134 registered statements
John Schutz inside Neighborhood 1
July 2, 2017, 2:20 PM
I support Alternative #3. It will help the bikers and should minimize the disruption for those of us living in the neighborhood, while discouraging the use of Foothill and Broad/Chorro as an alternative to Los Osos Valley Rd & Madonna.
Donette Dunaway inside Neighborhood 7
June 29, 2017, 8:51 PM
Wonderful to see this discussion! I raised my 2 children in SLO and transported them to school and daycare along the Broad St corridor by bike daily. Although I love the current bike boulevard and consider it a great improvement over standard city streets, I put my vote behind Alternative 2 for these reasons: the biggest worry as a rider and especially as a parent teaching kids to ride, is the proximity of moving cars to cyclists. Alternative 2 is the most successful at separating cyclists and pedestrians from moving cars. Alternatives 1&3 essentially rely on painted markings to keep cyclists safe. (A bit of an overstatement, but essentially true) We need more than painted pavement. The cycle track of Alternative 2 provides a physical buffer (parked cars) between cyclists and moving cars. Regarding Alt. 3, we should not center the City's plans around Caltrans' plans since we do not have control over Caltrans decision-making or budgets.
Laura Krueger inside Neighborhood 7
June 24, 2017, 8:22 AM
I bicycle the Morro Street Bike Blvd often and always feel safe on it. I think it adequately addresses safety, since a completely separate bike path is not feasible. I think a similar bike blvd on Broad would be a welcome addition - allowing safe access to the Foothill area.
June 21, 2017, 9:38 PM
I've lived in SLO since 1983 and have raised two children here. While I appreciate the idealized view that having more bike paths/boulevards, etc. will convince more people to ride bikes instead of drive cars, the reality is that only a small fraction of the population will *ever* use a bike for more than just a casual ride. Meanwhile the vast majority of the population must use a car because they are too frail/elderly, have small children to transport, must carry tools to their work, need to carry groceries home, etc. It's time SLO did some serious thinking about how to efficiently maneuver vehicles throughout the city without creating slowdowns like the horrible renovation of South Street. Cars are the main mode of transportation for maybe 97% of us, so let's start thinking about how to make traffic in SLO work for the majority rather than spending so much time and energy on the very small minority.
June 21, 2017, 5:07 PM
As someone who works near Mission Prep and Mission School, I am concerned about the safety of the students outside the schools and walking to the Mission. However, I wouldn't want to see Broad closed in front of the schools and Mills closed in front of the parking garage because teachers and parents need to have access to the schools and parking for the schools. I noticed that the curve on Broad around the Mission and Historical Society building hasn't been addressed, where I have seen a number of close misses involving cars, semis, bikes, and pedestrians.
June 21, 2017, 10:29 AM
This is a great idea. Make sure there is enough room for the families to get to their homes in their cars but keep most of the traffic off of that street so the bike riders are safe.
June 20, 2017, 9:31 PM
Great work! As a cyclist and motorist I believe alternative 2 offers the greatest advantages to both groups and also to the impacted neighborhoods.
June 20, 2017, 6:51 PM
Whenever you think about mixing cars, bicycles and pedestrians, calming traffic should be the first priority. Bicycles can be as dangerous to pedestrians as cars. I support bicycle boulevards, and I prefer the first plan because it makes access to University Square easier (although not easy, that's for sure), but I urge the city to not forget pedestrians. When you have bike lanes but no sidewalks, something is wrong somewhere. Therefore, please, use roundabouts, plant buffers, and other tools to calm traffic, and make sure pedestrians have not been forgotten anywhere along the bicycle boulevards. Furthermore, remember that the city is in the process of working out a possible purchase of the empty land belonging to the Mormon church for the creation of a park. This will also affect the location of some of the boulevard, and how people will reach the park, especially on the Foothill side. The safer you make this area, the better for everyone.
June 20, 2017, 4:23 PM
I fully support a bike boulevard linking Foothill to Downtown. I like option 2 best only because it clearly separates bikes from car traffic. It would be terrific to be able to bike into town without worrying about being bumped by a car or having a car door opened in front of me. If the biking feels safer, I would feel more comfortable biking with my kids to town, too. Right now, I do it, but not with my kids because it feels too risky.
June 20, 2017, 3:07 PM
There should be no changes to the bike path. I am an Almond Street resident and am concerned for my small children and our privacy. I also do not like the idea of bikes racing by as I back out of my driveway either. Our street is narrow and we all ready have parking issues.
I chose my location because Almond is not a through street with tons of cars and bikes riding down it. It is one of the only street in Anholm that is like this. Therefore a great steet to raise my small children. Your Almond Street diversion in only one block of the path. They should remain on Broad. This proposal is very upsetting.
Open City Hall is not a certified voting system or ballot box. As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials.