HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/28/2023 Item 1, Cooper
From:Allan Cooper <
To:Fukushima, Adam; Advisory Bodies
Subject:Letter to the Active Transportation Committee
Attachments:302_27_23...lettertoatc.pdf
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear Adam -
Would you kindly forward the letter attached below to the
Active Transportation Committee? This letter pertains to
the Committee's February 28, 2023 review of Action Item
#1: Bicycle Riding on Sidewalks. We would also like this
letter to be placed in the City's Correspondence File. Thank
you!
- Allan
1
Save Our Downtown
_______________________________________________________________
Seeking to protect and promote the historical character, design,
livability and economic success of downtown San Luis Obispo.
To: San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Committee, Adam
Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager
Re: February 28, 2023 Meeting: Action Item #1: Bicycle Riding
on Sidewalks
From: Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown, AIA
Date: February 27, 2023
Dear Chair Russell Mills and Committee Members -
Apparently, nationwide there exists ample confusion regarding bicycling
on sidewalks. This problem is compounded by the fact that SLO has a
highly transient student population originating from all parts of the
country. With the imminent prospect of introducing high-density,
flexible zoning into Downtown, there will likely be a much larger
percentage of students and young professionals living downtown. Most
of this population, having been denied access to car parking, will
become more dependent on the bicycle for transportation. This will
further contribute to conflicts arising from sidewalk bicycling in the
Downtown core.
A clear signage program prohibiting sidewalk bicycling could be
feasibly incorporated into our Downtown as it would encompass a
relatively small area. What remains could be the police department’s
reluctance to issue a citation for violating this ordinance.The reason for
this is the recent passage of AB-3234 which renders most
misdemeanors in California unprosecutable should the violator opt for a
“diversion” (i.e., attending bicycle traffic school).
We continue to oppose sidewalk bicycling outside the Downtown core
for the following reasons:
1.Most separate, dedicated, multi-use paths are considerably wider
than the traditional sidewalk because they are designed to be
shared. Most shared use paths have a minimum width of 10 feet.
2.Walkers who wish to avoid in-line skaters and bicyclists should
continue to stay on pedestrian dedicated sidewalks. But what if
these sidewalks no longer exist once their use is now appropriated
by bicyclists?
3.One recommendation is to relegate bicycle accessed sidewalks to
long stretches of roadway where there are a minimum of curb cuts.
However the cyclist will be tempted to remain on these sidewalks
once they have transitioned into neighborhoods where frequent curb
cuts reappear.
4.Drivers backing out of a driveway may sometimes by necessity block
these shared-use paths in order to obtain sight of any on-coming
cars. Our City ordinance can cite a vehicle for blocking a bikeway.
5.Considerable expense is being allocated to the creation of dedicated
bikeways and to design these bikeways in such manner that the
bicyclist no longer feels threatened by fast moving traffic. Why would
we then “gild the lily” by supplementing these with sidewalk
bicycling?
Thank you!