HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/19/2022 Item 6i, McElvenyI'm writing to you in hope that the City of San Luis Obispo will reconsider the pedestrian facility type
at the South Street/King Street crossing project. As aornaona that uaaa this crossing daily, especially
to bring my children to school at Hawthorne, | strongly suggest revising the proposed crossing bza
signal or at least a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB). This is favored by neighbors and other
community members that also utilize the crossing for the following reasons:
1. The proposed RRFB does not seem to assert the imperative for traffic to stop. This is noticed
throughout the city atother RRFBcrossings.
2. Providing a signal or a PHB will hopefully provide a better flow of traffic as the 7:45 -8:15
school drop-off window could cause a complete shutdown of South Street during that window
aaanRRFBdoes not operate onsignal cycles.
3. Aatudy ra|aaaad by the FHVVA in 2010 noted that there is a higher yielding rata for PHB
signals opposed to RRFBs and that results support the use of a PHB on roadways with
multiple lanes or a wide crossing as driver yielding at RRFBs were significantly lower for
wider crossings.
4. Finally, the MUTCD provides graphs as guidance on when to consider a PHB, these graphs
indicated a 20 pedaatrian/h threshold. Note that South Street at King has more than 30
pedaatriana/hduring peak periods.
The {}hv of San Luis Obispo is making great athdaa in creating safer bicycle and pedestrian paths
throughout the city |irniL VVawant the 8L(}C(}G funds promised to be utilized on the improvement
and executed to the highest level possible to keep the spirit of safety in the forefront.
Thank you for considering this request,
Garret MoEkeny