings and Signage (Select one alternative)
ALTERNATIVE 1: Consistent Pavement Markings and Signage along the corridor in accordance with MUTCD. This option will also include pavement delineation at the 'Keep Clear' spaces between the Esplanade and frontage roads. Options for delineation would be 'green' pavement (similarto painted green bike lanes in downtown)ora slightlyraised stamped and colored concrete option.
Having the 'Keep Clear' areas of a different color will notify pedestrians/bicyclists and vehicles that this is a major conflict area and is a shared space. It is a new practice with NACTO design guidelines to provide this type of pavement marking to delineate a shared space or conflict area.
OR
ALTERNATIVE 2: Keep the current layout, markings and signage.
5. Traffic Signal Timing Plan - Currentsignal timing function does notallow enough pedestrian cross traffic in accordance with Federal and State standards as defined in the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (If Pedestrian signal equipment and adequate crossing time was selected in Item 3, select one of the following signal timing alternatives).
ALTERNATIVE 1: Install pedestrian push buttons and vehicle detection. Use detection based "on-demand" system during peak hours and use existing 28 MPH progression that currently exists during non-peak hours.
During non-peak hours, when a pedestrian hits the push button to cross the roadway, additional time will need to be provided for the cross-street (in accordance with Federal and State standards for providing pedestrian crossing time of all abilities). Once this is completed, the traffic signal will resetand takeapproximately 2-3 cycles to get back onto the 28 MPH timed progression.
ii. This option will provide more efficient circulation of cross-street traffic that currently experiences congestion during peak hours. The time that ittakes totravel from one end of the corridor to the other will increase by 20-30 seconds, but the overall circulation will be improved.
OR
ALTERNATIVE 2: Install pedestrian push buttons and vehicle detection. Use detection based "on-demand" system making the entire corridor similar to approximately 95% of all other intersections in our City network.
This is standard practice in today's industry and Traffic Engineering profession because of the efficiency in moving vehicles through intersections.
OR
ALTERNATIVE 3: Do not install pedestrian push buttons, and maintain a timed based progression system (similar to existing operations), but modify signal phasing to provide sufficient pedestrian crossing time in order to meet Federal and State standards for providing RE: Esplanade Corridor Study - Updated Recommendations Meeting: 4/14/16 CC Special Session Page: 4 of 11
sufficient pedestrian cross time. It is a complex configuration, but believe we can achieve a progression of approximately 22 mph.
If this option is chosen, other proposed improvements affecting signal timing and function (such as left-turn phasing or longergreen time for First Avenue) will not be able to occur.
ii. If this option is chosen, all signalized intersections would remain on "automatic recall" for pedestrian crossings which will result in excessive green time for some intersections during periods of the day since some side streets do not require the amount of green time needed by pedestrian crossings.
OR
ALTERNATIVE 4: Do nothing - keep existing 28 mph signal progression and maintain non- compliance for pedestrian crossing conditions. (This option would accompany Item 3, Alternative 2).
6. Oleander Route (Multiple options may be selected)
ALTERNATIVE 1: Oleander Enhancements
OPTION 1: Install Roundabout at Oleander Avenue/Memorial Way intersection
Due to the acute angle of Oleander into Memorial Way, sight distance is minimized and creates unsafe entry onto Memorial Way. This proposal will improve the circulation around Chico Junior High School during school hours and reduce travel speeds, as well as eliminate sideswipe collisions that are severe in nature.
OPTION 2: Install new traffic signal at 1st Avenue - Oleander Avenue intersection.
This will provide controlled access for students and a more leisurely bike ride down Oleander as it is recognized on the City of Chico's bike plan as a bike route. This will be a detection based traffic signal with preference to E. 1 St Avenue traffic to allow traffic movement in the most efficient manner.
OPTION 3A: Change stop controls at 8h Avenue and 9th Avenue to East-West to allow free flowing bicycle traffic. 5th Avenue will remain with North-South stop controls due to the traffic volumes, but will add a bike warning atthis intersection. This option will also include 'Sharrow' markings on the roadway pavement.
i. This will provide bicyclists with less stopping.
AND
OPTION 38: Change stop controls as above and install speed humps which do not affect bike travel.
OR
ALTERNATIVE 2: Keep Oleander Avenue the same.
7. Esplanade Bicycle Improvements - Significant bicycle collisions experienced along this corridor as a result of no specific bike infrastructure. In 2015, City of Chico was awarded a RE: Esplanade Corridor Study - Updated Recommendations Meeting: 4/14/16 CC Special Session Page: 5 of 11
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant to improve the crosswalk, including a pedestrian flashing beacon unitatthe Esplanade and 8th Avenue intersection, as well as an Emergency Vehicle Preemptive system for our traffic signal equipment and Emergency response units (Police and Fire). This project was awarded by the State as a result of our accident data showing this corridor as being unsafe. (Select one alternative)
ALTERNATIVE 1: Installation of a Class IV, separated bike path on the east side of the Esplanade, in the old Rail Right-of-Way. See Attachment F- Option 1 from April 5th, 2016 Staff Report.
This will provide a separated, dedicated bike facility for use along the corridor that does not conflict with vehicles or transit buses, except at side streets. Currently there is a significant pedestrian and bicycle usage without an identified bike route. Land uses along the corridor vary greatly and encourage bicycle usage (i.e. professional offices, restaurants, hospital facilities, schools, other commercial and retail businesses). At signalized intersections, pedestrians and bicyclists will have traffic control measures to control access safely across the roadway. This eliminates the existing conflictatsignalized intersections that have onlya stop sign with minimized site distances.
ii. This will offset from the Esplanade by 19.5' at intersections to allow a one (1) vehicle storage length, as well as typical warning markings.
iii. The bike path would be designed to not impact the frontage road and the frontage road parking spaces.
iv. This option provides continuity for two-way traffic off of the 11 th Avenue bike path and legally provides a consistent route of accessible traffic.
v. This option will also add 'Sharrows' on the west frontage road.
vi. This will remove approximately 14 of 500 Esplanade trees due to the offset of the back path, nearest the intersections. It is noted that this is only a conceptual plan and the specific location of the path and subsequent number of trees to be removed will be fullydetermined during the engineered design of improvements, afterproject funding has been identified. Additional trees would be intended to be planted to offset this tree removal in the interest of public safety.
OR
ALTERNATIVE 2: No separated bike path. Use markings as stated in Item 4 - Alternative 1 of this report, as well as 'Sharrows' on both west and east side frontages to delineate bicycle users sharing this roadway with vehicles and transit buses on the frontage as the recommended bicycle usage on the Esplanade. See Attachment F - Option 2 from the April 5m, 2016 Staff report.
Based on the bicycle usage, this is the existing situation without any markings to notify both vehicles and transit buses that they are sharing the road with bicycles. Based on the bicycle collision rates on this corridor, this option is not the preferred recommendation because it does not eliminate any conflicts, it merely adds some additional awareness to users. Significant safety concerns exist with bicycles crossing side streets with stop signs and limited site distance.
OR RE: Esplanade Corridor Study - Updated Recommendations Meeting: 4/14/16 CC Special Session Page: 6 of 11
ALTERNATIVE 3: Installation of Class IV bike path, similar to Alternative 1 of this section, however changing the frontage road entrance and exit at un-signalized intersections ONLY to separate and minimize conflicts with vehicles and transit buses. See Attachment F- Option 3 from the April 5th, 2016 staff report.
This option provides the best safety changes as a result of eliminating all conflict areas occurring at the side street interaction. However, this may remove up to 42 of 500 trees. This is not the recommended option due to the physical changes to the corridor that were previously noted to be of importance by Council and the community.
OR
ALTERNATIVE 4. Do nothing, keep the corridor biking options the same.
8. 11th Avenue Intersection Improvements - Currently has two-way bike traffic from the Lindo Channel pedestrian and bike bridge onto Esplanade and 11th Avenue intersection, without any identified route for this bi-directional traffic. ADA Transition Committee has prioritized accessibility from this point to downtown as their Priority #1 in accordance with our ADA Transition Plan. (Select one alternative)
ALTERNATIVE 1: Installation of Class IV bike path along old Rail Right-of-Way. See ATTACHMENT G - OPTION 1 from the April 5th, 2016 staff report. This option is connected to ITEM 7 - ALTERNATIVE 1. If that option is not considered, this alternative should not be considered.
This alternative includes'Sharrow' and other pedestrian markings on the west side off of the Lindo Channel bridge, to provide a complete accessible route with acceptable controls in accordance with the MUTCD.
ii. Based on priorities discussed with the ADA Transition Committee, this is the preferred recommendation and priority #1 of the Committee to ensure compliance with our ADA Transition Plan in accordance with directives from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
iii. This alternative includes correction of the ADA non-compliant cross-slope at east side crosswalk (exceeds 2% cross-slope).
OR
ALTERNATIVE 2: Install Class IV bike path from 11 th Avenue to 10!h Avenue to provide two- way pedestrian and bicycle traffic access to Oleander Avenue as the intended ADA compliant path of travel. See ATTACHMENT G - OPTION 2 from the April 5th, 2016 staff report.
If this is the approved option by Council, ITEM 1 - ALTERNATIVE 1 of this report will require approval to ensure a complete ADA compliant access is provided, in accordance with the ADA Transition Committee's Priority#1 to provide access off of the 11 th Avenue pedestrian bridge to downtown.
ii. This alternative also includes 'Sharrow' and other pedestrian markings on the west side off of the Lindo Channel bridge to provide a complete accessible route with acceptable controls in accordance with the MUTCD. RE: Esplanade Corridor Study - Updated Recommendations Meeting: 4/14/16 CC Special Session Page: 7 of 11
iii. This alternative includes correction of the ADA non-compliant cross-slope at east side crosswalk (exceeds 2% cross-slope).
OR
ALTERNATIVE 3: No Class IV bike path at all. Two-way traffic for pedestrians and bicyclists will divide at 11 th Avenue in front of Chico Nut to be directed in the proper direction of traffic flow. See ATTACHMENT G - OPTION 3 from the April 5th, 2016 staff report,
This option is not recommended due to the conflict created with vehicle traffic in and out of Chico Nut that would limit site distance for northbound pedestrians and bicyclists.
ii. This alternative also includes'Sharrow' and other pedestrian markings on the west side off of the Lindo Channel bridge to provide a complete accessible route with acceptable controls in accordance with the MUTCD.
iii. This alternative includes correction of the ADA non-compliant cross-slope at east side crosswalk (exceeds 2% cross-slope).
9. 151 Avenue Intersection Improvements - This intersection experiences high volumes of collisions, and a lack of compliance with intended traffic devices as a result of inadequate and non-compliant traffic control devices.
ALTERNATIVE 1: Install Roundabout at intersection of 1st Avenue and Esplanade, State Route 99 directs traffic to downtown and Chico State University via this route, with a limited ability to turn left from 1 st Avenue.
Roundabouts have documented history(including local roundaboutdata) to reduce collisions by approximately half, improving the safety of the public in a long-term, cost effective manner while providing similar capacity to traffic signals.
ii. Roundabouts provide additional turning movements that are not currentlyexisting in an efficient manner (i.e. left turns and 'U-turns' from 1 St Avenue, as well as Esplanade. Currently, one has to drive through neighborhoods to get onto 1 St Avenue from the Esplanade in order to access State Route 99.
iii. This option will improve the circulation of traffic, reduce emissions through stopping attraffic signals and allow signal progression at traffic signals north of this location of the corridor.
iv. Will result in a $6,000 savings annuallydue to no electrical costs and labor costs to maintain the traffic signal cabinet in accordance with manufacturer and industry standards. Additionally, by reducing the numberand severity of the accidents, cost and resource savings of not having to dispatch safety personnel (Police and Fire). Costs to construct would be achieved through grant funding.
v. Opportunity to install gateway aesthetics for Chico entering the Mansion and downtown core.
vi. This option will remove approximately 8 trees.
OR
ALTERNATIVE 2: 1 St Avenue Turn Lane Improvements RE: Esplanade Corridor Study - Updated Recommendations Meeting: 4/14/16 CC Special Session Page: 8 of 11
OPTION 1: Provide East-West 1 St Avenue with a dedicated left turn phase (green arrow),
This will allow a protected turning movement for vehicles toturn ontothe Esplanade from 151 Avenue. Currently, there is a 'shared green' with through traffic thatcreates inefficient traffic flow and leaves vehicles stranded in the intersection when the street signal turns red.
ii. This option will completely eliminate the ability to have a timed progression on the traffic signals along the entire corridor.
AND/OR
OPTION 2: Provide left turn lanes and phases from North-South Bound traffic on the Esplanade onto 1 St Avenue
This option will provide access for traffic onto 1 St Avenue from the Esplanade to access State Route 99, as well as a more efficient way to access Chico Junior High School from 1 St Avenue onto Esplanade. Currently, the only left turn movement between this pointand downtown is a leftturn at Francis Willard, thatcompetes with High School drop off traffic trying to leave and head back northbound on Esplanade.
ii. This option will completely eliminate the ability to have a timed progression on the traffic signals along the entire corridor.
iii. This option will remove approximately 6 trees due to the installation of left-turn lanes.
OR
ALTERNATIVE 3: Do nothing,
10. Chico High School Area Circulation Improvements (Multiple Options may be selected)
ALTERNATIVE 1. High School Circulation Improvements
OPTION 1: Install Traffic Signal at W. Sacramento Avenue and Esplanade.
1Will -ALTERNATIVEinclude traffic signal equipment as referenced in ITEM 2 1 in accordance with current design standards
ii. This option provides safe and protected pedestrian crossing atthis intersection thal is ranked as one of the most dangerous in the City of Chico based on reported collisions experienced.
iii. This option will also provide additional vehicular circulation for High School traffic that currently avoids this intersection and uses the adjacent neighborhoods to get back onto the Esplanade.
iv. NOTE: Per the approved Council action on January 1gth, 2016, the Chico Unified School District has donated funds to purchase a pedestrian flashing unit at this intersection as an interim mitigation to make vehicles aware of the pedestrian and bicycle crossing conflict. This unit is intended to be installed later this Spring. RE: Esplanade Corridor Study - Updated Recommendations Meeting: 4/14/16 CC Special Session Page: 9 of 11
OPTION 2· Construct 'mini roundabout' at W. Sacramento Avenue and Magnolia Avenue, as well as widen onto High School property to create additional drop off area.
This option will provide more efficient circulation by providing an additional drop off area. This option should stronglybe considered with ALTERNATIVE l A as theyare vital components to moving traffic in and out of this area in a quick and efficient
manner.
ii. See ATTACHMENT H from April 5th, 2016 staff report for diagram of proposed improvements.
OPTION 3A: Construct'mini-roundabout' at W. Lincoln Avenue, construct widening onto Chico High Schools campus, provide 2-waytraffic from Esplanade to Magnolia Avenue, add left turn lane from Northbound Esplanade onto W. Lincoln Avenue.
This option will further increase efficiency of circulation and minimize traffic in the Mansion Park neighborhood on Francis Willard. Currently, traffic must enter onto Francis Willard (one-way) and drive through the neighborhood in order to drop children offon W. Lincoln. Forthe most part, drop offoccurs on the passengerside of the vehicle. In its existing configuration, students that are dropped off, then have to cross the street conflicting with traffic. This proposed improvement will provide drop offon the passengerside of the vehicle (including ADA compliantaccess from the drop off area, which is main reason that widening is needed), circulate to the mini roundabout and exit onto Esplanade.
ii. The traffic signal at Esplanade and Lincoln Avenue would include detection based equipment as referenced in ITEM 2 - ALTERNATIVE 1 of this report to allow more time for exiting W. Lincoln Avenue. This will also include a dedicated left turn phase (green arrow) for the left turn movement from Esplanade onto W. Lincoln Avenue.
iii. This option will also move the pedestrian cross-walk on Esplanade from the south side of W. Lincoln Avenue to the north side of W. Lincoln Avenue. This will eliminate the conflict of vehicles and pedestrians on W. Lincoln Avenue at Esplanade.
iv. This option will lose 8 parking stalls that are on the north side of W. Lincoln that are currently metered parking stalls. All preferred parking for Mansion Park residents will remain.
v. This option will remove 6 trees on the High School campus. Large redwood trees will remain in place.
OPTION 38: Same as OPTION 3A above, but move 'mini-roundabout' to W. Lincoln Avenue and Arcadian (one block further west).
OPTION 3C: Remove crosswalk on the south side of the Lincoln Ave/Esplanade intersection to the north side of this intersection
The current location of the sidewalk on the south side of the intersection directs pedestrians and bicyclists to then cross W. Lincoln Ave. Changing the location of this crosswalk to the opposite side of the intersection will decrease this conflict by directing pedestrians to the north side.
OPTION 3D. Reverse One-Way traffic on W. Lincoln and W. Francis Willard. RE: Esplanade Corridor Study- Updated Recommendations Meeting: 4/14/16 CC Special Session Page: 10 of 11
i. Requires additional left turn lane from Northbound Esplanade on to Lincoln.
ALTERNATIVE 2: Keep High School circulation the same, relyon other proposed changes to improve circulation.
11. Memorial Way Intersection Improvements - California State Parks (Bidwell Mansion Property Owners) have expressed concern with this intersection since City traffic not intended to use their property is directed into their parking lot in order to access Esplanade or Memorial Way. (Select one alternative)
ALTERNATIVE 1: Install Roundabout at Esplanade and Memorial Way Intersection
Roundabouts have documented history(including local roundaboutdata)to reduce collisions by approximately half, improving the safety of the public in a long-term, cost effective manner.
ii. Roundabouts provide additional turning movements thatare not currently existing in an efficient manner (i.e. left turns and 'U-turns' from Esplanade). Currently, frontage road traffic is funneled into parking lot of Bidwell Mansion parking lot. Vehicles use this in orderto head back northbound on Esplanade oronto Memorial Way (no left turn access currently available from Esplanade onto Memorial Way). Vehicles have to drive through downtown to head back northbound on Esplanade or access Memorial Way, which encourages illegal turning movements at other locations due to this lack of access.
iii. This option will improve the circulation of traffic, reduce emissionsthrough stopping at traffic signals and allow signal progression attraffic signals north of this location of the corridor.
iv. Will result in a $6,000 savings annuallydue to no electrical costs and laborcosts to maintain the traffic signal cabinet in accordance with manufacturer and industry standards. Additionally, by reducing the numberand severityof the accidents, cost and resource savings of not having to dispatch safety personnel (Police and Fire). Costs to construct would be achieved through grant funding.
v. Opportunity to install gateway aesthetics for Chico entering the Mansion and downtown core.
vi. This option will remove approximately 4 trees.
OR
ALTERNATIVE 2: Install Left turn lane for Southbound Esplanade traffic and dedicated left turn phase (green arrow)
This will provide access to Memorial Way(including Chico Junior High School)from Esplanade. Currently the only location south of 1 St Avenue to access Chico Junior High School and this neighborhood is atan unprotected leftturn at Francis Willard. This issue concentrates vehicle traffic onto Francis Willard in front of residential homes.
ii. This option will completely eliminate the abilityto provide traffic signal progression along the corridor. RE: Esplanade Corridor Study - Updated Recommendations Meeting: 4/14/16 CC Special Session Page: 11 ofll
iii. This option will remove approximately 4 trees.
gB
ALTERNATIVE 3: Do nothing.
NEXT STEPS:
The next steps for the Esplanade Corridor Safety and Accessibility Study include:
1) Tonight - Input from both Council and Public
2) April - Finalize Preferred Concept Plan and report
3) Present Final Corridor Plan and concepts at a Hearing for Council consideration of Plan Adoption
4) June - Submit ATP Grant Application (Due in June)
5) 2017 - Awards for Cycle 3 announced
6) 2018 - Design improvements (if awarded) to be reviewed by Council
7) 2019/2020 - Construction (all or partial)
Reviewed By: Approved By:
Brendan Ottoboni, Public Works Director-Engineering Mark Orme, City Manager
DISTRIBUTION:
City Clerk (3)
Attachment
4/5/16 Staff Report Meeting Date: April 5,2016
-1T /8,7 City Council Agenda Report
TO. City Council
FROM: Public Work Director - Engineering, Brendan Ottoboni, 879-6901
RE: ESPLANADE CORRIDOR SAFETY AND ACCESSABILITY STUDY - Updated Recommendations
REPORT IN BRIEF:
The City continues to be engaged in a transportation safety and accessibility studyof the Esplanade corridor between Memorial Wayand 11'h Avenue, including a segmentof the parallel facility, Oleander Avenue. The overall goal of this study is to improve the safetyand accessibility of the Esplanade forall modes of transportation while maintaining the tree-lined "Boulevard" design so iconic to Chico. Following the update to Council in January, the Esplanade Corridor Study team, including Public Works staff and the City's consulting traffic engineer. Steve Weinberger of W-Trans, have conducted further refinements and options requested by Council.
Given the complexityof the issues involved and the amountof input received with such a crucial roadwayinthe City, it was decided to conductthe third and final workshopas part of the Council's regular agenda. The team will presenta summary of the critical issues, options considered and a recommended package of improvements for the Council's consideration.
It is anticipated that following Council's action at this meeting, W-Trans will prepare the Draft Esplanade Corridor Safety and Accessibility Study which will include traffic data and analysis, results of the public outreach effort, and the preferred design recommendations for Council's adoption in May With City Council approval, the resultant study will serve as a guiding document for future grant applications to fund recommended improvements. The City currently does not have funding for the proposed improvements. Staff intends to submit applications for grant programs through Caltrans or other funding agencies, as appropriate, when they become available (anticipated Call for Projects to be due in mid-June of 2016). The improvements being considered will be used as a guide on the grant applications, however, a complete engineered project design will be completed once the funding source(s) have been identified.
Recommendation: The Public Works Director-Engineering recommends that the City Council select the preferred set of roadway improvements (Attachment A) and identify the selection of various options for inclusion in the Draft Esplanade Corridor Safety and Accessibility Study.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Similar to other traffic studies, the cost of conducting the data collection, traffic analysis, public outreach and ultimate preparation of the Esplanade Corridor Safety and Accessibility Study has been funded through Capital Project account # 307-000-8801/16011-307-4110 (Traffic Safety Improvements). The total cost to complete the Study is estimated at $143,623.00 and will establish eligibility for federal and state grant programs, such as the Active Transportation Program (ATP), Highway Safety Improvement Program, and others. When grant dollars are secured, they will be incorporated into a separate Capital Project and utilized to fund project design and construction, as appropriate, to implement the recommendations of the Study. The Intent of this corridor study is to develop a plan of improvements that, if approved by the Council, will enable the City to compete favorably for federal and state grant opportunities to fund the safety improvements.
DISCUSSION:
The Esplanade is one of the most recognizable and historic roadways in the City of Chico. According to public input received throughout the study, Chico residents value the tree lined street and synchronized signal timing that give this roadway the classic "boulevard" appeal. However, despite the Esplanade's ambience, City staffand the consulting team have identified severe safety issues which need to be addressed to keep all of the facility's users safe, as well as in compliance with Federal and State regulations for traffic safety. The majority of the public who are familiar with the Esplanade travel in vehicles in the north-south direction and are afforded mostly free flow conditions during most hours of the day. This travel experience insulates most of the users from the underlying safety shortcomings of the Esplanade. The perspective and experience of other users of the corridor is radically different than those travelling as through vehicle traffic: RE: Esplanade Corridor Study - Updated Recommendations Meeting: 4/5/16 CC Page: 2 of 8
The Boulevard alignment presents unusual and complex roadway geometrics with closely spaced intersections on East-West cross streets between the Esplanade and its parallel "frontage roads." There is a minimum of signs and pavement markings to provide guidance to drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians in these zones which creates confusion and conflicts. Only drivers travelling in the East-West direction or on the frontage roads would be familiar with these conditions. Further, there is currently a significant volume of users on the Esplanade by footand bicycle, withouttruly identified and safe routes of travel, including a lack of consistent accessibility.
Existing Typical Intersections - (Attachment B)
• Pedestrians are faced with the task of crossing four lanes of traffic without the minimum "greer time" (the time in seconds with the traffic signal indicating a green phase to proceed through the intersection), as suggested by Federal design guidelines. Further, the State committee in charge of keeping the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) up to current standards, has stated that additional requirements are forthcoming relating tothe amountof traffic signal slow down (yield), also known as "yellow time"as well as more defined pedestrian crossing requirements. These updates will be completed bythe MUTCD, priorto the complete engineering design of this proposed project and be included in the final design at a later date.
• Bicyclists are not given signage or pavement marking guidance and the connection with the Airport bike trail to the north encourages counter flow bike traffic on the east side frontage roads. '
• The disabled community is not provided with the minimum features of accessible sidewalks and ramps required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The City of Chico is obligated through the Federal government (FHWA) to be in accordance with its own adopted ADA Transition Plan, which identifies the need to provide accessibility to ensure people of all abilities are provided safe access.
• Parents shuttling Jr. High School and High School students to each of the campuses are faced with vehicle congestion, limited pick-up and drop-off areas and limited access which cause the need to travel in the adjacent residential neighborhoods.
ESPLANADE DEFICIENCIES
Through thorough data collection and traffic engineering analysis, public input, and visual observations of the existing roadway condition, the following list of critical corridor deficiencies were identified by the consulting team and City staff. Please refer to the Map of Existing Deficiencies (Attachment C) and Existing Collision Rates (Attachment D) as additional resources.
Noted deficiencies include:
Pedestrian Safety Concerns
• Existing traffic signals along corridor do not meet regulations in accordance with the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for amount of time provided for pedestrians to cross the roadway. This is a significant safety issue that creates additional liability for the City. • High volume of pedestrian crossings near the High School and moderate volume near the hospital. • Absence of pedestrian crossing signals at signalized intersections. • Highest concentration of reported accidents involving pedestrians near the High School. • Absence of refuge medians at unsignalized intersections. • Confusion as to vehicle-pedestrian right-of-way at intersections of E-W streets with frontage roads.
ADA Accessibility Issues
• In 2006, the City of Chico received notification via letter from the US Department of Transportation, via the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in response to ADA compliance complaints. The FHWA letter recommended updating our ADA Transition Plan in accordance with Federal Regulations as outlined in 28 CFR Part 353.150.(d). The most recent update was performed in 2009, recommending specific improvements at the recommendation of the ADA Transition Committee, an appointed committee of disabled individuals and other community representatives. The ADA Transition Committee has identified this corridor as Priority #1 in order to create access to the downtown core. Priority #2 will RE: Esplanade Corridor Study- Updated Recommendations Meeting: 4/5/16 CC Page: 3 of 8
be to make ADA improvements in the downtown core. The 2006 FHWA letter outlines Accessible pedestrian signal controls, referencing Section 4E.06 of the MUTCD that states if 'a particular signalized intersection presents difficulties for pedestrians who have visual disabilities to cross safely and effectively, an engineering study should be conducted that considers the safety and effectiveness for pedestrians in general, as well as the information needs of pedestrians with visual disabilities.' Lack of ADA accessible ramps and routes. Missing sidewalk sections on the Esplanade, on the west side between 7th Avenue and 8th Avenue, as well as along the west side of Oleander from 100 Avenue to 71,1 Avenue. . Insufficient ramp and sidewalk connections to the 11 th Street trail bridge.
. Sidewalk surface inconsistencies.
Lack of Bicycle Facilities and Safety Concerns
Relatively high volume of bicycle use on the Esplanade frontage roads. . High volume of two-way bicycle traffic on one-way frontage roads, especially on the east side. High rate of bicycle collisions on the Esplanade corridor with extremely high rates which are more than twice the average at 9 intersections (Memorial Way, Lincoln Avenue, Sacramento Avenue, 1 St Avenue, 3rd Avenue, 4"1 Avenue, 71'1 Avenue, 8th Avenue, and 9th Avenue). Non-existent bicycle lanes, markings and bicycle circulation signage guidance. Non-existent and unclear bicycle connection between Esplanade and the 11 th Avenue trail bridge. Recent bicycle fatality at Oleander Avenue/1 st Avenue. Driver confusion and vehicle-bicycle conflicts at intersections with frontage roads at east-west streets.
High School Area Congestion and Safety
. Very high volume of pedestrian crossings at Lincoln Avenue and Sacramento Avenue near the High School. Existing usage of the City of Chico Right-of-Way is occurring at high frequencies, without identified routes of travel. This creates significant liability for the City relating to Safety of the Public. Severe congestion and shortage of pick-up/drop-off facilities around Chico High School. No signalized intersection to assist left-turns from the High School onto the Esplanade. Poor vehicle circulation and access around Chico High School causing traffic infiltration around the neighborhood.
Esplanade to Memorial Avenue Accessibility
. Lack of left-turn access at Memorial Avenue causes traffic to seek other neighborhood routes to access Chico Jr. High School from southbound Esplanade. Lack of left-turn access at Memorial Avenue causes traffic to travel along the west side frontage road and into the State Park parking lot traffic circle to access eastbound Memorial Way.
State Parks Access and Use by the Public
• State Parks has officially requested to both the City Attorney's office, as well as Public Works Director, that the City modify the intersection of Esplanade/Memorial Way which would discourage vehicles from using their parking lot to access eastbound Memorial Way.
1 st Avenue Traffic Capacity
. Green time given to 1 m Avenue traffic is the same as all other cross streets while the traffic volume is at least four times higher.
. Limited 'green time' at 1 01 Avenue results in restricted capacity and excessive queuing which generates driver frustration and tendency to access less than optimal signal gaps. Lack of left-turn access causes traffic to access 1 St Avenue via other neighborhood streets including left- turn movements at less than optimal uncontrolled locations. . Prevailing conditions have generated the highest traffic collisions on the corridor which exceed the expected accident experience. RE: Esplanade Corridor Study - Updated Recommendations Meeting: 4/5/16 CC Page: 4 of 8
Junior Hiqh School Area Access and Congestion
• Congestion and restricted driver sight distance at Memorial Way/Oleander Avenue intersection. • Expanded student population will cause additional capacity pressure on the Memorial Way/Oleander Avenue intersection during school hours.
General Vehicle Guidance and Confusion
• Lack of pavement markings and signage results in confusion between drivers, pedestrians and bicycles on right-of-way priority at frontage road intersections with east-west streets. • Low hedge landscaping along the corridor restricts driver sight distance at frontage road intersections.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following options and recommendations were considered for transportation safetyand accessibility improvements to the Esplanade corridor based on the following input factors:
0 Comments from the Council
0 Input from key stakeholders in the corridor
0 The public through the public process
0 On-line surveys 0 Need to meet traffic engineering standard practices and state guidelines
0 Traffic Engineering analysis
0 Collision history review
0 Input from City staff
0 Experience of the consulting team
City staff and the consulting team have formulated the following recommendations to address the deficiencies while also maintaining the geometric integrity of the historic boulevard and the significant tree coverage.
1. Pedestrian Crossing Recommendations - (Attachment E)
a) New pedestrian countdown crossing signal heads and pedestrian push button activation at all existing traffic signals on the Esplanade with sufficient crossing timing which meets Federal guidelines.
b) Vehicle detection on all approaches replacing timed signalization with an on-demand detection system.
c) Adequate pedestrian crossing refuge islands at unsignalized intersections on the Esplanade.
d) Consistently marked pedestrian crosswalks at all crossing locations.
e) Off-peak signal timing plan to favor through traffic flow and simulate the existing 28 mph free flow.
Esplanade could result in the loss of the synchronized signal timing (aka free flow 28 mph) and result in Note:increased One issue vehicle identified travel times. through It is the important public outreachto note that effort while was replacing the concern timed that signalization changes towith the an on- demand detection system designed to enhance pedestrian safety may alter vehicle progression during peak times, the corridor will experience better vehicle operational efficiencies with traffic signals that are designed to respond to actual need. To also provide some flexibility and to simulate the current 28 mph flow conditions, the Cjty could choose the option of multiple timing plans such as one which returns the corridor to its current conditions during off peak periods. RE: Esplanade Corridor Study - Updated Recommendations Meeting: 4/5/16 CC Page: 5 of 8
2. ADA Accessibility Recommendations
a) Improved trail connection to the 11 th Avenue trail bridge with adequate walkway and ramps, as well as accessibility off of the Lindo Channel Bridge on both the West and East sides. b) ADA acceptable curb ramps at all crosswalk locations. c) Sidewalk plan to provide missing sidewalks and reconstruct uneven sidewalk surfaces.
3. 1st Avenue Traffic Capacity Recommendation
New roundabout at Esplanade/1 st Avenue with full four-way access as a long term mitigation. (The design of this roundabout would be similar to that shown in Attachment I).
4. Junior High School Area Access Recommendations
a) New single-lane roundabout at Memorial Way/Oleander Avenue near Chico Jr. High School. b) Suggested future Safe Routes to School assessment to evaluate the campus safety more fully.
5. General Vehicle Guidance and Convenience Recommendations
a) Clear and consistent pavement markings at frontage road intersection areas. b) Creation of the shared space area at crossings of the E-W streets and frontage roads. c) Vehicle detection at all approaches of signalized intersections. d) Traffic signal indications guiding cross traffic to stop "outside" of the frontage road.
6. Other Amenities Recommendations
a) Recommendation for a future Landscaping Plan to eliminate visual obstructions and upgrade all landscaping as appropriate. b) Recommendation for a future Lighting Plan to upgrade efficiency, function and aesthetics of lighting equipment.
7. Bicycle Facilities/Crossing Recommendations
a) Two-way bike trail on old rail right-of-way (east side) with appropriate safety crossing measures (see note below). b) Discouragement, but acknowledgement of wrong-way riders on the west side frontage road with a shared space pavement design to slow vehicle and bicycle traffic through these conflict zones.
Council Direction Needed - (Attachment F)
Option 1 Class IV bike trail on old railroad right-of-way. Option 2 Frontage Road as intended bike facilities, which includes shared space markings to clearly identify conflict areas. Option 3 Alternative Class IV bike path option at unsignalized intersections to minimize ped/bike conflicts with vehicles.
Note: To address concerns of the Council, staff and the consulting team have explored a number of bike crossing options, both for the frontage roads as well as the bike facility within the old rail right of way. A new alignment option has been recommended for the bike crossing in the rail right of way which would meet Federal Separated Bikeway standards. These options are shown in the last Attachment J and will be reviewed with Council during the presentation. RE: Esplanade Corridor Study - Updated Recommendations Meeting: 4/5/16 CC Page: 6 of 8
8. Bike Crossing Options at 11 th Avenue - (Attachment G)
Council Direction Needed
Option 1 (Preferred Option) includes an extended island at the 1 Ith Avenue intersection and bike crossing to connect to bridge, continuation of separated bike trail on rail right-of-way to/from the south, and connection to bike route on Oleander using sharrow markings. (This option is contingent upon approval of Class IV bike path, as shown in Attachment F.) Option 2 Oleander as intended bike and pedestrian route, which includes Class IV bike path from Lindo Channel bridge to 10'h Avenue, as well as sidewalk infill to provide continuous accessible route. Option 3 Oleander as intended bike and pedestrian route, which includes directing bikes and pedestrians to use easterly frontage road, as wel] as sidewalk infill to provide continuous accessible route.
9. High School Area Access and Safety - (Attachment H) a) Minor widening on the Chico High School side of Lincoln Avenue and West Sacramento Avenue for expansion of pick-up/drop-off frontage. b) Conversion of Lincoln Avenue to two-way traffic between Esplanade and Arcadian Avenue. c) Turnaround traffic circles at Lincoln Avenue/Arcadian Avenue and Sacramento Avenue/Magnolia Avenue. d) New traffic signal at Esplanade/West Sacramento Avenue. e) New northbound left-turn lane at Esplanade/Lincoln Avenue. f) Esplanade signal timing plan specific for school hours to favor access to/from Chico High School.
10. Esplanade to Memorial Avenue Accessibility - (Attachment I) a) New northbound/southbound left-turn lane on Esplanade at Memorial Way traffic signal as a short term mitigation. b) New roundabout at Esplanade/Memorial Way with full four-way access as a long term mitigation.
State Parks Access and Use by the Public a) Reorientation of the west side frontage road to eliminate the connection to the State Park parking lot. b) The left-turn access and future roundabout at Esplanade/Memorial Way would preclude the need for traffic to enter the parking lot.
Council Direction Needed
Option 1 Future roundabout (long-term solution) with addition of south bound left turn lane as interim
measure. Option 2 Add southbound left turn as full improvement (no roundabout). Option 3 Take no action.
11. Other Options Considered - (Attachment J)
To address concerns of the Council, staff and the consulting team explored a number of bike crossing options, both for the frontage roads as well as the bike facility within the old rail right of way. These options were explored, but not included in the proposed recommendations. RE: Esplanade Corridor Study - Updated Recommendations Meeting: 4/5/16 CC Page: 7 of 8
CONCLUSION
Active Transportation Program Grant
In 2013, the State of California created the Active Transportation Program (ATP) in the Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The ATP consolidated federal and state transportation programs, including the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), Bicycle Transportation Account(BTA), and State Safe Routes to School(SR2S), intoa single program with a focus to make California a national leader in active transportation. The ATP is administered by the Caltrans' Division of Local Assistance, Office of Active Transportation and Special Programs.
Active transportation refers to any form of human-powered transportation - walking, cycling, using a wheelchair, etc. There are many ways to engage in active transportation, whether it is walking to the bus stop, or cycling to school/work.
The purpose of ATP is to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation by achieving the following goals:
Increase the proportion of trips accomplished by biking and walking, Increase safety and mobility for non-motorized users, Advance the active transportation efforts of regional agencies to achieve greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals, pursuant to SB 375 (Of 2008) and SB 341 (of 2009), . Enhance public health,
. Ensure that disadvantaged communities fully share in the benefits of the program, and Provide a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of active transportation users.
The ATP Cycle 3 Call for Projects is currently scheduled for late March 2016 through mid-June 2016. And includes 19/20 and 20/21 state funding years totaling approximately $24OM.
City staff and the consulting team are recommending that the City submit a grant application for the ATP program to obtain funding for the Esplanade corridor modifications discussed above since the goals of ATP are directly in line with the study recommendations. The improvements considered in this study will be used as a guide on the grant applications, however, a complete engineered project design will be completed once the funding source(s) have been identified.
NEXT STEPS:
The next steps for the Esplanade Corridor Safety and Accessibility Study include: 1) 4/5/16 City Council Meeting - Additional public input and Council direction 2) April - Finalize Preferred Concept Plan and report 3) Present Final Corridor Plan and concepts at a Hearing for Council consideration of Plan Adoption 4) June - Submit ATP Grant Application (Due in June) 5) 2017 - Awards for Cycle 3 announced 6) 2018 - Design improvements (if awarded) to be reviewed by Council 7) 2019/2020 - Construction (all or partial)
PUBLIC CONTACT:
Two community workshops were held, as well as presenting the proposed study to the Council at a meeting in January 2016 where additional public and Council input was received. Tonight's meeting will provide a fourth opportunity for the public to participate in this discussion. It should be noted that in order to extend the opportunity for more public involvement, an online survey was also used to gather more citizen input. All information regarding this study can also be found on the home page of the City's website. RE: Esplanade Corridor Study - Updated Recommendations Meeting: 4/5/16 CC Page: 8 of 8
Reviewed By: Approved By: f« S Brend*Fottoboni, Public Works Director-Engineering Mark Orme, City Manager
DISTRIBUTION: City Clerk (3)
ATTACHMEN TS:
Attachment A - Overall Recommendations Attachment B - Existing Typical Intersections Attachment C - Map of Existing Deficiencies Attachment D - Existing Collision Rates Attachment E - Pedestrian Crossing Recommendations Attachment F - Bike Crossing Options Attachment G - 11'h Avenue Options Attachment H - High School Area Improvements Attachment I - Memorial Avenue Options Attachment J - Other Options Considered Attachment A
Overall Recommendations U. i. 5 8 N
CL cr 11 TH 11 th Avenue Trail Connection Details
10TH
10TH
f f 0 9TH L.
LJ pi 500 8TH 9 9 7TH Z CAPSHAW E
6TH 6TH Typical . Boulevard - Hospitalimor-.= -----'15-1 Signalized
CK STH , 1. r 1 0 W Z Typical
Boulevard -- :, i 2 % Unsignalized 01 Avenue 1 Bike Boulevard §Elementary 3RD 0 - 2-Way, Drop-Off 2ND 0 New Traffic Signal C . Mini Roundabout High School @ Full Roundabout m Area Details 1ST Boulevard Unsignalized Improvements SACRAMENTO E SACRAMENTO 0 Boulevard Signalized 4 L/ Improvements WASHINGTON Chico Senior Signalized Improvements with Connection to Trail r High School r Long Term Roundabout LINCOLN F Inspire *- LINCOLN 0 ® BRICE 1 Charter Change Stop Controls to E-W E School FRANCESWILLARD Leave Stop Controls N-S, 2 £ (9-12) burAdd BikeWarning foIN-5 Z Add Northbound Left-Turn ' 4/1 LEGION Chico D MANSION Memorial *'g-Junior High Details 0 0.125 0.25 ," GE 3@ School j I Miles 900-17chi 2016.ai 3/16 E EsplanadeOverall Corridor Recommendations Study W-Trans OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Pedestrian Crossing Recommendations - (Attachment E) a) New pedestrian countdown crossing signal heads and pedestrian push button activation at all existing traffic signals on the Esplanade with sufficient crossing timing which meets Federal guidelines. b) Vehicle detection on all approaches replacing timed signalization with an on-demand detection system. c) Adequate pedestrian crossing refuge islands at unsignalized intersections on the Esplanade. d) Consistently marked pedestrian crosswalks at all crossing locations. e) Off-peak signal timing plan to favor through traffic flow and simulate the existing 28 mph free flow. 2. ADA Accessibilitv Recommendations a) Improved trail connectiontothe 11th Avenue trail bridge with adequate walkway and ramps, as well as accessibility off of the Lindo Channel Bridge on both the West and East sides. b) ADA acceptable curb ramps at all crosswalk locations. c) Sidewalk plan to provide missing sidewalks and reconstruct uneven sidewalk surfaces. 3. 1st Avenue Traffic Capacity Recommendation New roundabout at Esplanade/1 St Avenue with full four-way access as a long term mitigation. (The design of this roundabout would be similar to that shown in Attachment 1). 4. Junior High School Area Access Recommendations a) New single-lane roundabout at Memorial Way/Oleander Avenue near Chico Jr. High School. b) Suggested future Safe Routes to School assessment to evaluate the campus safety more fully. 5. General Vehicle Guidance and Convenience Recommendations a) Clear and consistent pavement markings at frontage road intersection areas. b) Creation of the shared space area at crossings of the E-W streets and frontage roads. c) Vehicle detection at all approaches of signalized intersections. d) Traffic signal indications guiding cross traffic to stop "outside" of the frontage road. 6. Other Amenities Recommendations a) Recommendation for a future Landscaping Plan to eliminate visual obstructions and upgrade all landscaping as appropriate. b) Recommendation for a future Lighting Plan to upgrade efficiency, function and aesthetics of lighting equipment. 7. Bicycle Facilities/Crossing Recommendations a) Two-way bike trail on old rail right-of-way (east side) with appropriate safety crossing measures (see note below). b) Discouragement, but acknowledgement of wrong-way riders on the west side frontage road with a shared space pavement design to slow vehicle and bicycle traffic through these conflict zones. Council Direction Needed - (Attachment F) Option 1 Class IV bike trail on old railroad right-of-way. Option 2 Frontage Road as intended bike facilities, which includes shared space markings to clearly identify conflict areas. Option 3 Alternative Class IV bike path option at unsignalized intersections to minimize ped/bike conflicts with vehicles. OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS 8. Bike Crossing Options at 11 th Avenue - (Attachment G) Council Direction Needed Option 1 (Preferred Option) includes an extended island at the 11'h Avenue intersection and bike crossing to connect to bridge, continuation of separated bike trail on rail right-of- way to/from the south, and connection to bike route on Oleander using sharrow markings. (This option is contingent upon approval of Class IV bike path, as shown in Attachment F.) Option 2 Oleander as intended bike and pedestrian route, which includes Class IV bike path from Lindo Channel bridge to 10th Avenue, as well as sidewalk infill to provide continuous accessible route. Option 3 Oleander as intended bike and pedestrian route, which includes directing bikes and pedestrians to use easterly frontage road, as well as sidewalk infill to provide continuous accessible route. 9. High School Area Access and Safety - Attachment H a) Minor widening on the Chico High School side of Lincoln Avenue and West Sacramento Avenue for expansion of pick-up/drop-off frontage. b) Conversion of Lincoln Avenue to two-way traffic between Esplanade and Arcadian Avenue. c) Turnaround traffic circles at Lincoln Avenue/Arcadian Avenue and Sacramento Avenue/Magnolia Avenue. d) New traffic signal at Esplanade/West Sacramento Avenue. e) New northbound left-turn lane at Esplanade/Lincoln Avenue. f) Esplanade signal timing plan specific for school hours to favor access to/from Chico High School. 10. Esplanade to Memorial Avenue Accessibility - Attachment I a) New northbound/southbound left-turn lane on Esplanade at Memorial Way traffic signal as a short term mitigation. b) New roundabout at Esplanade/Memorial Way with full four-way access as a long term mitigation. State Parks Access and Use by the Public a) Reorientation of the west side frontage road to eliminate the connection to the State Park parking lot. b) The left-turn access and future roundabout at Esplanade/Memorial Way would preclude the need for traffic to enter the parking lot. Council Direction Needed Option 1 Future roundabout (long-term solution) with addition of south bound left turn lane as interim measure. Option 2 Add southbound left turn as full improvement (no roundabout). Option 3 Take no action. OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS 11. Other Options Considered - Attachment J To address concerns of the Council, staff and the consulting team explored a number of bike crossing options, both for the frontage roads as well as the bike facility within the old rail right of way. These options were explored, but not included in the proposed recommendations. Attachment B Existing Typical Intersections H N i I j i AU' ·ss»« «, .·. 24£,ijm; varkes 7' 12' 13' I 17· 1 12' 3. 10' 1 i2 28 44 | Parin, d./ . Wden LM 1 L. 1 1 1/,tlm 1 LAII Typical Unsignalized Intersection 16».$15.23/, .- 4 .d; k,y-r *,2,1:9 · j*k. -4*-'*''«2'' ,#t . -ail-7 1% :.... 32M rl*•. p-=16 -4.ill.1-·tilli 1 1 .".. walk #49 5.13 La,i +· 124/m 9. IM/ u 7 |- '_L.i.. 23]L/ne _ 0'R,St" Tu"9 4/8 Typical Signalized Intersection 900-17chi 2016.ai 3/16 EE Esplanade Corridor Study , Existing Typical Intersections 3-Trans j ¥... 1 1 1. 1 11. jr[ 16' I 8 vares iz' i 11. F iz'Bufrer 11 8'*did. I1 Lar' i .. | w.t . Esplanade/Memorial Way (Existing) 900-17chi 2016.ai 3/16 E Esplanade Corridor Study , Esplanade/Memorial Way - Existing 1W-Trans Attachment C Map of Existing Deficiencies .U E 0 Cr 11TH 10TH --- 10TH I. 9TH S C- tj 8TH 5 10 'IZ= 0 1 : 7TH CAPSHAW 5/ A 2 6TH 6TH tospit, * 1 ST'.L- M LEGEND Citrus Lackof ADA Ramps Avenue Insufficient Connection to ... 5 Elementary 3RD 11th Avenue Bridge D 2ND = m Missing fidewalk . 2ND Lack of Ped Xing SNnals, Insuffi(ient Green I Ime to Cross Esplanade Lackof Median Refuge Islands 0 HighestVolumeBilie Crossing ofVolumes Ped and SACRAMENTO _ Hgh School (ongestion WASHINGTON and Access Issues Chico Senior High School _ limited (apacity, 1.. Long Queue Inspire I .. LINCOLN'- BRICE Charter : t.« 2 * Lack atof High-DemandLeft-Turn Access Locations School FRANCES WILLARD : 9 . ..# Use of State Park Parking Lot ,/ k (9-12) 3 Z Limited Sight Distance LEGION r ® and Congestion 1Junior Chico High MANSION D ,<1 School 3 e 0 ' 0.125 0.25 ... "6- v Miles A*,000 -40*.- 46*044,< a 4 900-17chi 2016.ai 3/16 EsplanadeExisting Corridor Deficiencies Study 183'-Trans Attachment D Existing Collision Rates U LEGEND D C Collision Rate Compared to Average 11 TH Extremely 1§ghe[Thal > 3.0 Avewage 10TH H Significantly Z CS Above 1.5 - 3.0 1.0 9TH 0 Average III L.J LD Se A 1.0 -1.5 8TH 1.1 Average , J 1.0 Average 7TH Less Than Average < 1.0 . 5 ..1: & mt, # = ratio of collision rate + average rate W =' 6TH P'inloe'Mil Ju.. t- [email protected] 5 4% Ce'. --I = L. D Z 3*13 E t:j 24 4,6 4TH 1.1 Citrus Avenue @Elementary 3RD 1% 4.4Ell .t* '11= il*,24#Fll ND le L. d 15T 0, .:.C: r 5@ #.p'* - SACRAMENTO 9 = @54. Amp".M SACRAMENTO El.O -·, WASHINGTON Chico Senior High School 00 LINCOLN S Inspire 7- UNCOLN BRICE ; Charter -1, ' - j School 1 '-' FRANCES WILLARD e r Chico '.Junior High , MANSION School 3 0 0.125 0.25 I Miles 900-17chi 2016.ai 3/16 EsplanadeAll Collision Corridor Rates Study w-Trans 0 LEGEND 8 Collision Rate Compared to Average 11 TH /V Extremely C HigherThan I> 3.0 Average m 10TH H Significantly Above 3.1 9TH Average 1.5 - 3.0 LlJ 10.15 12.4 8TH Average S 2 *ge 1.0 4.4 7TH LeuAvarage Than < 1.0 E 2 # = ratio of collision rate + average rate U 6TH 'pinideospital - - 5TH 1.8 or S W 3% el /4% 4TH 4.4 *-1 q. Citrus Avenue EElementary 7.8 3RD 6 .1* 2ND CC 3:f 2ND 0 g 4.7 1ST rn 18:, -42#4, 5 5*ji :NE »-4 5.1,§61 SACRAMENTO SACRAMENTO 3.2 WASHINGTON .- : Chico Seni = , ?33 Yer#Pv .Em High School - - - ,% Inspire LINCOLN BRICE & Charter # I 23 NCOLN - 8 School FRANCES WILLARD™ 1 5 (9-12) * 4 . LEGION 0 Er < 7*.3-1 Chico 2.6 Junior High MANS]ON 2. 1 2- School ./ 0 ' ' 0.125 0.25 47' IMiles Al€40 cr 900-17chi 2016.ai 3/16 EsplanadeBicycle Corridor Collision Study Rates 1W-Trans LEGEND Collision Rate Compared to Average 1ZTH Extremely Hghe 1 1han > 3.0 10TH Avelage H Significantly Z Above 1.5 - 3.0 9TH Average U. Slightly 6.1 Above 1.0 - 1.5 8TH < Average 80 Average 1.0 w i 7TH lessThan Average < 1.0 5 72 U, 5 # = ratio of collision rate + average rate 6TH Inloe plospita . .„.**P„ 2 CC Z llc 34891 2 11'. 6 :4! 4TH I. Citrus Avenue @Elementary 3RD W CC 2ND litite 2ND (Fi lopt.i, 0 42 I. i* W 1ST '<**2 #Fa 8 f >*Hili - *181 SACRAMENTO SACRAMENTO .Fir#'ll#/64'- WASHINGTON := Chico Senkmii-iiv joj- 444; High School , 3* UNCOLI F Inspire ,_ UNCOLN BRICE F Charter 7 2. ; School .2 '"F FRANCES WILLARD (9-12) J Ng 1 7-& 4 «LEGION 41.. D ,.41. Chico 46 ,Junior High MANSION . 3, f- School 3 0 -3 0.125 0.25 - Miles 4*4'0 8/ U 900-17chi 2016.ai 3/16 EsplanadePedestrian Corridor Collision Study Rates <-Trans Intersection Magic VER 6.705 City of Chico, CA 03/28/2013 Intersection listing 01/01/2002 - 03/24/2013 Top 20 intersections with at least 1 accidents. Sorted by: Count (d) Name (d) CRate (d) Filter: ((Involved With = With Bicycle) 1 (Involved With With Pedestrian)) Rank Intersection Count Volume Rate 1 Nord Ave & W Sacramento Ave 28 26000 0 .263 2 E 8th St & Main St 13 24870 0 .127 3 East Ave & Esplanade 12 47022 0 .062 4 Cohasset Rd & East Ave 12 30640 0 .095 5 E 1st Ave & Esplanade 10 31000 0 .079 6 W 5th St & Walnut St 9 24000 0 .091 7 Park Ave & W 12th St 9 19000 0 .116 8 Nord Ave & Stewart Ave 9 21000 0 .105 9 Mangrove Ave & Vallombrosa Ave 9 30000 0 .073 10 Legion Ave & Warner St 9 8000 0 .274 11 East Ave & Pillsbury Rd 9 24000 0 .091 12 Esplanade & Rio Lindo Ave 8 16715 0 .117 13 Esplanade & Memorial Way 8 33000 0 .059 14 E 3rd Ave & Esplanade 8 22000 0 .089 15 Cohasset Rd & Esplanade 8 17568 0 .111 16 W 3rd St & Walnut St 7 21000 0 .081 17 W 1st St & Walnut St 7 22000 0 .078 18 Ivy St & W 2nd St 7 13000 0 .131 19 Esplanade & W Sacramento Ave 7 27000 0 .063 20 Columbus Ave & W Sacramento Ave 1 0 0 .000 Totals: 196 457815 Averages: 9.8 22891 0.104 Page: 1 Esplanade & W Sacramento Ave 1 18 Accidents (rate:0.16) 01/01/02 - 03/24/13 0 M 02/19/13 04/16/10 00 * 05/25/05 12/02/11-09/2 T" 07/06/07 C 10/28/11 A A A C\1 c) r- 2 8 94 2 A AG *8 448'*8 6 18 NE I = W SACRAMENTO AVE (cle@r filter), (4) ®*ents with insufficient data fqr *play __ 1 =*- Straight e Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: - Stopped <*v» Erratic X Bicycle o General D Pole +- Unknown INE=In-.-,(401:Init.1,11'11:1•1£•1•c,611•16];[•=;i•I•10:11,1,011*Ingl:!:St[,1011 BIKE/PED ACCIDENT Attachment E Pedestrian Crossing Recommendations -jaCIPL S. Dmi'/EA; /////////////10$1 iLmy... // ©hi ; 0 YJA/4,2 , 9 .aill'i 41* A i. AU., 4/52,1 ']4il #54'2 '7.6 - ,; :- AM ' ./ » *-'flim VP Zer i.' I Refuge Medians PUSH BUTTON FOR ADA Curb Ramp Pedestrian Pedestrian Signal Heads Push Buttons . k Vehicle Detection Enhanced signal timing plan to respond to vehicles, bikes, and pedestrian needs Off-Peak signal timing plan to simulate existing 28-mph free flow 900-17chi 2016.a] 3/16 EsplanadePedestrian Corridor Crossing Study Improvements W-Trans 3 lueluqoe#V 3 suogdo Bu!ssoJO e>1!8 Bu!ssoJO suogdo Option 1 - Preferred ly.. 3.*: M M. 5/..mp-'Ciar.k· Fi- M - 16, a '. , - 11*2 r 1 A, '.T - 'B . EL,14->i«3 ---'---..=A /08*e.*=.Te"iui.Z -mMes,". c: >"r - AU 14 - ////f. - PZ2 1/WH 6-11 06*1 -'195 1. ]7" 7 .,# . TI ' -.U 1 1 2. 1,1 1 .1 2.-1 ,«.1. f Li t L I ' i J.'21 f L , Pa,$,rE '.'*. Preferred Unsignalized Intersection 4 H t t{ -i Ii/tp.'-31%44*4 1 % 1. 4 :-*: f.' ,%15f.. 1 1 4 ,-.eSsifRAAA 1 1 r r »,In . . .:8 . ic .S ' i 12- 5' 12' 8 11· 11 7, J ... e ir 1 11. ir,%,,6 ir ,MI,1,/1 &* .. 1 ht„ 1 *.6 T Mrdlar, anr &.,1% 1 -I Preferred Signalized Intersection 900-17ch I 2016.ai 3/16 EsplanadeBike Crossing Corridor StudyRecommendations: Option 1 - Preferred 3W-Trans Option 2 r ir /3 r---a ¥5 1 -9146, - 43,= *.. i«#flilliu -*18.1 6ililifielit..ir.=, Rammaus# t-=&*u_ 28· 12 + 1 ... . = 14: /1 1 Z. 1 .1 1 .1 41.'1,=.1 ,1 1 2 1 Mi+1%!11 £.. p.„"i 1 ... Shared Space Unsignalized Intersection Note: Signalized intersection would have flush shared space pavement 900-17chi 2016.ai 3/16 c- Esplanade Bike Crossing Corridor Recommendations: Study Option 2 - Shared Space OnlyW-Trans Option 3 '61'. 1*41*1*El--/- 8-1 - : 14=a i I -* \ frilh M. 6 8 I WAY t.,ne 1.,oe 4dk,IT ieltT,i L.,0. l/.7 WI01,1 6 6%" W.i, Reoriented Unsignalized Intersections $ --I-- 1 - 4/ * 0-1 ./ . 9%4....0 i A U 1 * F- ** ., ..... f 4:39 ./ , .i"ll. f' -1 1 " 1- 7"12'13·,,7' 12 12 12 lin. W't' , *4'ng L Mp larr lan' i&/lia/ Wak Preferred Modification at Signalized Intersections 900-17chi 2016.ai 3/16 ,/LA: EsplanadeBike Crossing Corridor Recommendations:Study Option 3 - Mix of Reoriented/#F-Wr-760:15 Attachment G 11th Avenue Options Option 1 W-Trans B r .· iq..63.ill£44 „ Pr - L..pAE tmP 11 -, ' 412"' PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE MIXING ZONE:C - 9 2 /.9 1 - --ZI.=1=:C V 61 0 121 Avenue -1 1 c z. A 11 -4 ':11 1 -· 1 11 LEGEND .-I - 4-».7'a>.24-1 GREEN BACKED SHARROWS 17 'i . l -LIG'e ·eS:;\.*'.. 9 _ CLASS IV BIKE BOULEVARD 133 - BIKE CROSSING-TWO WAY 1 EXTENDED ISLAND 1 0 9- 1 V C 1 2 .Ik·: : LU L__ 1- 17 4% r Al Oth Avenue CE=3' td' .,<. &'.. 4, i - 1 1 9 13.-1 BIKE ROUTE MARKINGS 1-1 . i L..1 .3 .11 2 I L ..44 7- *1 1.21351»31 5: 1 2 - 41 ;' I . 111.j , '4, 1 ¢se * .,+ r-r <'142 334%71. 2 . '.« 0: '1": .., i *li-2 .j- 4 thz£- _ 7401 11 th Avenue Option 1 Esplanade Area Complete Street Plan (Preferred Connection) CHI900-17 3/10/2016 Option 2 W-Trans 97 . 315!"t'... ·0 ¥ '.D i" V.4 h .,r 1 ..1 PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE MIXING ZONE -3 11th Avenue ]3 .-22----- Ill 71 Cll T - LEGEND B GREEN BACKED SHARROWS ·· t * 4. 3/lie'Bili.t«:* S j] TWO WAY BIKE PATH '33*...... Ip BIKE CROSSING-TWO WAY C 8118[ BIKE CROSSING-ONE WAY -0 CO 6 EXTENDED ISLAND a: ' 0..016'.*#-.' r31 C ..fI! LU 8, i E 3 I'li.. =- 38 43 [53 os ...1*2. -,10th Avenue r, Al.- t. :- & 01'93 BIKE koUTE MARKINGS . 9..us "5/ 36- 4.4: ..4 99.1 4-6 4 : 44 . : - 42 1-- 6 11 51 16. 14*r.:.P , +*6 . : : I L<== 2.* :- , 3 Ihidaw, , Esplanade Area Complete Street Plan 11th Avenue Option 2 CHI900-17 3/10/2016 Option 3 183/-Trans 111 1 '' S **11. ' '1 - A , 54;i:f.1.'re. 71 1/02 fillililintlisilililllilillit ., ., , . ... .,-' 21 - U /Ki'PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE MIXING ZONE - .-, 21 i 4-. --4 -1. r' . -7 11th Avenue 7 r - ..-1 4 LEGEND b GREEN BACKED SHARROWS I BIKE ROUTE ON FRONTAGE ROAD 085:21 BIKE CROSSI NG-ONE WAY C 2 4% lf-_L j 5 8 48 r S3 91) i . 413. 10th Avenue -1-4 31. ·-· t'. IT. f .i, , ,4- f I<'6:FL ' BIKE ROUTE MARKINGS 1111 -«, 4* 4 1 \41, , :bil,/.1 7 L. 2 :/ 72,, . 1 i Ill - 41, 8: A c ' 4/1 2.-53/li -1 r. M,J. 411/1 1 ,,1Ar ' bL,.6 @Ba 1 / I... & '. #'A*f· Esplanade Area Complete Street Plan 11th Avenue Option 3 CHI900-17 3/10/2016 Attachment H High School Area Improvements ==11= SLI== 0='Est" '-'«·50=*ADD TRAFFIC SIGNALGU076FS - "Slis*. S 1==1·'7* W-Trans*1, «'.-f w CcramenL 27 e . , « W 8 0 0 9 11- col =S:Z=.- 42·45>2:/5 : - 4 -, 4/14't.il»'.:'ll·IL· .,?figaBL 7.4-1,dfi · «--131 Lf - -i i r :. -14 C c.*1 7 i*Av _ .»**» f:- il'': --n 13*ffitt'F: s-__i-.: . *r .----7-4-.NI 35',7- tyl''-ROUA61'880-1-14 41,>,5.'st ··.\944%* i '91DEN ' p.:r.....-*, 3 F6R·* = \ - - 5 *> -·3"D 11 ,1 1, ,11__1· 61 - 3.5' billy 15 ' f UL.. 4- , 1- a . .'. * ., :7.»* L * 1 - .7- 1-7 ' . u :2 _ .u,# - 1 3.7l 1, 1 £1'". . ..,WITH PARKING--=4 , ,-4> UGS= 0--f'«-4-4»St* 1-24*4% 1 *C'**1 16 5 :441*1'U,j/ MINI ROUNDABOUT . 5 ,*11·' 4.,1.., 2-j- '. 4,«'>*Vf,4%-*j*j» .,4 -''/''ffl 41.whi., --f'*4.614: 'r,ij, 3.-)3*)«474-]§ 114 :> . & h.'8 ''1.1. 0.5 5. 2 -Jr imil.+* .*-0.1 ·, - :9.1*f..p/6 ML _f . 5 -.-U 1 , . ' I. , Esplanade Area Complete Street Plan High School Access CHI900-17 3/21/2016 I jl.leu.14Oenv I suo!}do enueAV le!jouual/\1 enueAV suo!}do Option 1 p . *2•*:*-r'/9.- , :W l*. . .4 I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIA UlA\Will"'Fih-'&Iggefiliat.:2*tripi#.f.4'1 --#1/#St ©30 -46 1 44*"/41 24 _'1 1 13' '. 1 0 VaUl' 1 l'.c Wa# 8 + ' Mi,dial IMI ] - Gr - Esplanade/Memorial Way (with Roundabout) 900-17chi 2016.21 3/16 EsplanadeEsplanade/Memorial Corridor Study Way - Long-Term Alternative 'W-Trans Option2 / ...... dai....,1/9,0 iM im" *l ' .!4 1 4 * i"=* 3. -- '424 1%* AA 1 ,-n -:ru ... A 8-,.I . , 21* L , 31"7744# a 1 -a...t j 1 F ..4 ...... 1.2/1. Ar1e, E '1. , ; 12-'t]I 16 8' I .... I -- I -· 1 E-IS.1--- W/D' L"I MA= 1 L.ft Tlin -7--B.„,I , u..„ T *. 7 -4-Fw.,& Esplanade/Memorial Way (with North-South Left-Turn Lanes) 900-17chi 2016.ai 3/16 iki) EsplanadeEsplanade/Memorial Corridor Study Way - Short-Term Alternative 1W-Trans Attachment J Other Options Considered Original Concept Flush with Esplanade \.440 'k' 14 t Cru 1 #. f 1 ks - 7.60 New Preferred 3. Set Back Crossing Pushed Out Im--p-*- 0 ts- _ST /4.- with More Set Back ¥Ap nu .·* M_LK//Clf- -//U& , M 14 1/F 1 Pushed Out to Outer Flank b&*32* I . 1 - f / I. . de i - ---':Al. 1 f, -H, Reoriented Frontage Road 5%8/Al 900-17chi 2016.al 3/16 EsplanadeSeparated Corridor Bike Study Crossing Options W-Trans West Side East Side Do Do Nothing , ,€21/ Nothing , , :1 1 ur --- >in /311 Shared -/.1 pt t 1 . Shared Space Space 4 4 b ... A One-Way , . ----1Mllill One-Way Channelized Channelized 44 , -r,3-/// U Reoriented Reoriented Frontage Frontage Road Road ESILLiylui Al- M//1,7 1 , Separated Bike One-Way Two-Way Channelized (Signalized) ·Apel Separated Bike One-Way Two-Way Channelized i== (Unsignalized) 900-17chi 2016.ai 3/16 Esplanade Corridor Study Frontage Road Options 1«-Trans