HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-18-2018 Item 1 - Tarantino
Purrington, Teresa
From:Jon Tarantino <jon_tarantino@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, January
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:BAC communication
Ladies and Gentlemen,
As someone who lives on, drives on walks on, and bicycles on Chorro street, I have several concerns I'd like to
raise about the safety and logistics of your "preferred plan" for the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard.
In the arena of safety, the project has THREE different intersections where bicycle traffic will be routed diagonally
against oncoming traffic. This will be far less safe for cyclists than traveling in a predictably straight line on the correct
side of the street. When I cycle, I do so defensively, and so would (along with many other people) probably just continue
northbound down Chorro on the correct side of the street, ignoring the separated bike path on the wrong side of the
street... The two other counter-to-traffic turns at intersections at Chorro/Mission and Broad/Ramona wouldn't exactly
make me want to follow the proposed signage. In your minutes, you indicate that "people will get used to it"; but I've
found that people tend to get COMPLACENT, and accidents will follow.
Furthermore, the two-lane separated bike path on Chorro Street naturally has one lane going against the direction
of traffic. While the barrier would make this safe enough with regard to the oncoming cars on the street, residents backing
out of their driveways (something which will happen more often due to the removal of half the parking on the street) will
now have to be careful about cyclists coming “the wrong way” down the street. I’ve lived in very bike-friendly cities (San
Francisco and Boulder) where the city has been sued after accidents for arrangements which were much more sensible
than those being proposed here.
Logistically, the proposal has a separated bicycle path on Broad Street IN ONLY ONE DIRECTION. This is a
rather laughably Solomonic decision which simply ensures that time, effort and money are being spent on a solution which
satisfies no one. Just drop the unidirectional separated lane – it will also, at least, take care of the unsafe interchange at
Ramona…
The proposal seeks to spend MILLIONS of dollars to replace a (manageable) set of safety concerns with an
unfamiliar set which are bound to cause problems at best, and accidents at worst. I would also point out for your
consideration that significant changes were made to the traffic flow of the Anholm neighborhood about twenty years ago,
and were so disastrous and unpopular that they simply had to be removed.
As a cyclist, I would probably avoid large sections of what is being proposed. As a driver, I would be frustrated at
having to adapt to all of the weird and dangerous traffic conditions which would be created. And as a resident, I would
certainly be irked at the wasted effort which could be applied elsewhere.
Respectfully,
Jon Tarantino
Chorro Street Pedestrian/Cyclist/Driver/Resident
Right-click or
tap and hold
here to
Virus-free. www.avg.com
download
pictures. To
help protect
1