Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/21/2021 Item Public Comment, SchmidtSeptember 21, 2021 Dear Council Members, I have written many times urging you to back off from rushing into building the adopted idiotic Anholm Greenway plan, and — while you can still do it right — to do it better, for both residents' and bicyclists' sakes. So here goes another time, on another theme. The wholesale removal of needed residential parking in the Broad/Chorro corridor is unconscionable, but I sense Council are lulled into complaisance by staff's siren songs rather than taking a look for themselves and studying the reality of the mess the city's planned action will create.' The fact, as I have pointed out repeatedly, that this parking removal is unnecessary to provide for bicyclist comfort makes the planned parking removal all the more reprehensible. Enough words. Take some looks. 1 This epistemological distinction is beautifully described by the Puritan preacher Thomas Hooker. "There is great ods betwixt the knowledge of a Traveller, that in his own person hath taken a view of many Coasts, past through many Countries, and hath there taken up his abode some time, and by Experience hath been an Eye -witness ... ; and another that sits by his fire side, and happily reads the story of these in a Book, or views the proportion of these in a Map. The ods is great, and the difference of their knowledge more than a little: the one saw the Country really, the other only in the story; the one hath seen the very place, the other only in the paint of the Map drawn." This is the 100 block of Broad on a typical recent morning. Note, this was summer when student residents were absent. With the greenway, no parking will exist on the right side. This photo shows an unusually low parking density on the right side, some people having already gone to work, and many student residents being absent for the summer. There's clearly inadequate resident parking space on only one side of the street. Moving north a bit, on a different day, into the 0-100 block, note the number of resident cars on the right side, but the left is parked up, so where will they go? The remainder side of 0-100 block is already fully parked. And note this is with driveway use. Several of the affected blocks of Chorro have similar resident parking densities. This is Ramona, where the entire right side will have no parking. Where will all these cars park? Note the crosswalk to the Village, whose warning lights have been inoperative for many years due to city indifference, and where a bulbout that reduces the street width the frail elderly must cross will be removed to serve a dubious number of cyclists confined within a dangerous two-way cycle track. This is propagandized as a "safe route to school," but it's anything but safe. Now please think about what's pictured above. Is it not obvious that with parking removed on one entire side, plus additional removal on the remaining side for promised "green street features" residents have yet to have sprung on them, that there's NOT ENOUGH PARKING LEFT TO MEET RESIDENT NEEDS? That this looming problem is 100% due to the city's taking an ill- conceived unnecessary action? How do you suppose this is going to go down? Staff says there's no problem -- more cars can park in driveways. Here's how that already works on Broad when street parking's parked up: Third car's entirely in public right of way. Is blocking sidewalks with "more driveway parking" really a solution? I sense the Council just isn't thinking about these issues. Why is it CK to sacrifice the livability of a nice older neighborhood to provide substandard unsafe cycle tracks that aren't necessary to provide cyclist comfort through this neighborhood? Do you not understand the hugeness of the blowback you're going to get? That focused anger from these particular actions, added to widespread discontent with lesser measures popping up all around town, will present a potent threat to the future of your bicycle facility program? And that this neighborhood -wide insult is totally unnecessary as well as unwise? Why risk that outcome by sticking with a plan that is more dangerous for bicyclists than the status quo,Z and could not be more pointedly designed to alienate and harm residents? Z Per public records request, police department reports zero bike -vehicle accidents on these residential streets in 5 -year period. Experts state cycle tracks crossing driveways are highly dangerous and tracks ought not be built in such locations; thus a learn -by -doing staff design ignores the safety admonitions of international cycling design experts and actually creates greater cyclist danger than exists today by building cycle tracks in an inappropriate location. The city's focus is all wrong when it comes to bike safety. In about 2 years we've seen 2 cyclist fatalities on Foothill at the northern Anholm greenway terminus — 2 fatalities in one block!!! THAT is where your safety concerns should be focused, not on side streets. And the latest fatality leaves blood on the City's hands, as the City allowed a developer to appropriate the sidewalk, bike lane and one of two traffic lanes on Foothill, forcing bikes and traffic into a single lane where the cyclist was killed. Why would anyone ever think that was safe? Your response, or continued lack of response, will say much about how much the city really cares about the welfare of its residents. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt PS. And don't forget that the state's usurping local zoning will only add to on -street parking needs!