HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/8/2020 Item 20, Flickinger (2)
Wilbanks, Megan
From:Sarah Flickinger <
To:E-mail Council Website
Cc:CityClerk
Subject:City Council Comment Flickinger 2 of 2- Agenda Item 20 - Equity Discussion for
Recreational Users
Sarah Flickinger
sarah@flickimc.com
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
emailcouncil@slocity.org
cc: cityclerk@slocity.org
December 8, 2020
Good evening Council Members:
Thank you for your careful consideration and oversight of the ongoing update to the Active Transportation Plan, agenda
item 20. This is my second of two comments for you this evening. This one focuses specifically on equity, and the
importance of creating healthy active transportation connections of all types throughout the City. Fully connected Class
1 trails and neighborhood greenways should not be reserved for some neighborhoods, with only on-arterial pathways
available in others. These can be a primary, easy, healthy, longer-trip connector between neighborhoods or for travelling
longer distances within a neighborhood. The Healthy Communities Working Group at HEAL SLO – Healthy Eating Active
Living SLO can be a great resource for more information about health equity in community planning and circulation. I
wear a lot of hats—one of those is as a Disabled person who is active in advocacy around inclusion and universal design.
Something about the prioritization of projects, particularly when looking at the planned improvements maps, was off,
but I couldn’t quite put my finger on why it felt that way to me during their discussions. Thomas Arndt and Lea Brooks
both touched on equity during the ATC’s discussions. The tier rankings and the data upon which they are based also
came up several times. The data is the justification for the prioritizing. But that data lacks an equity metric, which Mr.
Arndt so articulately pointed out. In the absence of this metric, you have data that focus on the primary demographic
who responded and/or was targeted by inquiries, and your resulting conclusions are likewise skewed. Which, ultimately
led to a prioritization list and map of planned improvements that reflected a lack of equity.
A demonstrably representative sample of riders and would-be riders and walkers and would-be walkers (or mobility
device users) as well as a metric relating to equity concerns could significantly alter the types of facilities, particularly the
types of facilities as they relate to the parts of the city which they will most commonly serve. While safe, accessible on-
street facilities should be the norm throughout the City to provide multi-modal access from within neighborhoods and
from inter-neighborhood trails to destinations, a balance of recreational and longer-trip-oriented Class 1 trails
connecting the various neighborhoods is also important, particularly in how it serves recreation needs in otherwise
underserved (and underrepresented in modal shift) segments of the population.
The facilities in a neighborhood need to meet the needs of the demographics in that neighborhood to achieve the
desired modal shifts. Where do individuals in a particular neighborhood want/need to go? How do the facilities available
influence their mode choice? In lower income areas, class 4 routes on arterials are dominant in the existing planned
1
update and therefore receive Tier 1 ranking. I could see that just looking at the map that was up as the end discussions
were occurring.
However, it is in these areas that health equity is a concern, especially recreation opportunities and access to health
care. These neighborhoods have fewer parks, smaller—if any—yards or outdoor spaces. They have poorer air quality
and higher noise (which contribute to higher blood pressure, among other health concerns). Do they have the
income/space for bikes with which to commute? Or income sufficient to maintain them? What programs are in place to
support their needs to adopting modal shift, particularly for commuting? How will being limited to on-street facilities
along heavily trafficked arterials impact health/well-being and modal shift objectives?
And so, this is where an equity metric can be helpful. Looking at the map segments/connections proposed and assigning
them an equity metric based on the extent to which they will serve:
- Minorities
- People with Disabilities (limb difference, sight difference, hearing difference, Deaf, those with asthma, those
with severe allergies and so many others). Oftentimes, the demographics are a reflection of a lack of health
equity in community development, and therefore should be prioritized.
- The elderly
- Seniors (seniors and the elderly are broken into two groups purposefully here)
- Socio-economically disadvantaged community members
- Unhoused community members
- Children / Safe Routes to Schools for all schools in the community
Cross-referencing with neighborhood demographics and metrics related to housing density and traffic volume during
commute hours is helpful.
In 2020, incorporating an equity metric is more important than ever, and the lack thereof seems to be evident in many
of the community reactions / comments / concerns, even if they don’t know to name it that. I wouldn’t have named it
that until Mr. Arndt pointed out the lack of an equity metric; then it was easy to look at the map and see the correlations
between community health equity and concerns relating to facilities at the local neighborhood level.
It’s hard because we can’t step out of our own experiences. As a person with a disability (a couple, in fact), I HATE riding
on arterials. I do it because there is a lack of connection among off street or low volume street connections and I am a
confident rider, but at times it has had serious impacts on my health. I ride for my health, but when that riding also
deteriorates my health because the facilities are lacking or are physically unsafe for my body, it becomes discouraging,
and could lead to riding less than I otherwise would. Sure, you need on-street facilities for neighborhood connection, but
when it comes to inter-neighborhood / “island” connection, that’s where off-street facilities have an opportunity to
shine. Encouraging larger movements off arterial roadways also supports motor vehicle users’ needs to some degree
(though all streets should be inclusive, welcoming and safe for all modes), bringing them along with the changes in a less
confrontational way. Class 1 trails can be maintained in a safe way. And, when they are connected, they naturally have
more usership, which encourages safety even more.
Adding an equity metric could significantly shift they types of facilities is certain areas of the city, and that is absolutely
something that should happen. Thank you for appointing Mr. Arndt who noticed this, and thank you for your
consideration of including equity in this plan as it moves forward and continues to improve.
Sincerely,
Sarah Flickinger
805-215-2561
2