HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/15/2017 Item 16, Reynolds
Christian, Kevin
From:Kevin Mc Reynolds <kevlawslo@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, August 11,
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:email City Council/ Bicycle Boulevard (Agenda Item 16)
Thank you for the opportunity to participate. I understand that staff has provided you with considerable information.
I would like to comment on what you have (and have not) been provided.
I question the validity of any conclusions suggested by the bar graph interoperation of the Neighborhood Survey. My
hesitation to accept that graphic as truly representative of the respondent’s preferences is based upon a careful reading
of all of the 146 written responses that accompanied the 239 total responses. At least 65 of the 146 responses (45%) can
be read to infer a preference for the status quo. About 16% of the responses were too ambiguous to identify a
preference. Another 16% suggested an alternative other than the three alternatives offered. Alternative 2 was favored
by only 8%, trailed by #3 at 7.5%, and #1 at 5%. In order to accept the bar graph as accurate, one would have to
conclude that the proponents of any of the three alternatives are considerably more reticent than advocates of the
status quo. I seriously doubt that. Perhaps the raw data should be reexamined.
How was participation in the Citywide Online Survey solicited? It had only one more response (240) than the
Neighborhood Survey. It is impossible to know how many of the respondents to each survey are the same person. The
only thing that can be assumed is that Citywide respondents who self-identified as out of the neighborhood did not
complete the Neighborhood Survey. In any event, no one should infer that 479 separate respondents completed
surveys.
Comments were invited beginning in March, 2016, to the inquiry “How would you like your bike boulevard?” The
question assumes the respondent wants a bike boulevard at all. A reply that rejected the premise of a bike boulevard
would be considered non-responsive, and thus not warranting a reply.
Does the evidence support the argument that wholesale disruption of long-standing traffic patterns is necessary for
bicycle safety in that neighborhood? What statistics have you been provided? The most recent survey of auto / bike
collisions does not identify the neighborhood as among the top 10 danger zones in the city. Although “stress free”
cycling is a laudable goal, is not the concomitant stress transferred to drivers and residents also worthy of
consideration?
Because the current project has so much in common with the 1996 “traffic calming” experiment, I reviewed archives
that were graciously and promptly provided by Mr. Schwartz. I strongly urge you to examine those records, with any eye
towards learning from the mistakes of your predecessors. First and foremost, please make sure that you solicit input
from all who will be affected by your decision: motorists as well as cyclists and Anholm dwellers. All are your
constituents, whether or not you identify with them, or share their priorities. Comprehensive surveys of the “traffic
calming” project of 1996 were not undertaken until after substantial construction had already commenced. Please
consider a more comprehensive, inclusive assessment before making a selection. Again, the consequences of not doing
so are well established by the failed experiment of 1996.
Thanks very much for your consideration.
Kevin Mc Reynolds
389 Broad Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
1
2