The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2/6/2018 Item 12, Cooper Christian, Kevin From:Allan Cooper <allancoope@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February To:Grigsby, Daryl; Hudson, Jake; Schwartz, Luke; E-mail Council Website; CityClerk; Harmon, Heidi; Rivoire, Dan; Pease, Andy; Christianson, Carlyn; Gomez, Aaron; J Brent Oldenburg; kaproberts@gmail.com; Frank@fdufault.com; victoriawood@charter.net; 1 To: Attachments:902_04_18...bikewayletter.pdf Dear Daryl, Jake and Luke - I am forwarding you via the below attachment my critique of staff's "Preferred Alternative" for the Anholm Bikeway. I am recommending an alternative route. I am also forwarding this letter to the City Council prior to their February 6, 2018 6:00 P.M. meeting. I thank you for your due diligence in this matter. - Allan 2 To:San Luis Obispo City Council, Daryl Grigsby, Jake Hudson and Luke Schwartz Re:Public Hearing Item #12: Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard (Anholm Bikeway) Plan From:Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo Date: February 4, 2018 Honorable Mayor Harmon and Council Members - Through public feedback, four themes emerged which were reﬂected in the various alternatives. Those four themes, in no particular order, are: 1. The desire for physical separation from motor vehicle trafﬁc—protected lanes; 2. The desire to have the improvements follow the route most cyclists are currently using, avoiding difﬁcult topography and circuitous routing (i.e. follow existing Desire Lines); 3. The request to not disrupt or substantially change vehicle ﬂows; and 4. The wish to avoid removal of on-street parking. Based on this public feedback, I am recommending that the City install a shared street environment throughout the length of North Chorro Street between Lincoln Street and Foothill. This shared street environment should include guide signage, bikeway pavement markings and trafﬁc calming measures. Signs stating “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” should be posted throughout. With additional street calming measures and perhaps a reduction in the speed limit, bicyclists should feel comfortable using the entire lane. No on-street parking spaces (with the exception of parking located at proposed bulb outs) should be removed. This route meets 3 of the 4 above public feedback themes (2 through 4). It follows the existing so-called “Desire Line” and is therefore not circuitous and will not substantially disrupt existing vehicle ﬂows. Admittedly, it will slow down trafﬁc movement and this is a desirable objective. However, most importantly, the desire for protected lanes is overplayed as there is no historical evidence, according to your excellent trafﬁc safety report, of bicycle accidents occurring along this route. According to your trafﬁc safety report, bicycle collisions have generally been on the decline. In 2015, no collisions involving cyclists had occurred along Chorro with the exception of the Chorro/Foothill intersection but this will be mitigated by routing bicyclists down Ramona and to Foothill via the LSD bike right-of-way. Among the “High Collision Rate Locations” for bicycles over the past ﬁve years, none of the intersections along North Chorro made the top eleven list. In addition to the lack of an historical record documenting bicycle accidents occurring along North Chorro (or North Broad Street for that matter), I have ﬁve additional arguments against this “Preferred Alternative”. Below this letter, I am referencing excerpts from your staff report followed by my responses. For your convenience, I will summarize my ﬁve arguments for you: 1)The one-to-two block walk estimated for service trucks and the elderly (sometimes carrying groceries) who depend on on-street parking is grossly underestimated when one takes into account spillover parking from 71 Palomar and 22 Chorro; 2)Getting a 60% vote of support for a parking district is unlikely in a neighborhood that has a high percentage of rentals; 3)Neither the Preferred Alternative nor the Lincoln Street Alternative (they’re both circuitous) follow the existing so-called “Desire Line”. Therefore, why not place the bike route along the existing “Desire Line” which is Chorro? 4)The Community Survey Results indicate that the “Preferred Alternative” lost overwhelmingly in terms of number of votes, 260 vs. 403 (forget the misleading percentages). 5)And,why is there no estimated cost for the Lincoln Street Alternative? Wouldn’t this alternative be considerably cheaper? Finally I would highly recommend that you read through Richard Schmidt’s excellent January 30, 2018 SLO Tribune Viewpoint titled “ SLO’s Proposed $3 Million Broad/Chorro Bikeway is a Terrible Idea”. Thank you! ______________________________ Quote: “With the reduction in on-street parking supply associated with the proposed bikeway project, street parking is anticipated to be scarce during peak periods along certain segments of Chorro, Broad and Ramona. For segments where peak parking demand nears or exceeds available supply, there is generally available street parking within one-to-two blocks (about a 1- to 3- minute walk)…It should be noted that this parking analysis does not reﬂect the recently approved, but not yet occupied, multifamily residential developments at 22 Chorro and 71 Palomar… Lastly, the phased approach allows for monitoring and adjustments to project designs and the possibility of spillover parking from the 71 Palomar and 22 Chorro projects.” Response: It is ironic and a little bit sad that the Council determined, when approving 22 Chorro and 71 Palomar, that there would be little signiﬁcant spillover parking into the adjoining neighborhood. The Council thought that the shortfall of parking spaces would be compensated through the provision of additional bike racks. Now your staff report suggests that spillover is a “possibility”. Many of us would suggest that this is a gross understatement and that an already under parked neighborhood will suffer additional loss of parking spaces because of these new developments. Add to this the removal of 73 on street parking spaces and residents, guests and service trucks (not mentioned in the staff report) will be required to walk not one-to-two blocks but perhaps ﬁve-to-six blocks to ﬁnd a parking space. Quote: “If the Council moves forward with the Preferred Alternative, it is recommended that the City initiate the process to form a parking district(s) in the Anholm neighborhood. Actual boundaries of the district will be determined as part of this process and will require a 60% vote of support from households and Council Approval.” Response: Here is the “rub”. Getting a 60% vote of support from households in the Anholm Neighborhood will not be that easy. Former Mayor Pinard informed me that the Old Town Neighborhood, which suffers from the same on-street parking shortage due to its proximity to Downtown, was unsuccessful in obtaining 60% support for a parking district because a large contingent of residents there were high-turnover, short-term renters. I would surmise, due to its proximity, that the Anholm Neighborhood is also comprised of a high percentage of short-term renters. Quote: “Lincoln Street is already a superior cycling environment over Chorro & Broad Street; however, only 12 percent of the approximately 300 daily cyclists that travel between Downtown and Foothill currently choose Lincoln over Broad & Chorro Streets—mainly due to the route being longer and more circuitous. Pedestrians and bicyclists using the streets for transportation as opposed to leisure will most commonly choose the shortest and most intuitive path over a path with an improved environment, even when the distance or time difference is minor.” Response: The shortest, most intuitive path for bicyclists is Chorro Street all the way to Foothill. If this is a criticism of the circuitous Lincoln Street Alternative, it should also apply to the circuitous Preferred Alternative neither of which lie along the “Desire Line”. Quote: “As shown in the survey results, there is a clear differentiation of the support for either alternative between the community-wide sample (only 292 responses) and residents of the Anholm neighborhood (405 responses). This would be expected as it mirrors concerns of the residents regarding potential parking removal. Where survey participants selected “Other” as a preferred option, comments generally supported no change at all, many citing the limited beneﬁt of the Lincoln alternative, or prioritization of other improvements in the city over this project. All comments received during the community survey process are included as a Council Reading File in Attachment G.” Response: The “Community Survey Results” graphic is misleading (I hope not deliberately) as it only addresses percentages, not numbers. 295 Anholm residents and Citywide residents voted for the Lincoln Street Alternative. Add to this the combined total of Anholm residents (76) and Citywide (32) residents voting for no bike path and you have a total of 403 Anholm and Citywide residents either voting for the Lincoln Street Alternative or no alternative at all. Compare this with the 260 Anholm residents and Citywide residents who recommended the Preferred Alternative. In other words, the survey results show overwhelmingly that the Preferred Alternative lost overwhelmingly with only 260 votes compared to the 403 votes. Quote: “The cost for Phase I of the Anholm Bikeway (Preferred Alternative) improvements is estimated at $900,000, leaving a budget shortfall of $290,000 for Phase I.” Response: Why is there no estimated cost for the Lincoln Street Alternative? Wouldn’t this alternative be considerably cheaper?