Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/15/2017 Item 16, Schmidt Christian, Kevin From:Richard Schmidt <slobuild@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, August 11, To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Item 16, Broad Bike Blvd. Attachments:123 Broad Bike plan.pdf Dear Council Members, Please see the attachment for my thoughts on a reasonable way around the very deep political hole staff and the bike committee have dug for you to stumble into. Thanks. Richard 1 1 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 isnʼt 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 itʼs 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 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 2 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 oneʼs 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). 3 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 traffic to 70 mph (city engineering 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 to do the minimum required. 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. 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 staffʼs plans have created.