Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-20-2017 BAC Communication (Schmidt) From: Richard Schmidt < R�CEjVED Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 3:22 PM To: Advisory Bodies JUL 1 8 Subject: Bicycle Advisory Committee -- July 20 F2017 SLD CITY C�.ERK July 18, 2017 Dear Bike Committee, I'm a long-time resident of north Broad, and when I heard the city was planning to convert our street into a bike boulevard, assuming it would be something simple like Morro Street, I thought "Good!" We as a neighborhood are not averse to experimentation so long as it enhances our lives. North Broad, back in the 70s, was the first street to be traffic calmed using stop signs (after city measurements verified our claims of 70mph traffic mid- afternoon); and in the 80s the first to be calmed with speed humps. We've pioneered much, provided grist for others throughout the city to benefit from our pioneering, and in principle I think most of us are willing to try something new again, that can be applied elsewhere if successful, provided it doesn't harm us. Unfortunately, what's before you does harm us. And we're most unhappy about that. Having now gone through a tedious, disrespectful, and poorly run "planning process" which has dismissed needs of those of us who live there in favor of advancing the insular wants of a biking minority who don't live there and their inexperienced enthusiastic staff supporters, my support is evaporating. In talking to neighbors, I find some have withdrawn their support entirely and are in furious opposition. Your plan is in trouble, and it's entirely staff's and the city's doing. The very notion of the city staff's saying we are a "brand" needing a trademark is insulting and shows the utter lack of respect behind this planning. We are not a brand, we are a neighborhood. You also might note that the disrespect shown to the neighborhood extends as far as the very existence your meeting this week, about which we have not been properly notified despite being on the menu. I know about your meeting only because a former city official sent an email alert to his private list of correspondents. Were it not for that, I'd not know you were deliberating our neighborhood's fate. At this point you can still win me back, but only if you simplify this cornucopia of textbook ideas and recognize and support the legitimate needs of people who live here. If you do that, I can again give you my support. If not, you'll push me to the other side. You need the support of neighbors. You will encounter vigorous opposition from the motoring public. If neighbors also oppose, the politics of the situation will turn against the plan and you'll end up with nothing better than the status quo. Our two primary needs if a bike boulevard is to be made of our street are • No loss of on -street parking. Residents need and use this parking. Some of us have no off-street parking. Many residents are elderly, and cannot park distantly and walk to and from their cars. Street parking is truly not something the city can justify taking away. • Convenient access into and out of the neighborhood. With some gentle plan modifications this can be met with Alternatives 1 and 3, but not with Alternative 2. As far as the three alternatives go, here is my take: Alternative 1, a Broad bike boulevard, is the only one that fulfills the intent of the bike plan — to convert a street into a safe cross-town bike route. Alternative 2 is a mess and should be D.O.A. It benefits nobody other than the contractors who will build it. Alternative 3 once cleaned up of the textbook refuse that's not desirable — which it must be prior to implementation -- differs little from the status quo and is essentially the "no build" alternative. Assuming you agree that some simplification of Alternative 1 is the way to go, here are my comments about things in Alternative 1 that need modification or simply to go away: 1. "Sidewalk bulbouts with potential for green street treatments" — these need to go away. Issues: • Force bikes into traffic lanes. How does that make biking safer? • Located in places where raingardens will not work ("green street treatments") • Not needed for pedestrian convenience or safety • Textbook stuff that serves no purpose other than to destroy needed on -street parking • As an architect and planner who advocates and conceptually designs green street treatments, I can say these proposals are anything but green street treatments proposed by persons who apparently don't understand how such things work. 2. Complete sidewalk on west side of Broad, Serrano to Center — needs to go away. This is a dumb idea. It also has nothing to do with the bike boulevard, which is apparently just a pretext for it. I also speak as a frequent advocate for pedestrian safety and convenience. • Reason sidewalks not there already is topography. In the past the city's policy has been that they are unnecessary and undesirable. Building them will require construction of huge, expensive, engineered, ugly retaining walls that will ruin the character of the neighborhood. • Who pays for building them? If property owners, do you really think that's fair? Or that it will fly? If the city, why should scarce bike funds be used for that? • The absence of curbs and gutters on the west side in 100 and 200 blocks of Broad lends to the relaxed semi -rural feel for the neighborhood. People like that. It makes our place unique. In its place planners propose ugly generic anyplace - USA curb/gutter/sidewalk/retaining wall. • There is no need for the proposed sidewalks. I live on the east side of Broad where there are continuous sidewalks on our side and none across the street, and our side is all that's needed. This area doesn't have the pedestrian density of downtown! 3. Mission Street traffic diverter. Needs modification, or to just go away. With a diverter at both ends of Broad, this seems unnecessary. Further, why shouldn't residents of Broad headed to downtown be able to turn left onto Mission, get off the bike boulevard, and go over to Chorro? Why should they be forced instead to continue on the bike boulevard? This is nothing more than a calculated nuisance for residents of the street and a safety danger for bikers. 4. Speed cushions. This is another odd textbook idea. It's designed to slow cars, maybe (hah! you cannot imagine the creativity drivers will apply to outsmarting them), but to give free passage to semis which aren't supposed to be on these streets but are there because police don't enforce truck route ordinance. How does favoring highway trucks enhance bike or neighborhood safety? 5. Why is the Center Street stop sign being removed? You want cars plowing into the houses on Center because they can zip onto that street from Broad without stopping? Put the stop sign back. 6. Mountain View traffic circle — another generic textbook solution that's unnecessary and entirely out of context or need at this location. Needs to go away. 7. Almond Street zigzag. This shouldn't be part of the plan. If a handful of people prefer to ride on a street that has around 100 vehicles per day on it, they can, just as it is. You don't need to complicate things by including this nonsense in the plan and dragging even more annoyed neighborhood residents into the fray. 8. In Alt. 3, another textbook "solution" that solves no problem, that needs to disappear, are the "chicanes" in the 100 block of Broad, which will destroy heavily -used and much-needed on -street parking for practically the entire block — a total non-starter which if it remains will rally so much opposition your plan will go poof. At present there are two speed humps in that block which slow traffic to desired bike boulevard speeds without taking away any on -street parking. They are proven to work; have been there doing their job for more than 20 years! Replacing them with chicanes is ridiculous. The chicanes do nothing to improve bike or traffic safety over present conditions, and inflict deep harm on the neighbors. 9. Ramona connection Option A There are numerous problems with this. • This route forces bicyclists to cross a very dangerous exit from the shopping center which any pedestrian or bicyclist who uses that area can tell you is awful because of the confusion of drivers in a rush pulling out of the shopping center and running down those on foot or bikes. This scheme is many accidents waiting to happen, not a safety solution. • Having a two-way bike lane on the north side of the street is dangerous because nobody expects bikes to be going the wrong way, and drivers will not be looking for them. Furthermore, it forces eastbound bicyclists to make a turn across bi- directional vehicular traffic on Ramona at Broad, again, something drivers will not be expecting to encounter. This is unsafe. • Removing all of the much -used commercial worker and student parking from the north side of Ramona will force it into the nearby neighborhoods which are already heavily parked by residents. This is unfair to the neighbors and degrades the neighborhood. In addition to parts of the plan above that need to be dropped or modified, there are several things included that have nothing whatsoever to do with the bike plan: 10. ADA curb ramps: These are required by law, and have nothing to do with a bike boulevard. It is the city's legal obligation to install them. I suspect they got put into the plan so the city can justify using bike funds for something unrelated to bike needs. 11. Additional street lighting. This also isn't legitimately part of the bike boulevard. And it's undesirable. Again, the boulevard seems to be a pretext for staff spending bike funds on something unrelated. Is more lighting needed? I can't see it is. I walk Broad at night and even with aging eyes find it not a problem. In fact, there's too much lighting already: the street light next door keeps my front yard and the front rooms of my house lit all night. There's no night, no darkness. If we want darkness inside we have to install light -tight drapes. This lighting also prevents us from enjoying the night sky. It's a nuisance to most of us. Chop the additional lighting and consider dialing back what's already there so night can be night. If people want daylight level illumination at night, they should move to a big city. Most people here enjoy the darkness of night. With those thoughts I wish you the best as you attempt to move forward on this. Much work still remains to be done before this plan is ready for prime time. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt PS. I also find it unfortunate that staff takes such a non-assertive complacent attitude towards closure of the Broad Street freeway ramps, leaving it to CalTrans. If those ramps were closed, it would improve existing bike safety on Broad without any other modifications. The hangup, we gather, is CalTrans' fear their closure will cause problems at other ramps. That seems unlikely, but it would take some effort, like a "temporary" closure, to show the fears are unmerited. The City of Arroyo Grande got the Brisco ramps closed for more than a year to study the impact of closure on adjacent ramps. A more assertive City of San Luis Obispo could do the same at Broad. If CalTrans were shown the results were tolerable, then it should be easy to extend the closure indefinitely instead of waiting decades for funding for some megaproject to be put in place. You might consider making such a trial closure part of your committee's work.