HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/14/2018 Item 2, Schmidt (2)
Sheffield, Alexis
From:Richard Schmidt <slobuild@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, August
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:Planning Commission
August 15, 2018
Re: Anholm Bike Meeting
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I’d like to thank you for your willingness to hear and respond to residents’ concerns with what’s happening in our
neighborhood last night. Frankly, this is the first time in the entire Anholm Bikeway affair that anyone at city hall – staff,
ATC, council – has been willing to hear us and respond other than belligerently, dismissively, or negatively. I appreciate
your being different.
I’d not observed your commission in action before, and I was pleased to see your thoughtful discussion of how to navigate
within the narrow range of options staff left for you. Thank you for doing this often thankless work so thoughtfully.
One thing that’s frustrating for some in the audience is the inability to respond to statements made after public comment
closes. Last night there were a couple of such things for me.
First, the commission asked staff about a temporary “study” closure of the Broad freeway connection. I’m sure you
observed that staff did not answer that question, but instead once again punted to their view that closure would have to
await CalTrans having $60 million or whatever to spend on Santa Rosa’s connection because closing the Broad
connection would cause mayhem at Santa Rosa. You may recall similar objections to closing Brisco’s connection in
Arroyo Grande: Grand Avenue was going to be gridlocked and traffic exiting at Oak Park was going to back up onto the
freeway. When the trial closure took place, that predicted mayhem didn’t happen – which shows that traffic model
projections aren’t necessarily correct. In fact, traffic behavior is fluid and quite unpredictable. It’s clear to me the
alternative to Broad is not necessarily Santa Rosa. For example, we have a brief morning rush of traffic from North County
to Cal Poly that shoots out Broad to Highland. There are multiple alternatives for that traffic: Grand, California, and Santa
Rosa. Anyway, the only way to find out what the consequences of closing Broad might be is to try it. I remain an optimist
about severity of the consequences, other than complaints. It is a shame staff is so wedded to their unwillingness to
consider the possibility that they punt to their rote reply when asked about it by the commission.
Second, since many commissioners seemed to be persuaded by the ATC chair’s unsubstantiated testimony that cycle
tracks through the neighborhood would be the safest option, I feel I must respond, since that contention is categorically
false. One has to remember how cycle tracks got into the equation: BikeSLO-belonging staff turned to that group’s
adherents and asked them what they wanted, and anything they wanted got into the initial plan; similar courtesy has never
1
been extended to residents. So somebody wanted cycle tracks, and that got into the plan. The problems with on-street
cycle tracks such as proposed are legion, and here is a very short version:
1. If you study successful cycle tracks, you’ll see they are on arterials where there’s an absence of driveways or other
mid-block vehicular crossings.
2. No good bike facility designer uses cycle tracks where there are frequent driveways, for each driveway, in the words of
the Davis bike plan’s explanation why that city refrains from this use of tracks, is an “unsignalized intersection” where
bike-vehicular conflict arises – the very thing tracks are supposed to prevent. The Anholm plan would involve dozens of
driveway crossings across the tracks, including two on Ramona, at the already-dangerous vehicular and truck exits from
the shopping center, which make my skin crawl, making this is an “unsafe route to school” for 7 year olds.
3. The Anholm plan has proposed two-way cycle tracks, which double the likelihood of bike-vehicular conflicts at mid-
block crossings. Two-way tracks are also dangerous for other reasons having to do with oncoming cyclists physically
confined within a narrow track.
4. Safe cycle tracks not only lack driveway crossings, but their physical separation from moving vehicles is substantial, in
width and solidity (think planters, a row of parked cars, etc.), whereas there’s no space on Anholm’s streets for such
features, and the two-way cycle tracks will be confined by a curb and adjacent to moving vehicles – for the two-way
tracks, cars moving in the opposite direction. One little clip of that curb by a kid on a bike, and she’ll flip into a traffic lane.
5. Cycle tracks only provide safety mid-block. At intersections, bikers are mixed with vehicles and in full danger once
again. Thus they offer false sense of security. Information I obtained from Davis shows this breakdown for location of
vehicle-bike accidents: mid-block, 25%, intersections, 75%.
6. And remember, please, there’s no record for the past 5 years, the length of time for which my public records request
sought information, of any vehicle-bike accidents along the route of these proposed cycle tracks on Broad and Chorro. So
safety on the residential streets appears to be a non-issue, whereas lack of safety for cycle tracks crossing driveways is a
serious safety issue.
The only reason cycle tracks have traction for the Anholm plan appears to be because of the overwhelming ignorance of
our biking community – and apparently our bike staff as well -- about what’s a safe facility and what’s not.
Anyway, I wanted to alert you to the fact that the “safe” alternative which at first glance may make sense is actually more
dangerous than the status quo. Is there a safer “low stress” alternative for the “timid” and inexperienced rider, for whom
these accommodations are supposedly being made? Absolutely for the Chorro portion (out to Mission). Coming from
downtown on Chorro, right on Lincoln, left on Mission – you’ll not find a lower stress street than Lincoln. Why does the
ATC belligerently reject this? Because it takes a minute longer to bike. Now really, is a timid or inexperienced rider really
going to find one minute a deal-breaker in return for a relaxed ride?
So goes it.
Again, thank you for last night.
Richard Schmidt
2