The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4/11/2024 Item 2, Scott Greg Scott < To:Advisory Bodies Subject:Public comment for Agenda Item 2 for April 11, 2024 Active Transportation Committee Meeting This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear Active Transportation Committee Members, I read with disappointment in the agenda packet that the plans for the road diet on Grand Ave have been significantly modified because Cal Poly is concerned about peak traffic volumes during a select number of special events. I am a professor at Cal Poly and have been commuting by bike to campus nearly daily for over 12 years and strongly support the original plans for a road diet prior to the modifications requested by the campus administration. I fail to understand how reducing congestion for a few events is worth sacrificing the safety of the thousands of people who walk, cycle, and drive on Grand Ave on a daily basis. Cal Poly's own analysis acknowledges that a signalized intersection at Slack and Grand would relieve congestion sufficiently to allow the full road diet to be implemented. If this is true, then Cal Poly can simply put people out to direct traffic for those few special events that require them. A signal may be expensive, but staffing traffic control for special events would likely only cost the campus thousands of dollars a year, which seems like a very reasonable price to pay to keep us safe all year long. We lost one of our students to an incident on this street just a year ago. We should not be sacrificing major safety improvements that could save lives when the cost is potential vehicle congestion a few times a year that could be alleviated through other simple means at reasonable costs. If Cal Poly can staff people to wave cars through at the parking structure, surely they can staff a few people to wave cars through at Slack and Grand. It also appears that traffic calming measures at another major entrance to campus at Highland and Santa Rosa have been scrapped, but this time because of apathy on the part of residents in the area in returning surveys. I fail to understand why poor participation by residents on this survey will prevent moving forward with simple and effective means of improving safety in this area. I am not a resident of that area, but I bike it daily on my commute to campus after I drop off a child at Pacheco elementary and I strongly support implementing traffic calming measures on Highland near Santa Rosa. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people walk and ride through this area on their way to campus and their safety should not be sacrificed due to survey apathy by the local households. Sincerely, Greg Scott 1