HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/30/2020 Item 2, Curry
Wilbanks, Megan
From:barbara curry <
To:CityClerk
Subject:Re: Comments re SLO Active Transport Plan
Attachments:Comments SLO Active Transportation Plan and Bike Network.pdf
Please replace the original copy of my comments with this updated version. The prior version left out a word that could
change the meaning of my point.
Thank you.
B. Curry
On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 7:40 AM CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> wrote:
Thank you for your input. It has been conveyed to Active Transportation Commitee and added to the Agenda
Correspondence record for the upcoming meeting.
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk’s Office
City Administration
City Clerk's Office
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
E cityclerk@slocity.org
T 805.781.7100
From: barbara curry <
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 4:56 PM
To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org>
Subject: Comments re SLO Active Transport Plan
1
Please see attached.
B. Curry
2
To: SLO ATP Committee, SLO City Council
Subject: Concerns and comments regarding SLO ATP
Having carefully read and considered the objectives outlined in the SLO Active Transportation Plan, I
submit the following concerns. Considering the plan’s stated objectives, along with the approach and
proposed initial bike lane solution, I believe the following points merit careful consideration before a
plan is adopted and implemented.
1.Methodology
The survey methodology erroneously combines responses to postcard requests, presumed to be
distributed randomly, with on-line survey results from parties who might have vested interest
enough to seek out the survey. This will most certainly not comprise an unbiased response
group representing the diverse constituency of San Luis Obispo, therefore thwarting the intent to
develop a community-wide driven solution.
2.Involvement of diverse community members
I am uncertain of how economically disadvantaged people, often people for whom English is not
first language, were included in the community-driven discussion of solutions. Safety and cost of
transportation might figure even more prominently in this group’s priorities.
From an observer’s perspective, many groups, across socioeconomic strata, would share interest
in safe transportation for children to K-12 schools. However, language and technology issues
often preclude groups of people from accessing and responding to surveys.
3.Best practices
If national best practices were studied and point to tested, effective strategies for improving
active transport trips via bike and foot, these should be cited early in the plan. While there may
be evidence to suggest highly visible bike lanes, on major thoroughfares, are irrefutably effective
at increasing biking/walking, I did not see the evidence.
4.Efficiency, Cost, and Safety
Building a new bike lane system, consolidated onto a few major thoroughfares, seems to defy
many of the plans overarching objectives including efficiency, cost, and safety.
Efficiency implies using the least resources to accomplish the task, or using the resources
available to their best possible end. Reducing surface area dedicated to driving and/or parking
cars on major thoroughfares can inconvenience transportation by car, surely not an objective of
the plan.
Bikes sharing the same busy thoroughfares as cars does not mesh with the objective of
enjoyable, low-stress, and safest possible, bicycle transport.
The cost of building the proposed bike-lane network will surely be greater than modifying and
adapting current well-used bicycle routes. See attached figure. The cost efficiency
of alternative routes should also be analyzed and presented for public comment.
5.Community destination and equity
The plan purports to address issues such as transportation from affordable housing complexes
to places of employment and popular community destinations. I suggest that the popular
destinations identified in the report such as Lucy’s Coffee Shop, Lincoln Deli, and Cal Poly, may
represent skewed responses particular to a certaindemographic, are not employment centers,
and perhaps don’t meet the intent of the plan.
Providing bicycle routes to employment centers and schools would seem to be the most likely
avenues to increasing bike rider-ship. Safe, convenient bike transportation can reduce
household costs for the most economically disadvantaged families, and represent a large
proportionate savings for these households.
From a parental standpoint, convincing parents to advocate that their children ride on major
thoroughfares, even with a dedicated bike lane, would be an uphill battle. Encouraging and
promoting bike-riding among children establishes life-long behaviors that can spread to older
generations and future generations and could easily help the city increase ridership and meet
the 20%/18% active transport goal laid out in the plan. Creating a plan that will be
enthusiastically embraced my more parents, could be the best route to meet overall active
transport goal.
.¢:
�
�
� .. -.I!� �'L
....... , ""
Cillifom, Polytechnic State Unlverslty
\
--Bicycle/Pedestrian Access
� Greenway O Blcyc'8/Pedestrian Grade-
[ -] School -Rail
-Park or Open Space --Trails�-----•-� ,..----=--
0