HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/4/2018 Item 15, Tarantino
Anholm Bikeway Comment to City Council (9/4/18)
I would like to register my support for the Planning Committee’s Directive for the middle portion
of the Anholm Bikeway (without diverters, only traffic calming measures), and my opposition to the Staff
plan which relies on diversion of most Broad street traffic onto Chorro.
To reiterate some safety concerns regarding the staff proposal for a dual protected bikeway on
one side of Chorro street, I’d like to point out that (including cyclists heading for Poly, who will continue
straight down Chorro and not turn onto Broad), the plan will set up TWO intersections where cyclists
will have to cut diagonally across traffic – in one of which they will have their back to oncoming vehicles.
This traffic, I might point out, will be made even heavier by the diversion plan. Besides the increased
likelihood of a collision from this arrangement, residents along Chorro are also still going to have an
increased chance of a collision with cyclists coming from the “wrong direction” down the street when
they are attempting to back out of their driveways. With the obvious deficiencies of the bikeway design,
the city is bound to become involved in any lawsuits which ensue.
On a more philosophical level, I’d like to point out that the concerns of the neighborhood
residents, who are obviously most affected by these changes, are being completely ignored in the staff
proposal. In the most recent design charrette, 10 of 11 groups took out the ostensibly “required”
diverters in their proposed designs, and the whole group there in voting placed diverters as dead last in
their preferences for design elements.
Now, there is certainly the argument that inconveniencing a small number of people to enhance
the greater good is a fair mechanism for civic improvement – for example, building a freeway through a
neighborhood might negatively impact a thousand residents, while allowing ten or twenty thousand
people a quicker, easier commute. This is a fair point. The staff bikeway plan, however, will negatively
impact a thousand residents and over eight thousand drivers (by your own figures) in order to
marginally improve the bicycling experience for (optimistically) a couple hundred riders. This situation is
categorically unfair to the majority.
If you adopt the Planning Committee’s calming plan (without any traffic diversion), the majority
of residents and drivers would have to agree that this is a reasonable first attempt at solving the
problem, and then would not be able to seriously object to further changes if this solution proves to be
unsatisfactory. Trying a milder solution and seeing what kind of improvement might result is a far better
approach than imposing a demonstrably unpopular one.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jon Tarantino