HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/16/2026 Item 7d, Hershberger
Hans Hershberger <hans.hershberger@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 16,
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Item 7d
Members of the City Council,
I am writing today in support of the staff recommendation to install a standard traffic signal at King and
South Street.
The current situation crossing using rapidly flashing beacons is bad. Drivers do not yield, and I have
nearly been struck multiple times on foot and bike. One really does "throw themselves to the wind" and
hope that drivers stop when they cross. This keeps several of my friends who live in the neighborhood
from walking their dog in Meadow Park. This is sad as they live just feet from the crossing. Furthermore
there are so many kids that use this crossing to go to school. It is nothing short of a miracle that there
have not been more serious injuries or fatalities on this crossing. Let's not push our luck any further.
Compared to current conditions, a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon would be better, but a standard traffic
signal would be best. I lived for nearly four years adjacent to the Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon on Foothill
Street. It was much better than an unsignalized crossing, but it consistently confused drivers. Confused
drivers would stop the flow of traffic or worse, drive through the signal without stopping. I also noticed
that some drivers treated the signal flippantly, driving through long after the solid red had
activated. Once, I came inches from being hit by one such driver.
A standard traffic signal is a better fit for the South and King crossing. A standard traffic signal gives our
city engineers the flexibility to control traffic timing. This allows for the signal to better reflect the flow of
any given time on any given day. It can and should be programmed with a leading pedestrian interval,
giving people walking several seconds head start on automobiles who may be turning. This is used in our
downtown with good effect. If fears persist about cars turning into people waking, a no-turn-on-red can
be enacted for the intersection.
A standard traffic signal also gives emergency services the opportunity for signal preemption, ensuring
that South Street remains an effective mobility corridor for our fire trucks and ambulances. This can also
be extended to SLO Transit ensuring that buses are not delayed by the signal.
Finally a standard traffic signal better serves the residential context of the neighborhood. At current, a
relatively unsignalized South Street feels similar to the car racetrack that once resided in the area. The
way the street is designed makes drivers feel safe going fast and so they do, regardless of speed
limit. South Street was once a railway at the south end of town that then became part of Highway 227, its
design made sense at that time. South Street is now in the midst of a residential neighborhood with
street parking, driveway access, and people desiring to cross. Its design no longer matches the context
making it dangerous to people in cars, on bikes, and on foot. A signal at King and South is a first step in
indicating to drivers that the context has changed. It is a first step in telling them that yes, they really do
need to abide by the speed limit as they need to expect other street users in the area. Design is a better
1
way to control traffic speeds than signage or enforcement. A full signal at South Street is a step in that
direction.
Thank you for your consideration of this input, I hope you find it insightful for your discussions tonight.
Sincerely,
--
-Hans Hershberger
2