HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/18/2021 Item 3, Otto
From:Garrett Otto <garrettotto@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday,
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:ATC Item 3 - Minor ped and bikeway improvements
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear ATC members,
Staff is recommending using the $100k pedestrian improvement fund for safety crossings. I like the idea of holding off
on spending the 100k for the pedestrian improvement fund in order to have enough money in case the bids are higher
than expected. The crossings listed in the staff report are all very important. Though this method starts to beg the
question of whether the CIP is budgeting enough for scheduled projects if this pool of money is always being syphoned
off to complete these projects. It may be better in the future to develop a contingency budget item for CIP projects so
this doesn't happen every year.
In regards to the request to use the remaining $92K to fund preliminary engineering study along Foothill, I am in
disagreement with this approach as I feel there are much more appropriate surplus budget funds that should be used to
address this pressing issue. A city that is truly committed to Vision Zero should not constantly require scrounge for
pennys in the small pocket change we are allocated. Some suggested areas for alternative funding sources could come
from the surplus police funding caused from several ongoing personnel/officers vacancies, or scrap/defer the BJT
lighting project and use those funds for more pressing safety issues on our roadways, or use surplus created from the
Anholm Greenway grant.
The police department has many vacancies including traffic safety officers which have funding allocated to those unfilled
positions. These vacancies should lead to excess unused budget that could be reallocated to these initial engineering
studies to determine how best to improve the Foothill corridor. According to the 2021-23 budget one officer costs the
City on average $166K per year. The savings from these vacancies could fund this initial study that would provide
infrastructure that would be cheaper and more effective at making the corridor safer than a police officer ever could.
Overall the money would be going toward public safety so we would still be achieving its originally intended purpose of
that money, but in a much more long term and tangible approach.
I would suggest that instead of trying to allocate the minor bikeway improvement budget, the ATC instead make a
recommendation to council for the mid-year budget review (early 2022) to reallocate the savings from these vacancies
to be used to develop preliminary engineering concepts and studies of the Foothill corridor instead of utilizing the small
amount of minor bikeway improvement funding that is much need to address other issues as it was intended.
With regards to the route to connect Sinsheimer and the RRST, I tend to use the bridge and DG path crossing the disc
golf course. Less frequently I will use the connections from the Blvd del Campo path. These seem to be pretty common
pathways for most people going to and from the park, but because the bridges are too narrow, bumpy, and paths have
degraded, it takes a skilled rider to navigate and is pretty much not accessible for kids riding, cargo bikes, or less skilled
1
riders. I'd recommend making these your focus desire routes for improving the path to make it more accessible and
equitable for all users. With the parking lot full of cars, it apparent that we need to encourage more active
transportation trips to the park
The area behind the school yard is also useful, but I only use that when I am not going to the park, and it tends to be
inconvenient when a Blues game is planned since they fill that area with cars.
Thanks for the consideration.
Garrett Otto
2