The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2/17/2026 Item 6b, Names Jim Names < To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Opposition to the Proposed South Higuera Street Project Attachments:IMG_20240710_121100824_HDR~2.jpg; IMG_20250703_063842707_HDR.jpg; IMG_ 20250523_090634163.jpg; IMG_20250313_074117629_HDR.jpg; FB_IMG_ 1741855043432.jpg Subject: Opposition to the Proposed South Higuera Street Project Dear SLO City Council members I am writing to express my complete opposition to the proposed South Higuera Street Complete Project. While I understand the desire to improve alternative transportation options and support cycling, I firmly believe that the plan to reduce South Higuera from four lanes to two while adding protected bike lanes will create more harm than good for the residents of San Luis Obispo. With the city's population growing and traffic congestion already a significant issue, the decision to reduce lanes for vehicles and dedicate more space to bike lanes seems both ill-timed and impractical. The road diet, as proposed, will only worsen the traffic conditions that we are already experiencing. South Higuera is a major thoroughfare that serves thousands of drivers daily, and narrowing it down to two lanes will create additional delays and frustration for everyone who relies on this route for commuting, work, and daily errands. The reality is that reducing the capacity of this road will result in more traffic congestion, longer travel times, and increased stress on our already overloaded streets, making the situation worse rather than better. Many cyclists continue to blow through red lights, weave in and out of traffic, and engage in dangerous behaviors such as riding while intoxicated or without proper lighting. These actions are often ignored, despite the presence of bike lanes. Even with protected bike lanes in place, cyclists continue to misuse the roads, creating additional risks and hazards for both themselves and other motorists. The rise in the use of electric bikes, which are faster and more difficult to control, only adds to these safety concerns. Without regulation or speed limits, these cyclists are turning the bike lanes into quasi-vehicle lanes, further contributing to confusion and risk for all road users. It is clear that there are already enough cyclists using these lanes irresponsibly, and expanding the bike lanes will only encourage more of this behavior, without offering tangible benefits to the overall traffic flow. The proposal to reduce the vehicle lanes from four to two is particularly concerning. With the growing population and the increasing number of vehicles on the road, reducing lane capacity will only increase traffic congestion. I’ve already noticed how similar projects in other areas of San Luis Obispo have led to gridlock and inefficiency. Drivers are forced to sit in longer lines at stoplights, waste more fuel, and contribute to increased pollution due to the extended time spent idling in traffic. The proposed road diet will further contribute to these issues, making it harder for people to get where they need to go. This not only affects commuters but also impacts local businesses, emergency services, and everyone who relies on efficient transportation. With the population continuing to grow, it's crucial that the city prioritize solutions that will improve traffic flow and reduce congestion, not exacerbate the problem. By reducing lanes for vehicles, the city risks causing more delays, increasing pollution, and frustrating residents who rely on the road to get to work, school, and appointments. 1 While I agree that encouraging safe and responsible cycling is important, I do not believe that the solution lies in expanding protected bike lanes at the expense of vehicle lanes. The focus should be on creating a balanced transportation system that accommodates all forms of travel whether by car, bike, or foot without reducing the capacity of major roads like South Higuera. Instead of focusing on further expanding bike lanes, the city should work to improve the current infrastructure, ensuring that all road users, including cyclists, have safe and efficient routes while also addressing the needs of drivers and emergency responders. It's crucial that we create a balanced transportation network that allows everyone to move through the city safely and efficiently, without increasing congestion or compromising the needs of drivers and emergency vehicles. We need a solution that improves the flow of traffic for everyone, not one that creates more obstacles and delays. In conclusion, I respectfully urge you to vote NO on the South Higuera Street Complete Project. The proposed changes will not benefit the majority of San Luis Obispo residents who rely on these roads for their daily commutes and other essential travel. Instead, they will lead to increased congestion, delays, and a greater burden on our already strained infrastructure. There needs to be a more thoughtful, balanced approach to improving transportation in San Luis Obispo that takes into account the growing needs of the community and addresses traffic flow, safety, and efficiency for all road users. I strongly believe that the negative impact of the proposed project will only increase over time, and the city must consider alternatives that truly improve the quality of life for all residents. I have attached photographs showing these road diets have caused drivers to get an accidents, and the constant blockage of service trucks downtown in dangerous situations, also the blockage of a protected bike lane through a city vendor servicing servicing them creating more security hazards. These are just photographs driving around town and seeing what things I've witnessed as these protective bike lanes have shown to be rather dangerous than a safe alternative. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Jim Names 2 A r S 4 s fp '+. ark . 4Alf,va a � # •r I i ?�ARRO ' � �i�i�• w Try .. � . 1 - k . ak06 f , IL c i - �- •. - = - _ y -lam=da. :9 ," / 4 I AS 14b r: ell IA 44 at A A2 114 1ytiy * r q T F r r r `.Sj 5�Ae f x 7r 7 �1i' i e �M. _ y Wi +'I r -TY - T} 1 .�♦ i� � ., yam yyL —. % Oaf yV. i Y' �Q e Q 7 ! 4Him wrm p%il Wop R • r a as <- wt _�Vt ��.- •JT a �, d .. i.: y, ` �/�L Ogg- `low oqof -Ila Y I 0 WO CJOQfFS ,�..as �Ilmulniuiull �� _ 5%ALCONOL — _ _ ''It llllillini_ K ##,31j Lima� �• 0 I 1 j e 1 � I � n