HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/6/2018 Item 12, Rowley
Meeting date: February 6, 2018
SUBJECT: Item 12, Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard (Anholm Bikeway) Plan
Dear Mayor Harmon and Members of the Council,
RQN members are very disappointed that a third alterative was not provided for your review,
i.e., the simple fixes (cross walks, stop signs) that residents of the area provided as suggested
alternatives along with the Lincoln Street option. We are also disappointed that staff did not
suggest requesting Cal Trans approval for a one year closure of the Broad Street ramps, as was
done by Arroyo Grande, to eliminate the freeway traffic that uses this residential street.
None of the residents who live in this area indicated that the speed humps were not doing the
job of decreasing traffic speeds. Some did, however, indicate that both vehicles and bicyclists
speed through intersections and that pedestrian safety would benefit from installing stop signs
and painting very visible crosswalks in certain locations.
There is a truism not often mentioned: The residents of an area are the subject-matter experts
for their area. They know who lives there, who is sick or disabled, who has children - what is
good about the neighborhood, what improvements have been made and what needs to be
fixed. They know the idiosyncracies of the area that those who do not live there are unlikely to
know, for example, that dips in the street are there for flood control.
Regarding the designated “Preferred Alternative:”
1. To provide a low-stress priority route. If a less stressful route is desired, a one-year trial
closure of the Broad Street ramps, plus the use of less-traveled Lincoln Street would delete the
cut-through vehicle traffic on Broad and provide a less stressful ride.
2. To provide increased safety.
a) Per SLOPD, no car vs bicycle accidents have occurred here in the past five (5) years;
b) Lack of stop signs (no stop and go for bicyclists) and less traffic on Lincoln Street make
for a calmer, safer ride than the corresponding legs of Broad or Chorro.
3. To provide multimodal transportation, ridesharaing, support the Climate Action Plan, the
Vision Zero initiative and the General Plan objective. Both of the alternatives support
multimodal transportation, rideshares and Vision Zero – as does the current configuration of
Broad Street. However, due to the reduction of on-street parking and the accompanying need
to search for a parking space, the Climate Action Plan would not be supported.
1
Page 2, Item 12, February 6, 2018
Regarding General Plan objectives.
1. General Plan policy is to support 20 percent bicycle rideshare.
2. General Plan policy is also to preserve, protect and enhance the City’s neighborhoods
and to promote a higher quality of life within each neighborhood. (Emphasis added) The
“Preferred Alternative” purposefully degrades the quality of life for residents of this
neighborhood and is, thus, in violation of General Plan policy.
Summary.
General Plan policies are equal. When changes are to be made, all policies must be considered
so that no one policy is degraded because of another.
1. Residents from this area have explained the hardships that the loss of on-street parking
can have on them and their neighbors. They have commented on the lack of safety created by
the number of driveways backing into the proposed cycle tracks. They have delineated
difficulties associated with deliveries, workmen, streetsweeping, etc. These are all changes that
degrade, not promote, a higher quality of life in the neighborhood; therefore, another, more
equitable solution must be found.
2. We have the opportunity to make changes without inconveniencing local residents and
without spending upwards of $3 million.
3. We support a plan such as the 1234 Plan submitted by Richard Schmidt that takes all
parties into consideration.
Thank you for your time and your attention.
Sincerely,
Sandra Rowley
Chairperson, RQN