Option
Description
Advantages
Disadvantages
1. Proposed Plan: Road Diet from California Boulevard to Soscol Avenue • Convert the roadway to a three-lane configuration (road diet) with one through lane in each direction and a center two-way left-turn lane • Add turn pockets at intersections
• Retime traffic signals to optimize corridor operations • Provide wider, continuous bicycle lanes, including bollard-protected lanes near the high school and a parking-separated segment along the south side of one block between the railroad and Soscol Avenue • Community feedback resulted in eliminating parking near the high school and adding buffers and width to separated parking located west of Soscol Community feedback also resulted in additional traffic engineering analysis conducted by an outside traffic engineering firm • Demonstrated effectiveness in improving traffic safety • Traffic-calming measure intended to reduce vehicle speeds • Addresses pedestrian safety concerns associated with crossing multiple travel lanes (“double-threat” condition) • Consistent with General Plan and Bicycle Plan policies supporting “low level of traffic stress” bicycle facilities • Incorporates design modifications in response to community concerns regarding parking-separated bicycle lanes near the high school • Supported by additional traffic analysis and simulation conducted by traffic engineering consultant • Aligns with feedback from community members who praised the proposed plan for prioritizing traffic safety and multimodal improvements • Increased average travel time of up to 30 seconds through the project area (Soscol to California) during peak traffic, which occurs in the morning between 8:00 am and 9:00 am • Ongoing community concern regarding potential traffic congestion • Some community members may view the plan as not fully addressing concerns related to parking-separated bicycle lanes
2. Maintain Existing Lane Configuration from California Boulevard to Jefferson Street; Road Diet from Jefferson Street to Soscol Avenue • Retain the existing lane configuration between California Boulevard and Jefferson Street, with pedestrian crossing enhancements to highlight crosswalks • Retime traffic signals to optimize corridor operations • Implement a three-lane road diet and bicycle improvements between Jefferson Street and Soscol Avenue • Retains road diet safety benefits and General Plan/Bicycle Plan consistency for low level of traffic stress bicycle facilities on the eastern portion of the project • Average travel time savings on the western portion of the corridor compared to Option 1 • May be perceived by some community members as partially responsive to congestion concerns • Does not extend road diet safety benefits to the western segment of the corridor, including the area near the high school • Shorter extent of low level of traffic stress bicycle facilities • Potential for slightly increased delay east of Jefferson Street to optimize overall corridor signal timing • Likely will not fully address community concerns regarding traffic operations and parking-separated bicycle lanes • Likely will not fully meet expectations of community members who praised the proposed plan for prioritizing traffic safety and multimodal improvements
3. Maintain Existing Lane Configuration from California Boulevard to Soscol Avenue • Retain the existing lane configuration throughout the corridor • Provide minor pedestrian crossing enhancements with more paint and signs at crosswalks • Retime traffic signals to optimize operations
• Likely viewed as responsive by community members concerned about congestion and parking-separated bicycle lanes • Signal retiming may provide limited operational benefits • Does not implement the road diet traffic safety countermeasure and associated improvements • Does not meet General Plan and Bicycle Plan objectives for low level of traffic stress bicycle facilities • Will not meet expectations of community members who praised the proposed plan for prioritizing traffic safety and multimodal improvements Lincoln Avenue Project
Options considered and reviewed based on community feedback:
ATTACHMENT 2