HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/16/2022 Item 3, Otto
Delgado, Adriana
From:Garrett Otto <garrettotto@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:ATC 2/16/2022
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear Active Transportation Committee members,
I am excited to see the proposed plans for South Higuera and the Prado Creek Bridge. This will be a huge
improvement to an uncomfortable and unsafe corridor for cyclists. As you consider the proposed plans, the alternatives,
and questions staff have, I offer these comments and recommendations. I am following the question numbers presented
in the agenda packet:
1. Narrow Protected bike Lanes or Buffer Bike Lanes - I would opt for the narrower protected bike lanes. Without vertical
delineators I would still feel uncomfortable riding this corridor. I know that this may mean that it will be harder to find
passing opportunities on my bike, but right now I refuse to ride this corridor with my son and evening times. The goal is
to encourage more riders of all abilities and buffers alone will only marginally attract some riders. Buffers alone will not
make me feel comfortable enough to ride this corridor at certain times of day though I am a strong and experienced
rider.
I also hope that this will be considered the intim quick-build solution while we look for a more robust and permanent
solution such as sidewalk level cycle tracks between Prado and Surban.
2. Narrower vehicular lanes - If this is the only method to add physical protections in the quick-build approach, then yes.
Narrower lanes may have the additional benefit of slowing traffic. However, I would urge the ATC to recommend looking
into also including a road diet between Prado and Tank Farm (or at least to Hind) even though it's at the threshold for
the road diet. If the City Council is willing and emergency response times are not overly impacted I think a road diet
would make this segment way more comfortable and slow vehicle speeds to a much safer speed than they currently are.
I think a road diet in this section could be done in a "pilot project" manner such that the road diet is stripped with more
temporary methods and evaluated for 6 months to see actual traffic impacts. If they are shown to be overly impactful,
then the temporary markings are adjusted to the configuration that is represented in the plans for this segment. This is
where the quick-build approach should allow for more flexibility to push the boundaries (or thresholds in this case).
3. Tank to Suburban - I am in support of the Quick-Build Alt 1 approach to ensure the project is installed in a timely
manner. I would also recommend that planning, engineering, and easements still move forward for the Alternative 2B
off-street approach as the more permanent next phase.
Suburban to LOVR - Similar to comments above. Keep the quick-build alternative to keep the project on track, but keep
engineering as to implement the more robust, permanent solution in the near future.
1
4. Madonna Jug Handle - I am impressed with this idea. I was curious to see a proposed solution and think this is a good
approach for the rider who is less comfortable taking the lane. I think this should be included as part of the project.
5. Pedestrian circulation - Crossing improvements to cross Higuera at Elks is necessary, which I think was mentioned is
being implemented as part of the Prado Creek project. If there is a way to slow vehicles turning onto Elks from S.
Higuera, I think this will also be helpful since vehicles currently take this corner at high speeds. Maybe a "hardened
centerline" on Elks would help.
Crossing improvements at Bridge would also be helpful such high-vis crosswalk with rapid flashing beacons.
Thank you to staff and the design consultant for putting together a well thought out plan and alternatives. I love seeing
this project come to life. Keep it up. And thanks to the committee for considering my comments.
Garrett Otto
San Luis Obispo
2