Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/19/2026 Item Public Comment, Gruman 2026 10:02 AM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Comments on draft Vision Zero Action Plan 20 January 2026 San Luis Obispo City Council 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear council members and mayor, I wanted to comment on the proposed Vision Zero Action Plan, given that the council is due to make a decision in a few months on it. I reside in the Bishops Peak area of SLO, and I am an avid recreational cyclist, riding largely with the SLO Bicycle Club both within SLO and in other county jurisdictions, covering about 110 miles each week on bike. I also drive my car within the city as well as in other jurisdictions for shopping, appointments, and the usual errands. Previous to moving to SLO in 2022, I lived in San Francisco, which had a similar Vision Zero program (though it’s had very mixed results, given the greater congestion and limited space). SLO is fairly bike-friendly, and I appreciate the efforts to make it safer for cyclists. I also appreciate some of the efforts directed at safeguarding car and pedestrian traffic, given that transportation is multimodal yet shares common infrastructure for the very large part, so few actions can be done in a vacuum. To date, the efforts feel somewhat disjointed and sometimes contradictory and confusing. Having a comprehensive plan can remedy that situation, of course. Some of my suggestions to the issues I identify below are in the Vision Zero recommendations (page 14), and I concur with their use broadly, not just in the areas I note. It would be good for the city to provide updated stats on the various trends, as the ones in the report are several years old. Are things worse, better, or the same given interim efforts? Specifically, where have specific, often controversial actions like protected (barrier-separated) bike lanes, speed humps, and greenway markings reduced, made no difference to, or increased risk? As far as I can tell, the SLO Bicycle Club is not involved in the Vision Zero plan; certainly it is not a topic of our meetings or internal communications. We do have a ride safety coordinator who gives members advice, but I don’t think he advises the city or county on such matters, at least not in his SLOBC capacity. I say that to make it clear my comments are my own, not the club’s, and to suggest that involving groups like the SLOBC could be helpful. Thank you for your consideration. Galen Gruman 196 Craig Way, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 slogalen@icloud.com Protected and buffered bike lanes The protected bike lanes make me nervous as a rider, because I feel trapped in them and fear difficulty in escaping should there be a sudden issue encountered such as significant debris. I also worry about the entry/exit points particularly at intersections where vehicles may not see me especially at turns. But it’s clear from multiple studies that these protected lanes do decrease serious injury, even if the number of accidents doesn’t seem to be reduced consistently. What I would advise is greater care in addressing the risk points of such lanes. For example, the two-way segments such as on North Chorro are quite narrow, making passing difficult. Unlike with a painted barrier, the physical barriers require cyclists keeping themselves a few inches from the barrier, in effect narrowing the navigable space. Also, having to cross the street to and from them can also increase risk. I suspect the two-way segments are in place to limit the loss of parking, which is sensible, but perhaps when they are truly necessary more width can be allocated. The effects of protected bike lanes, whether one-way or two-way, on parking are far from trivial, and they antagonize neighborhoods. It may make sense to favor the use of protected lanes on wider streets such as those in the high-injury network where residential parking is not usually an issue. I realize that there is just so much room available. It may be better in some cases to use buffered lanes instead, as they take less width than protected lanes. I suggest more attention be paid to the markings for protected bike lanes, especially where they begin. As an example, consider the left turn from Peach Street onto Broad Street: It’s easy to not see the little pole that marks the start of the bike curb. I’ve seen several cars not realize it 1 marks a bike lane and so when they are turning and keep right to stay safely away from the median they inadvertently drift into the bike lane, where they do not fit. Visitors must wholly confused! At that location, a greenway stripe across the intersection would help. Likewise, the right turn from Pepper onto Monterey is another example where a bicycle or car could miss the physical separation of the protected bike lane segment. And the greenway striping that does exist there starts at then pole, so there is no anticipatory warning for either cyclists or drivers of the going split. By contrast, there is such an anticipatory striping at Cuesta where the greenway crosses Foothill to the south. Giving cyclists and drives anticipatory markers before hard barriers and other transitions should be the norm. While drivers and cyclists need to stay alert and not be on auto-pilot, it is dangerous to make proper flow a guessing game. Variations should be few, and behavioral consistency should be sought. The protected lanes downtown are a vexing case. I understand putting the protected bike lane between the parking and the sidewalk was mean to shield bikes from cars and from unexpectedly opened car doors. But bikes are much less visible as a result. People going from their cars to the sidewalk are not used to looking for vehicles on their right, and so bike-pedestrian crashes are more likely. These protected bike lanes alongside parking spaces also are difficult for wheelchair users to navigate. At intersections, because the bikes are largely out of view, drivers don’t see them easily when the cars turn right or when the bikes turn left — cyclists and pedestrians also have less visibility. I avoid these cycling in these downtown protected lanes because they do not feel safe to me, though I acknowledge that various studies show they result in less serious injury even if perhaps not in fewer accidents. There’s a lot going on in these corridors, and perhaps it would be better to route cyclist through-traffic on parallel roads that have less traffic. Thus, cyclists who passthrough downtown can avoid the high-congestion areas, while those who are going to and coming from destinations in the downtown corridor can use the existing protected bike lanes there. Interestingly, that thought is hinted at in general terms on page 15 item 9 of the Vision Zero Draft Plan — take it further! Another form of protected lane is of the type seen on Los Osos Valley Road at the Froom Ranch intersection; the bike lane shifts off the roadway and moves to become adjacent to the sidewalk, then rejoins roadway after the intersection. Unfortunately, these diversions signal tiger car drivers that the bikes are no longer on the road, removing them from the driver’s attention. That can become a problem. When cars turn right and bikes don’t as the ligatures green. I would avoid such diversions for that reason, relying instead on protected and buffered bike lanes. Where these diversions do exist, more timing separation is needed than currently provided. The simplest approach may be to install an on-demand bike call button on both sides of LOVR at that intersection, which would freeze car traffic in all four directions while the bicycle signal is on. Right now, there is a bike call button on LOVR going northwest, but there is no corresponding bike signal; it instead calls the pedestrian light, which is confusing to cyclists, who typically wait until the car light is green even though legally they could proceed when the pedestrian light illuminates. More confusing, there is no call button for cars or pedestrians on the southeast-bound side, so bikes and pedestrians have no safety margin to proceed — and there are far more right-turning cars from LOVR southeast-bound to worry about. Madonna Road has a variation of this diversion approach, routing bikes into a shared sidewalk for several blocks. The bike lane is so far in that cars wanting to exit can’t easily see the street traffic, so they pull up over the bike lane to look, blocking travel. That situation will get worse as the trees planted between the bike lane and the roadway grow and block the visibility further. The bike lane should be on or adjacent to the roadway shoulder. I do strongly encourage the use of buffered bike lanes wherever possible, especially on busy streets where protected lanes are problematic. As an example, Johnson Avenue has some now, but it inconsistent; ditto for Orcutt Road. South Higuera Street, Broad Street, and Tank Farm Road could use them, as could Sacramento Drive, for example. Roundabouts The roundabouts throughout the city are inconsistent and confusing for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians alike. Some follow the traditional behavior of requiring all vehicles to yield as they enter, some have stops signs along one axis but not the other, and some have no behavioral indication (usually the small ones whose role seems to be about slowing traffic rather than managing traffic flow). It’s confusing! In the roundabouts near my home, at Cerro Romauldo and Patricia and at North Tassajara and Cerro Romauldo, cars simply speed through the roundabouts in the directions that have no yields or stops, making it dangerous for the cyclists and pedestrians. They don’t even slow down. And these are areas with lots of school kids because of the two schools and a neighborhood park! I’ve observed the same behavior on Palm Street east of Santa Rosa. The National Association of City Transportation Officials’ design guidelines say that all roundabout entrances should be yields. SLO should follow these guidelines, not have variable approaches that drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians can too easily misunderstand or misconstrue. Where roundabouts are used for traffic calming rather than traffic flow, switching to speed hums would accomplish the same goal in a way that is behaviorally consistent. Everyone follows the same rules and doesn’t have to wonder what the other person will or can do. Some of our larger roundabouts have diversions that route bikes off the roadway into a separate lane or into a shared pedestrian walkway. When a bike leaves the roadway, car drivers stop monitoring it. Then suddenly the bike is back on the roadway when both the bike and car are at speed. Or the bike is now crossing the road onto which cars are turning — again, after the bike left the roadway and thus the drivers’ focus. Please keep a bike lane/shoulder in these larger roundabouts. I have noticed that some of the roundabouts such as at Tank Farm and Orcutt that have those bike diversion paths later added roadway signage that says bikes can stay on the roadway rather than divert out and back in. I think that shows some understanding that the diversions are problematic for at least faster cyclists. For future large roundabouts, a wider roadway in the traffic circle to accommodate the bike shoulder, and the concomitant narrower diversion path, should make roundabout size the same. On SLO roundabouts, the situation is worsened because the exit locations for both cyclists and pedestrians is usually right after the roundabout curve (at a virtual corner), when cars have decided it is safe to enter the roundabout. Then, bam, there’s a bike or pedestrian. In Europe, 2 pedestrian crossings are not so close to the roundabout curve/corner, providing some safety distance; the city should consider something similar, even though it does double the number of wheelchair ramps needed at these intersections. Crosswalks Many streets that have sidewalks do not have crosswalks for pedestrians. More should, especially in neighborhoods with schools, parks, and shops. Crosswalks are especially lacking at roundabouts, where they would help remind drivers that pedestrians exist. It’s also unclear on many streets exactly where pedestrians should cross; the roundabout at North Tassajara and Cerro Romauldo is a great example of this ambiguity. As previously noted, our roundabouts tend to place the wheelchair ramps at the virtual corners, putting pedestrians directly into the roundabout roadway where cars have resumed travel after the pre-roundabout entry pause. It’s also hard for pedestrians to know whether a vehicle in the roundabout will stay in the roundabout or exit into the path of the pedestrian. That’s dangerous. The crosswalks should not be in the roundabout itself but offset before and after so as to provide better visibility and clarity for all parties. Yes, that means double the number of wheelchair ramps. Higuera at South Street and Madonna Road This set of adjacent intersections is especially problematic, but I did not see it addressed in the draft Vision Zero Action Plan. Going south on Higuera Street, two traffic lanes go to the right onto Madonna Road. A bike lane starts at the island after the right lanes split off from the left-side through lanes. How do bikes get to that bike lane from the Higuera shoulder? My fellow cyclists, all of whom are very experienced riders, shift to the left lane about where South Street comes in, so cars turning onto Madonna are no longer crossing our path. But we still have to cross southbound traffic to get there, as well as traffic merging in from South Street. I don’t know the answer, but there should be one. Cyclists coming north on Higuera have less of a challenge, though a left turn box might help at Madonna, and a turn lane bypass (the greenway such as used on westbound Tank Farm at Broad, and at Tank Farm at Higuera) would very likely help at South. A similar set might be advised on westbound South at Higuera. Multi-use trails I urge caution on the use of multi-use trails (bicycles, skateboards, pedestrians). Pedestrians, pets, kids on bikes, and some skateboarders meander through the trails, stopping, turning, and arcing suddenly. That’s normal. But a cyclist who is treating the multi-use trail as a roadway often can’t react in time and will collide. The railroad trail both along California Boulevard and south of Amtrak, which I use regularly, is an example — and it has the advantage of being largely straight so there’s more visibility than typical for the cyclist of what’s up ahead. The Bob Jones Trail is an example of a very unsafe multi-use trail, with its many curves and high fencing and foliage. Where multi-use trails are contemplated for bike traffic, such as for Buckley Road, there should be a separate pedestrian lane to ensure separate travel paths. Left turn boxes I wholeheartedly support the recommendations for left turn boxes at major intersections, especially in the high-injury network streets. Bikes need to move to the left where there are right turn lanes for cars, so cars can freely turn and not trap or hit a bicycle hugging the curb there. Bikes need to be visible to cars, not hidden from them, which the left turn boxes accomplish. Greenway striping Greenway painting should be used across all midsize and larger intersections, including across wide driveways. Right now, they are intermittently placed in a patchwork fashion, even on the same street. Street lighting The city needs to improve street lighting, especially in areas that are dark yet have high traffic. Traffic monitoring should be able to identify where bikes (and pedestrians who don’t have a sidewalk) regularly travel in the dark (night, dawn, dusk, highly cloudy) and help prioritize lighting installation. 3