HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/30/2020 Item 2, Finger, T.
Wilbanks, Megan
From:Troy Finger <
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:ATC Communication
Attachments:Caltrans Class IV.pdf
I fully support the ATP goals of providing an enjoyable, better connected, more accessible active transportation network
connecting community members to employment centers, schools, and recreation. In order to accomplish these goals
and have more SLO residents riding bikes, this plan needs to prioritize projects for gap closures that will connect our
bike paths.
When my children rode their bikes to Laguna Middle School and SLO HS I told them to take the neighborhood streets
and bike paths and to avoid the busy streets. Also, 20 years ago I started riding my bike from SLO to work at Diablo
Canyon Power Plant. On my ride to/from work, I don’t like to ride on arterials (especially crossing driveways on South
Higuera), choosing instead to ride on the Bob Jones Trail where it exists. What my family needs is eliminating the small
gaps in the existing bike paths. I personally strongly request connection of the Bob Jones Trail from LOVR to Higuera so
that I can use it on my commute route. From personal experience, the addition of protected bike lanes with gaps for
intersections and driveways on Higuera, Broad and South streets (all along our routes) would not make them a safe
choice for them or me.
Since plan priorities are tied to a claim (that isn’t true for me) that SLO residents’ top request is protected bike lanes on
arterials, I looked into the plan’s claim and found fundamental errors with both the survey and the Level of Stress
analyses. The survey issues were actually shocking in how they misrepresented the results. On page 32, it states that
4,500 survey post card invitations were sent and that 709 residents completed the survey, but the 709 includes others
who did not receive the post card, so to divide 709 by 4,500 is not how to calculate response rate. I have learned that
over half of the responses were from others who did not receive the post card. The actual post card response rate is
thus around 7%, which is not a representative sample for a survey.
Another significant concern with the presented survey results is that the post card results should be evaluated
separately since they came from a randomly generated list. I have learned that when post card respondents’ surveys
were analyzed separately, the respondents’ most important bicycle improvement was “more trails and paths” and
that they requested trails/paths at almost twice the rate of protected bike lanes. This aligns with what I hear from
friends and family that I know who live in SLO. Many of them did not let their children ride to school because of the gaps
in a safe route to school and would have let them ride if there was a connected bikeway away from busy streets.
My concerns with the Level of Stress analysis are equally alarming. The existing shared use paths and neighborhood
greenways shown in Figure 3 should have been the low stress network that was analyzed for gaps. Instead, SLO’s bike
paths were left out of the analysis and key gap closures are missing from the Tier 1 project list. As shown in Figure 9 on
page 51, the analysis for stress levels and connections and gaps is only for roads and does not include SLO’s extensive
network of paths.
Another critical error is related to incorrect assignments for Level of Traffic Stress (LTS). As stated on page 49, collisions
in SLO have mostly been caused by motorists making an improper turning movement (26% right turn, 15% left turn, 8%
failure to yield). Adding Class IV bikeways to arterials with numerous driveways and intersections is not a good solution
for these types of collisions and will not result in low level of stress on these routes. In fact, it may increase the number
of collisions, especially among children and won’t be low stress for anyone riding a bike. I personally have almost been
hit numerous times at driveways along South Higuera, avoiding serious injury or fatal collisions by paying very close
attention for illegal behavior and taking desperate action to avoid the collisions. The plan clearly states on page 50, LTS 1
1
is the level suitable for children, LTS 2 is low stress with attention required that most adults will tolerate. Since arterials
with unprotected driveways are not comfortable for most adults, the ATP should list those cycle tracks as LTS3 or LTS4.
Not many parents would allow their child to use Class IVs on arterials with driveways (as shown in attached Caltrans
Class IV guidance photo) to bike to school. Yet LTS1 is the designation that the ATP gave to all of the Class IV bikeways
including Broad St across Marigold Center driveways and Higuera St. across Food 4 Less/Trader Joe’s driveways.
SLO’s active transportation plan needs to clearly present a plan to improve connections to the incredible sections of our
existing active transportation network addressing the gaps in SLO’s existing amazing pathways. Many of these projects
will be quick builds and will eliminate the only barrier for children and adults to ride on a truly low stress and enjoyable
route to school, work, and errands.
Thanks,
Troy Finger
2