Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-18-2018 Item 1 - Schmidt Jan 16, 2018 Dear Bike Advisory Committee, It is imperative if you actually care about advancing biking in SLO that you categorically reject the “preferred alternative.” This “project” is a terrible one for all parties. Please note the following issues. 1. The project is a mishmash of third-rate unsafe bike facilities. They fail to meet AASHTO and NACTO standards. They employ features, like 2-way cycle tracks with frequent driveway crossings and weird intersection maneuvers (intersections are where 2/3 of bike/vehicle accidents occur), that are shunned by bike planners in places where they know how to design for bikes (Davis, Amsterdam, Copenhagen). They are demonstrably less safe than the status quo. As one internationally-regarded Danish bike facility designer put it when confronted with this sort of stuff: “If someone advocates infrastructure like this and actually believes it is good, they probably shouldn't be advocating bicycle infrastructure.” This plan does not serve the biking community well. 2. The plan is mean and nasty to the residents who are expected to host it. It sends a loud message that the only people who count in this city are the bicycling minority who’ve taken over our government. The old, the growing old, the very young, the differently abled can all get lost and preferably leave town. What kind of message is this for a city to send? 3. The planners completely and arrogantly dismiss the needs of residents. Street parking, for example. We need it for ourselves, for our friends-relatives-grandchildren to come visit, for tradesmen and tradeswomen to service our homes, for deliveries. Staff persists in under-counting actual parking use. But even in their undercount of my block of Broad (they claim only 75% of spaces are used), the plan leaves a 33% parking deficit. They provide maps of where else we can park instead; for my block such places include student housing areas already 100% parked, no-parking zones on side streets and Foothill, and parking districts of which we are not (and have no desire to be) a part. Of course, most of the places staff claims do exist for parking are already parked up. Oh, and staff maps for surrounding blocks that would lose parking show the same “available” places as for our block. Like many of my neighbors, I depend upon street parking. Taking away much of our parking will destroy our ability to continue to live here. Staff says not to worry, that we can find street parking within 1,000 feet and a 5-minute-walk of our homes. Really? That’s a reasonable response? I’m in mid-70s and have a blue parking placard. Here’s what Saturday’s grocery shopping looks like: That’s 10 heavy bags of stuff. It took us 7 trips to get it all into our house. And we’re supposed to carry all that 1,000 feet, a 10-minute trek for each of 7 trips? That’s 70 minutes – more than an hour -- of carrying stuff. And it wouldn’t even be on level ground. What kind of mean city would even say such a thing to its seniors? 4. The project violates the Americans With Disabilities Act by reducing, rather than improving, access for the disabled (as for example in 3 above). (The ADA is federal civil rights law, not a building code as many seem to think.) This is settled law, all the way to the US Supreme Court thanks to another California city that also thought it could be jerky with its disabled instead of accommodating them. This should be of great concern to you since if forced to go to court, you could very well find yourselves faced with a federal court decision that pulls the rug out not only from beneath this bike project, but all the others you plan in residential areas. Is it worth risking that to make this bad project go ahead? I certainly don’t think it’s worth the risk – this city badly needs good bike facilities. 5. The falsity of the project’s alleged safety improvements is shown by what’s proposed for the two directions on Broad Street. Southbound bikes get a cycle track, but northbound bikes remain mixed with traffic, i.e., the status quo. Since staff says the project provides the sought-after level of safety and comfort for bikers, clearly if the status quo provides safety and comfort there is no need for the cycle tracks which are the crux of this project’s neighborhood incompatibility. Get rid of them all. 6. The zig-zagging route on Chorro/Mission/Broad/Ramona serves a minuscule number of bikers. The main route served on Chorro is out Chorro to Murray, and right to Cal Poly. This project ignores – and does not serve -- actual bike usage patterns. 7. Safe Routes to School using this project is a joke. There’s no substantial number who would ever use it. Further, it’s not safe, it’s dangerous. It will never be safe with all the intersections, with wrong-way cycle tracks and drivers coming out of commercial driveways not expecting wrong-way bikes, with crossing Foothill, etc. This is a case of nice sounding words that carry no legitimacy. 8. This project, with its demonstrable meanness to the neighborhood (“city mean to seniors and disabled” would be a great headline, would it not?), will become a catalyst and motivator for substantial bike lash. Do you really want that? 9. Many wonder why there’s even emphasis on this route? There are far more heavily- biked streets (like Mill from Osos to Grand) that should be higher on the priority list. And there’s the stop/start incomplete railroad safety path that would truly provide a safe cross-town route. Why don’t you focus on finishing what you’ve started instead of launching this new ill-advised project? Get the railroad trail finished first. If you persist in focusing on this corridor, there are much better ways to do it. There are ways that advance and protect the interests of both bikers and residents. An idea for one such approach is appended below. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt 1-2-3: A Simple Three Step Plan for Creating the Broad Street Bike Boulevard Intro: Staff and the Bike Committee have presented 3 overly-complex plans that are sure to fail, both functionally and politically. I believe a simpler 1-2-3 approach is a more reasonable way forward. Overriding Goal: To make biking on Broad Street safer in a manner that enhances neighborhood quality of life and protects the property rights of residents. Step 1. Close Broad freeway access. Why? As long as Broad functions as a 6-block-long freeway ramp, bike safety on the street will be compromised. For properly modeling its bike boulevard planning, the city needs first to establish the impact of closing freeway access from this route. Discussion. CalTrans intends to close these antiquated ramps eventually, but apparently isn’t in a hurry to do so absent city pressure. Bizarrely, staff has proposed spending more than $1 million on bike improvements while this elephant sits in the room. Further, staff says it’s up to CalTrans to fix the freeway interchanges in town, and asserts CalTrans will not close the Broad access until interchange upgrades at Santa Rosa at some indefinite future date. Thus far the city has punted to CalTrans, which means nothing will happen. We could be talking about a 50-year wait! Ignoring the primacy of this matter on Broad Street bike safety makes no sense. The city needs to be pro-active. Fortunately, we have a template for achieving near-term closure: Brisco Road in Arroyo Grande. To eliminate traffic problems at Brisco, the city of Arroyo Grande asked CalTrans to close that interchange so it could study the effects of permanent closure on nearby interchanges. CalTrans agreed to do this. (Unfortunately, the experiment has not yet led to permanent closure.) The city of San Luis Obispo should ask CalTrans to close Broad access for a year so it can study the effects on bike safety on Broad. Here is my guesstimate of what you will find if you do this: Broad, reduction of traffic volumes by about 40%, elimination of the bad driver behavior typical of people hurrying to and from a freeway, and elimination of heavy truck traffic which uses the street illegally as truck access to the freeway; Chorro, reduction of traffic volumes by about 10-15%; Lincoln (Chorro to Broad, link on the bike boulevard to freeway undercrossing on Chorro), reduction by about 60%. In other words, on Broad and the Lincoln link there will be major bike safety improvements both quantitative and qualitative. A side benefit would, I believe, show CalTrans that gridlock will not result at any other interchanges due to this closure. As the study winds down, it would thereupon become appropriate for the city to ask CalTrans to leave the interchange closed, and to proceed asap with permanent removal. Such an incremental experimental approach could lead to the single most important bike safety improvement on Broad. Step 2. Minimal judicious signage for the bike boulevard. Why? Signage to inform riders and drivers that they are on a “special-considerations” street is appropriate. Over-signage that clutters the neighborhood is not. Discussion. At points of entry to the bike boulevard, it might be appropriate to have simple informative signage. It might say something like this: “Welcome to the Broad Street Bike Boulevard Please ride/drive safely and courteously” Such signage signalizes something different or special is about to happen to the street experience, and in a friendly manner requests participants to behave with safety and courtesy in mind. It signalizes one’s entering a more peaceful space. It helps set a positive tone for the experience for all users. While clearly not essential, such signage would seem fit to the underlying stress- reducing experience of a bike boulevard. Step 3. Targeted additional traffic calming measures, but only if demonstrably needed. Maintenance of all existing traffic calming measures (humps and stop signs). Why? One can reasonably expect “hot spots” needing calming may emerge, and it is appropriate to deal with those, in as simple a manner as possible, as specific problems become apparent. Discussion. Existing traffic calming devices on Broad have a decades-long record of success in holding down speeds. Prior to their installation, the street had daytime traffic to 70 mph (actual city engineering department measurement). There are still places where speed could probably be reduced to improve safety (one suspects the downhill section of the 200 block might be one). But additional traffic calming should be done only in response to specific identifiable problems. And it should be done as simply and expeditiously as possible. Chicanes, for example, a new scheme which staff has promoted in the “three alternatives,” are a costly major street rebuilding/reconfiguration measure that do nothing better than inexpensive relatively non-intrusive speed humps. If a stop sign will suffice, that is even simpler than a hump and even less costly. The responsible approach should be precautionary -- to do the minimum required to achieve success. It is inappropriate, as the “three alternatives” propose, to pre-emptively dump a heavy concentration of textbook traffic calming nuisances randomly throughout the neighborhood, without the slightest evidence any of them are actually needed or will work better than something simpler, less intrusive, less costly. It is also inappropriate, as the “three alternatives” do, to remove proven traffic calming devices like the stop signs and speed humps on Broad. In short, additional traffic calming devices may be appropriate, but only on an evidence- based basis. Evidence of specific need should precede action to place a device. Conclusion. The city needs to take a breath, step back, start over, and proceed in as simple a manner as possible because the current proposals fail when matched the goal “to make biking on Broad Street safer in a manner that enhances neighborhood quality of life and protects the property rights of residents.” I believe something along the lines of this simple 1-2-3 plan could be a win-win for bikers and residents alike, and could go a long way to remove the friction and distrust staff’s plans have created.