HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/15/2017 Item 16, Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
August 15, 2017
SUBJECT: Item 16, Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard Options
Dear Mayor Harmon and Members of the Council
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods strongly recommends this item be continued to a future date to
allow for other alternatives to be developed. We think the goal of any redesign should be to add value
to neighborhoods, not to make it more difficult or less safe to live there.
The stated purpose of the proposed redesign of these streets is to provide a low stress, priority route for
cyclists, who may be intimidated by sharing the street with vehicular traffic under current conditions. An
additional purpose should be to allow easy access for residents to get to/from their homes and to allow
easy, rapid access for police, fire and ambulance services in case of emergency.
Discussion of the alternatives omits the fact that both traffic lanes on Broad Street between Foothill and
Lincoln are currently marked with “sharrows” (bicycle stamp) as are the lanes on Chorro from Mountain
View to Foothill, Ramona and Murray - depicting that these streets are shared by both bicycles and
vehicles. The current configuration not only allows for bicycle usage, but also allows for easy access by
residents and first responders to the homes on these streets. None of the proposed alternatives
provides the level of emergency services access that is currently provided, and two of the alternatives do
not provide residents with easy access to their homes.
Alternative 1. “Cons” listed on packet pages 419 and 431.
1. Less convenient access to properties on Broad Street
2. Degraded conditions for residents, drivers, bikes and pedestrians on Chorro
3. Traffic volumes along Chorro, Meinecke, Lincoln exceed maximum neighborhood traffic thresholds
4. Traffic calming treatments/diverters minimize (the) impacts to emergency services (emphasis added)
Alternative 2. “Cons” listed on packet pages 420 and 431.
1. Least convenient access to properties on Broad and Chorro Streets with the conversion to one-way
2. Least desirable alternative for emergency service providers
3. Traffic volumes along Meinecke, Lincoln exceed maximum neighborhood traffic thresholds
Alternative 3. “Cons” listed on packet pages 422 and 431.
1. Chorro and Lincoln exceed maximum volume thresholds - until US 101/Broad ramps closure
2. Traffic calming treatments/diverters minimize (the) impacts to emergency services (emphasis added)
This area is comprised of student-impacted neighborhoods. This year’s projected increase in Cal Poly’s
enrollment (est 5,000+ freshmen plus transfers) will have a significant effect on both housing and vehicle
parking needs for at least the next four years. In 2018 these students will be 2d-year and most will be
looking for housing within the city. Many students with bicycles will, also, have cars and will be looking
for on-street parking. This is not the time to reduce the availability of on-street parking in this definitely
student-impacted area.
Alt 1 - Loss of on-street parking (16 Broad; 0 Chorro)
Alt 2 - Loss of on-street parking (9 Broad; 22 Chorro)
Alt 3 - Loss of on-street parking (20 Broad; 0 Chorro)
Item 16, Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard Options, page 2
We think the closure of the Broad Street/US 101 ramps would make a significant difference in the
amount of vehicular traffic on Broad Street and potentially negate the necessity to redesign streets in
this area. We request this option be actively pursued and, as an interim measure, that Cal Trans be
persuaded to allow us to test the effects of such a closure for a one-year period.
In summary, as stated on packet page 424, “each project alternative has unique benefits and drawbacks
and will require challenging decisions to achieve a balance between improving safety and mobility for
pedestrians and bicyclists of varying ages and ability levels, maintaining sufficient access for drivers, and
retaining a quality neighborhood environment for residents of this area.” We do not think that balance
can be achieved by any of the proposed alternatives for the reasons stated above. Therefore, we
recommend this item be continued to a future date to allow for other alternatives to be developed.
Sincerely,
Sandra Rowley
Chairperson, RQN