HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/15/2017 Item 16, Schmidt (2)
Christian, Kevin
From:Richard Schmidt <slobuild@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, August 11,
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Item 16, Bike Boulevard
Attachments:Council broad bikes 8-17.pdf
Dear Council Members,
Attached are my comments on myriad problems with the proposals before you.
Thank you.
Richard
1
1
August 11, 2017
Dear Council Members,
As a long-time resident of north Broad, when I heard the city was contemplating converting
our street into a bike boulevard, assuming it would be something simple like Morro Street,
my first reaction was “Good!”
However, with its well-practiced reverse Midas touch, the city has managed to alienate
even initial supporters like myself and to stir up a huge neighborhood opposition. And you
have yet to hear from the lynch mob of disgruntled drivers who will descend upon you
should this thing go through.
NONE OF THE THREE “ALTERNATIVES” SHOULD BE PURSUED. They are all
inappropriate, over-reach, incredibly costly, unintelligent arrogant intrusions on the quality
of life in our city. They impose incredible physical, health, psychic and monetary costs on
those of us living in the neighborhood. They harm public safety instead of promoting it.
They require substantial LUCE changes including an amended or new EIR. They violate
the Climate Action Planʼs presumption the city will not increase the necessity for driving
extra miles, and totally ignore whether the embodied energy of the “improvements” will not
exceed any conceivable greenhouse gas savings from biking. The “recommended”
alternative is even illegal! None of the plans pass muster. All must be discarded. If they
arenʼt, I predict this will become your councilʼs undoing, just as the rental ordinance was
such for the previous council. (Iʼm still not giving up on doing this right – please see my
separate note on a simple 1-2-3 approach that I believe could save the day. If you start
over, and proceed in a modest, fair and commonsense way, you could still have a win-win
for bikes and the neighborhood.)
It is completely inexplicable that the bike committee recommends what is clearly the worst,
in every sense, of these plans, Alternative 2. That is, it is inexplicable till one understands
that this sort of manipulation of public process, so that an item is heard only by a single-
purpose special-interest-dominated advisory body that will render the desired outcome
rather than by the Planning Commission, which has a broader view, is standard operating
procedure under the current Administration.1
So, here are some of the problems with Alternative 2.
1. It rips the heart out of our neighborhood, turning normal residential streets into one-
way thoroughfares. How would you like this to be done on your street?
2. Itʼs flat-out illegal. It violates the California Fire Code, which requires a minimum clear
right of way of 20 feet so fire vehicles can maneuver freely. On Chorro, for example, the
proposal is to have a single 10-foot wide travel lane with parking immediately adjacent on
1 I spent 19 years on city advisory bodies, including some on single-purpose committees
and 8 on the planning commission, under earlier administrations that didnʼt manipulate the
process this way. I know what Iʼm talking about.
2
both sides. That means Chorro will have a travel lane thatʼs only half what the law
requires. I doubt the bike committee has a clue about stuff like this, but staff should.
3. The one-way couplet violates LUCE. In the CE portion of LUCE, there is no mention of
this as a potential “improvement.” Therefore LUCE would have to be revised, and a new
EIR done.
4. The alternatives all violate the LUCE EIR, but especially #2. The LUCE EIR executive
summary states
and then it lists a number of objectives, two of which are germane to ALL the alternatives:
Since all the alternatives, and especially #2, destroy the livability of the streets of our
neighborhood, these proposals all violate the stated objectives on which the LUCE CEQA
analysis is based, and thus are contrary to the legal environmental bargain you struck with
your constituents when adopting LUCE. If you insist on proceeding anyway, youʼd need a
new EIR to unravel the damage youʼve done to the prior one.
Regarding a circulation system that balances the needs of all circulation modes, these
proposals certainly donʼt do that. Youʼve got 300 bicyclists per day2 versus 11,000 vehicle
trips per day. So what kind of definition of “balance” gives the whole enchilada to 2.7% of
users and leaves 97.3% with the dirty plate the thing was on? Again, the premise behind
LUCE CEQA analysis is being ignored here, and the LUCE EIR would thus be invalid and
have to be redone.
Let me remind the council that CEQA determinations arenʼt just formulaic mumbo-jumbo
you can utter and then ignore; they are legal obligations you must support.
5. Alt. 2 makes the entire city less safe. The fire station at North Chorro serves not just
our neighborhood, the Foothill district and Cal Poly, but also downtown and points beyond.
Its engines get places by going directly south on Chorro, a route thatʼs so much more
direct – as well as wider and thus more maneuverable -- than Broad. Alt. 2 turns Chorro
into a narrow single lane away from downtown. Itʼs entirely unclear how fire apparatus
would get downtown without substantial delay. How does this improve the safety and
livability of our city?
6. Alt. 2 additionally makes the city less safe by obstructing free vehicular movement
in the most obvious of ways. Single 10-foot wide one-way lanes on both Chorro and
Broad invite problems. What happens if a vehicle breaks down in one of these lanes?
2 Itʼs unclear where the city pulled that number from. My personal observation suggests
300 is a wild exaggeration, and the actual number is much smaller.
3
There is no “next street over” to which to divert traffic. There will be ridiculous gridlock on
our neighborhood streets. (Weʼve had passenger buses break down on Broad, and block
things for hours. Today, people can turn around and go back, but not on a one-lane one-
way street!) People will be caught, unable to get out of the jam. How will a service vehicle
get to the disabled vehicle? What happens when a fire engine or ambulance needs to get
through this log jam? These are not hypotheticals – there are multiple fire engine and
ambulance runs every day on Broad, and more on Chorro.
Normal daily life in the neighborhood will be impossible. Take deliveries, for example.
Frequently (just the other day for example in front of my own house for about a half hour)
goods arrive on highway trucks, and thereʼs no place to park these huge vehicles, so the
truck has to stop in a traffic lane and unload. Today thereʼs no problem – cars can go
around the truck by using the opposing lane. But with a single hemmed-in lane, that cannot
happen. So how is life supposed to work with this street configuration?
And then thereʼs the weekly ritual of garbage collection. Youʼll have a one-lane
thoroughfare with garbage trucks – 3 of them at different times from morning rush
hour to noon – inching forward, one garbage can at a time!
One has only to think briefly about such stuff to scratch oneʼs head at what staff and the
bike committee were thinking to even give this bizarre plan the light of day, let alone to
recommend it.
7. By lengthening emergency response time, the city will inflict higher fire insurance
rates on all affected by this scheme. Fire insurers pay attention to things like response
time and traffic conditions. Some may even find their insurance cancelled. Why would you
do this to your constituents?
8. Alt. 2 reduces traffic volumes on Chorro (staff talks about “equalizing,” but Broad has
always had much less traffic than Chorro, so “equalizing” represents an intentional and
malicious anti-quality life traffic increase for Broad – again, betrayal of the premise behind
LUCE EIR analysis) at the expense of major traffic increases on Broad, Ramona,
Meinecke, Murray and Lincoln.
The increase on Broad is largely a deliberate transfer of traffic from Chorro, and
secondarily the result of more and more drivers trying to avoid congestion on Foothill and
Santa Rosa (see Ramona discussion).
On Ramona, itʼs more complex. As part of this scheme, there will be a bike crossing on
Foothill between Broad and Tassajara, which means another traffic light on Foothill, which
will further congest Foothill and encourage through traffic to cut over to Ramona. But
added to that, Broad would be the only southbound route to downtown west of Santa
Rosa, meaning it would then become entirely logical for people to get off Foothill and onto
Ramona, turn right on Broad, and skip two or more traffic lights on Foothill. Remember,
everybody who used to go to town on Chorro will now be induced/forced to do it via
Ramona/Broad. I doubt any residents on Ramona have a clue this is about to happen to
4
them. This makes no sense since the city is simultaneously touting Ramona as part of its
“safe routes to school” scheme. How is a narrow traffic-clogged side street a safe
route to school?
Meinecke is affected because it will carry, in addition to its current traffic, all the traffic
coming out Chorro to Cerro San Luis Foothills (Ramona and streets it serves). This traffic
will cut from Chorro to Ramona via Meinecke since none of that traffic can come out
Broad, as much of it does today. Meinecke will also go up because Ramona to Santa Rosa
traffic (remember the desire of drivers to avoid Foothill congestion) will shoot right across
Meinecke to Santa Rosa.
Murray is affected because Chorro from Foothill to Murray will remain a two-way street.
But south of Murray, it becomes one-way north and all southbound Chorro traffic will be
required to turn on Murray! Again, I doubt anybody on Murray knows or understands this.
Lincoln will pick up all the additional traffic from Broad, plus the freeway traffic and traffic
from the neighborhood uphill of Broad. All of that in-neighborhood traffic, if headed to
destinations north, can no longer go directly out Broad, but must cut over to Chorro on
Lincoln, then go north on Chorro – a very roundabout route that increases neighborhood
traffic and inconvenience.
It is very difficult to understand how substantially increasing traffic on 5 key streets
used by bicyclists makes biking safer.
9. All the options mess up traffic flow within the neighborhood. Alt. 2 perhaps does this
most notoriously.
To get to and from our homes we'll have to drive blocks out of the way. For example,
with Alt. 2, someone on Mission Lane (Mission uphill from Broad) coming home from
downtown cannot come out Broad to Mission Lane, as they do now, because Broad will go
the opposite direction, but must go out Chorro, which will be a mess, to Murray, then
double back on Broad to Mission Lane! That's about a half mile out of the way.
For somebody on Mission Lane to go to the Broad/Foothill grocery will require, instead of
driving straight out Broad, cutting over to Chorro at some point, reversing direction and
cutting back across Meinecke to Ramona.
From my house (Broad near Murray), I go to easterly downtown, like Johnson Avenue, (car
parked facing Foothill direction) by making a quick right on Murray all the way to Santa
Rosa, which is faster and more convenient than messing with Chorro and helps put
through traffic where it belongs, on an arterial rather than residential street like Chorro.
Under Alt. 2, I'll have to park inconveniently on the left side of the street (facing downtown),
and to get to easterly downtown will have to either go down Broad to Mission and cut over
to Chorro and back to Murray, which will eat up the time and mileage savings of my
present route, or Iʼll have to drive in Broad, over humps, cushions, through chicanes and
traffic circles and other assorted obstacles till I finally get someplace. This is insane.
5
I've barely scratched the surface of how in-neighborhood traffic will be affected and how
much MORE driving this alleged greenhouse-gas-saving bike scheme will produce. This
sort of mismanaged traffic “design” is a direct affront to the cityʼs Climate Action Plan,
as it forces ALL neighborhood residents to drive miles per week out of their way and emit
substantially more greenhouse gases than at present.
10. An especially bizarre aspect of the Chorro part of Alt. 2 is the parking arrangement
for residents on the west side of Chorro. They will have to park in the middle of the
street (whatʼs currently the southbound travel lane) with drivers opening car doors into a
two-way bike lane and passengers into the traffic lane, then unloading and scampering
across a 2-way bike lane to the sidewalk. Imagine safely handling kids, groceries, or
someone in a wheelchair! Imagine also the issues with deliveries!
Residents seeking to park in driveways on the west side will have to wait in the single
travel lane for a clear bike lane, then drive across the bike lane. When leaving the
driveway, theyʼll have to back across the two-way bike lane then into the single travel lane.
How long will that take? How is this safe for anyone, bikes or vehicles?
Those are a few of the most obvious problems with Alt. 2 – there are many more, but you
should have enough to buttress your scuttling of this ill-conceived scheme.
Here are additional problems with the other schemes, Alt. 1 and Alt. 3.
Please remember, as a general matter you must see that any adopted plan meets at a
minimum these two conditions of neighborhood livability:
• No loss of on-street parking. Residents need and use this parking. Some of us have no
off-street parking. Many residents are elderly, and cannot park distantly and walk to and
from their cars. Street parking is truly not something the city can justify taking away. In fact,
the present plans all discriminate against the less abled, and that is a legal issue as well
as an ethical issue.
• Convenient access into and out of the neighborhood. With substantial plan
modifications this might be met under Alternatives 1 and 3, but itʼs not possible with
Alternative 2.
Problems explicit in Alt. 1. These are things that need major modification or simply to go
away:
11. “Sidewalk bulbouts with potential for green street treatments” – these need to go
away. Issues:
• Force bikes into traffic lanes. How does that make biking safer?
• Located in places where rain gardens (“green street treatments”) will not work
6
• Not needed for pedestrian convenience or safety – mere textbook affectations in an
already well-landscaped neighborhood
• Textbook stuff that serves no purpose other than to destroy needed on-street parking
• As an architect and planner who advocates and conceptually designs green street
treatments, I can say these proposals are anything but green street treatments proposed
by persons who apparently donʼt understand how such things work.
12. Complete sidewalk on west side of Broad, Serrano to Center – needs to go away.
This idea has nothing to do with the bike boulevard, which is apparently just a pretext for it.
I also speak as a frequent advocate for pedestrian safety and convenience.
• Reason sidewalks not there already is topography. The cityʼs policy is sidewalks are
unnecessary and undesirable if they require major land reconfiguration or retaining walls.
Building these will require construction of huge, expensive, engineered, ugly retaining walls
that will ruin the character of the neighborhood. If you start this precedent here, you are
instituting a major change in city policy deserving of public workshops, study sessions and
hearings.
• Who pays for building them? If property owners, do you really think thatʼs fair? Or that it
will fly? If the city, why should scarce bike funds be used for that?
• The absence of curbs and gutters on the west side in 100 and 200 blocks of Broad lends
to the relaxed semi-rural feel for the neighborhood. People like that. It makes our place
unique. In its place planners propose ugly generic anyplace-USA
curb/gutter/sidewalk/retaining wall.
• There is no need for the proposed sidewalks. I live on the east side of Broad where there
are continuous sidewalks on our side and none across the street, and our side is all thatʼs
needed. This area doesnʼt have the pedestrian density of downtown! We already have a
continuous sidewalk adequate for pedestrians – on the east side of Broad.
13. Mission Street traffic diverter. Needs modification, or to just go away. With a diverter
at both ends of Broad, this seems unnecessary. (I donʼt favor any of them, but Iʼm
commenting on whatʼs presented.) Further, why shouldnʼt residents of Broad headed to
downtown be able to turn left onto Mission, get off the bike boulevard, and go over to
Chorro? Why should they be forced instead to continue on the bike boulevard? This is
nothing more than a calculated nuisance for residents of the street and a safety danger for
bikers.
14. Speed cushions. This is another odd textbook idea. Itʼs designed to slow cars, maybe
(hah! you cannot imagine the creativity drivers will apply to outsmarting them), but to give
free passage to freeway-bound semis which arenʼt supposed to be on these streets but are
there because police donʼt enforce truck route ordinance. How does favoring highway
trucks enhance bike or neighborhood safety?
15. Why is the Center Street stop sign being removed? You want cars plowing into the
houses on Center because they can zip onto that street from Broad without stopping?
Keep this stop sign.
7
16. Mountain View traffic circle – another generic textbook solution thatʼs unnecessary,
entirely out of context and completely unneeded at this location. Needs to go away.
17. Almond Street zigzag. This shouldnʼt be part of the plan. If a handful of people prefer
to ride on a street that has around 100 vehicles per day on it, they can, just as it is. You
donʼt need to complicate things by including this nonsense in the plan and dragging even
more annoyed neighborhood residents into the fray.
Additional Problems Explicit in Alt. 3.
18. In Alt. 3, another textbook “solution” that solves no problem, that needs to disappear,
are the “chicanes” in the 100 block of Broad, which will create San Luis Obispoʼs own
version of San Franciscoʼs “crookedest street in the world” and will destroy heavily-used
and much-needed on-street parking for practically the entire block – a total non-
starter which blatantly and explicitly discriminates against the blockʼs elderly and
handicapped residents. At present there are two speed humps in that block which slow
traffic to desired bike boulevard speeds without taking away any on-street parking. They
are proven to work; have been there doing their job for more than 20 years! They are all
the “calming” needed at this location. Replacing them with chicanes is ridiculous. The
chicanes do nothing to improve bike or traffic safety over present conditions, and inflict
deep harm on the neighbors.
Related Concerns.
19. Ramona extension in Alt. 1
There are numerous problems with this.
• This route forces bicyclists to cross a very dangerous exit from the shopping center which
any pedestrian or bicyclist who uses that area can tell you is awful because of the
confusion of drivers in a rush pulling out of the shopping center and running down those on
foot or bikes. This scheme is many accidents waiting to happen, not a safety solution.
• Having a two-way bike lane on the north side of the street is dangerous because nobody
expects bikes to be going the wrong way, and drivers will not be looking for them. This will
be a particular hazard at the shopping center exit. (I canʼt tell you how many times Iʼve
practically been run over in the crosswalk at this very location as drivers look left but not
right before pulling out!) Furthermore, it forces eastbound bicyclists to make a turn across
bi-directional vehicular traffic on Ramona at Broad, again, something drivers will not be
expecting to encounter. This is unsafe.
• This is touted as a “safe route to school,” which means youʼre expecting 7-year-olds to
be sophisticated enough to deal with the notorious hazards mentioned above.
• Removing all of the much-used commercial worker and student parking from the north
side of Ramona will force it into the nearby neighborhoods which are already heavily
parked by residents. This is unfair to the neighbors and degrades the neighborhood.
In addition to parts of the plan above that need to be dropped or modified, there are
several things included that have nothing whatsoever to do with the bike plan:
8
20. ADA curb ramps: These are required by law, and have nothing to do with a bike
boulevard. It is the cityʼs legal obligation to install them. I suspect they got put into the plan
so the city can justify using bike funds for something unrelated to bike needs.
21. Additional street lighting. This also isnʼt legitimately part of the bike boulevard. And
itʼs undesirable. Again, the boulevard seems to be a pretext for staff spending bike funds
on something unrelated. Is more lighting needed? I canʼt see it is. I walk Broad at night and
even with aging eyes find it not a problem. In fact, thereʼs too much lighting already: the
street light next door keeps my front yard and the front rooms of my house lit all night.
Thereʼs no night, no darkness. This has acknowledged adverse health consequences. This
lighting also prevents us from enjoying the night sky. Itʼs a nuisance to most of us. Chop
the additional lighting and consider dialing back whatʼs already there so night can be night.
If people want daylight level illumination at night, perhaps they should move to a big city
where itʼs never dark. Most people here enjoy the darkness of night.
With those thoughts I wish you the best as you attempt to move forward on this. The three
alternatives are all just awful, and you need a fresh start with a new approach.
Please consider making a priority in continued planning to do only whatʼs needed,
with the most minimal means possible. When retrofitting bikes into an established
urban fabric, less is actually more.
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt
PS. Please refer to my 1-2-3 letter for a possible road forward.
PPS. If you missed the “road diet” bikelash in LA, by all means read this
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-vista-del-mar-lanes-20170726-story.html