Click this link to optimize Open City Hall for screen readers Skip to Content
Open City Hall
Open Town Hall

How do you want your Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard?

134 registered statements

As a regular pedestrian on Broad St, I often see cyclists taking this route towards downtown (avoiding busier Chorro). Sadly, I see both cars and bikes ignoring or cruising through the stop signs as they head downhill towards 101. I think a plan to calm traffic and provide priority to bikes is a great idea for this street. The pedestrian/bike overpass is a bonus that will serve this neighborhood well. The current route under 101 on Chorro is noisy and pretty dark at night. I think this is a great idea - it will improve safety for everyone, encourage sustainable transportation, and increase property value along this corridor by boosting the neighborhood's attractiveness for students and families. I think this would be a great idea. I use the Morro Street bike boulevard all the time. Bike Boulevards also work great in other cities. A great way to encourage non-auto traffic. Fan of number 2 as without the 101 overpass a full on bike blvd would not adrress problems for the area as a whole. I would suggest that doing the minimum to implement would be the best way to start. I think residents have valid concerns about radically changing the character of the neighborhood when trying to imagine full build out. If addressing the traffic issues improves things as I believe/hope it would, the other changes might then garner more support. Thanks! As much as I am in favor of promoting bicycle safety and access, I am NOT in favor of closing this section of Broad Street to autos. It is the route that we take multiple times most everyday to work, downtown, and onramp to HWY 101 South. It is the most direct and efficient way to get to and from the neighborhood we have lived in for 22 years. If Broad Street were closed, we would have to take the long way to and from Chorro to Foothill and Santa Rosa (which would also impact those streets) rather than a more direct way (Romona to Broad) to S. Tassajara adding more time and inconvenience. I think the pavement markings, giving priority to bicycles is effective enough without penalizing motorists. Sorry, we are not in favor of this. How about only allowing parking on one side of the street? Maybe the side toward the mountain? I know as a cyclist, if I'm heading North from downtown I prefer to ride up Lincoln, and then across West to join back with Chorro. If I'm heading south toward town, and Broad was less crowded, I'd take that route. Right now I use Santa Rosa to get to town because I have a dedicated Class II. For families and children, Broad would be a great bike boulevard. Limit the street parking first. I both bike and walk on Broad St. several days a week on my commute downtown from Cerro Romauldo. A few observations and comments: * City data show that the 85th-percentile speed is 31 mph, meaning about 1 in 6 cars goes faster than that. Of course, the trip from Ramona to 101 is not at a steady speed, but multiple accelerations and decelerations, stopping at the stop signs and gunning it in between. A "slow flow" street that has less full stops but is traffic-calmed to bring the 85% speed into, say, the low 20s might be better. * Broad St. both parallels and crosses Old Garden Creek. This presents a big opportunity for traffic calming that also treats stormwater, reducing creek runoff pollution and lowering flooding risk in heavy storms and future El Nino years. For example, curb extensions would improve conditions for pedestrians, dampen turning speeds, make sight distance better at intersections, and help the City improve access for persons with disabilities. Broad Street could therefore serve as both a bike boulevard and a "green street". For inspiration, one need not look further than Paso Robles: they won a US Green Building Council award for their 21st St. project. A Broad St. design would be different, but it shows that this type of innovation is achievable. One of the key intersections to look at would be Murray, which is literally on top of the creek. The downhill approaches also seem to encourage faster auto speeds. Also, since the sidewalk on the west side ends south of Murray, this is a pedestrian crossing area. * The "green street" idea also touches upon another observation: many of the homes along the street have beautiful front yards. Many homeowners clearly put a lot of care and effort into landscaping, and the street itself could be an aesthetic complement. Cities like Portland have become seasoned at putting attractive, low-height plantings in their stormwater-filtering curb extensions. Another idea is widening the sidewalk at pinch points (e.g. where there are power poles) and adding a buffer strip, which could also be designed to filter stormwater. * Finally, it is important that the bike boulevard cater to different ages and abilities of cyclists. This is a popular route to school, in addition to being a popular commute route. Dan Matthews inside Neighborhood 1- As a 22 year resident of Palomar Ave., I am highly in favor of promoting safe bicycle and pedestrian access into downtown SLO and throughout the Cal Poly-Foothill neighborhoods. That is the beauty of our great location! I am sure that this can be accomplished on Broad St. by slowing or limiting traffic, dedicating bike lanes and providing continuous ADA compliant sidewalks. Currently, there is a project in the works that could jeopardize several of our neighborhoods and negatively impact any plans for a Broad St. Bicycle Blvd. Likely, many have not heard of this development at 71Palomar Ave. that includes building 41 housing units; likely to be occupied by students due to its prime location. This address is the old historic Sandford Farm House, also known as the Delta Tau Fraternity House. The City Cultural Heritage Committee is reviewing this item at its next meeting on March 28, 2016 @ 6pm. From there it will go before the Architectural Review Committee for approval. If the project in its present form is approved and it breaks ground, think what this high density housing in this location will do to increase traffic, parking issues and noise...contending with more of these issues in the neighborhood can lead to resident owners moving out and more homes being bought for student rentals; thus loss of the neighborhood as we know and enjoy it today. Additionally, Luneta Dr. adjacent to the 71 Palomar project is slated to be opened up to two-way traffic, thus providing a shortcut from Tassajara off Foothill Blvd. to Palomar Ave. and Serrano Dr. dumping traffic directly onto Broad St. This would negatively impact several neighborhoods with much increased traffic. I would suggest a higher use for this property would be a much lower density housing project, a restored historic home (ie; Jack House) for public use, a city pocket park (much needed in this NW sector of SLO), and keeping Luneta St. blocked to through traffic. Any or all of these possibilities need to be considered in order for the Broad St. Bicycle Blvd. to be effective. Thus, I recommend that both of these projects be considered together; sent to the City Planning Commission and the City Council for a thorough vetting and consideration. Let us take a long term view of what is best for this portion of the city and NOT ruin the neighborhoods...lets make them better! This sounds great. My question is where does the revenue stream come from for these improvements? Cyclist who use the road should have to pay registration and licensing fees. My husband and I are recent transplants to SLO from the Midwest. Part of our decision to move to this community was based on our desier to live in an active community. The number of people we encounter on foot or on bikes is a credit to the city. That said, I've spoken with many people in our short 5 months who say they don't feel safe riding on the local roads. As people who use an automobile as a last option - instead, preferring to travel by foot, bike or public transportation before relying on a vehicle - I endorse any efforts being made to improve infrastructure to make people feel safer when they're not inside of a 2- or 3-ton machine equipped with airbags. Thank you for considering these improvements to our wonderfully active community. I have lived on Murray Street between Broad and Chorro for 13 years. My wife and I have two boys, ages 8 and 10, and we bike often with them, especially to and from Pacheco school and downtown. I think the Broad Street bicycle boulevard and the pedestrian overpass are both fantastic ideas. The biggest issue with our neighborhood is that it is overloaded with through streets. People in automobiles use Broad, Chorro, and Santa Rosa as cross-town routes, and they use Murray as a connector between those routes. If Broad turns into a bike boulevard then cars still have the option of using Chorro and Santa Rosa as cross-town routes, or Santa Rosa as a way to enter/exit the freeway. Broad's transformation into a bicycle boulevard may pose a minor inconvenience to autos but viable options still remain, while at this time bicyclists have no prioritized street. Cyclists are secondary to autos on Chorro, Broad, and Santa Rosa. Having at least one safe bicycle-centric option seems reasonable and Broad is the best choice of the three. And I use the Broad Street freeway on-off ramp a lot but would gladly be willing to give that up for a bike/pedestrian overpass instead. The Chorro underpass is chaotic at best as it funnels pedestrians, cyclists and autos into one spot and that chaos continues at Peach and Chorro which is very a dangerous intersection for bikes/pedestrians and autos alike. The walnut/Chorro intersection is no better. The Broad Street pedestrian overpass would significant mitigate these problems and provide a safe path of travel to/from downtown for bikes and pedestrians. Before living on Murray I lived at Leff and Osos near Gus' Grocery. It was always significantly more pleasurable walking or biking to downtown from there because Morro had very few cars on it. Osos was the domain of the auto and the cyclists/pedestrians had Morro. I hope that the Broad Street Bike Boulevard can be created along with the overpass so we can have a similar bike/pedestrian-centric corridor on West side of downtown. Thanks for allowing early input into this planning process. We live in the Lincoln Street neighborhood bounded by Chorro and including West street until it rejoins Chorro. Like several neighborhoods in this part of town, Lincoln Street is a very quiet neighborhood. There is relatively light traffic and no stop signs. It is a neighborhood that seems to have mix of residents including larger numbers of retired folks as well as families with small children. Light traffic and no stop signs have also made Lincoln Street an effective informal bike route with no conflict with its residents. As we have found out in the past, the neighborhoods in the Chorro Street-Broad Street corridor from downtown to Foothill Blvd are quite interdependent. This means that well intended changes on either street reverberates into the surrounding neighborhoods, often with very negative consequences. One notable example was the attempt to put roundabouts along Chorro to slow the traffic along this busy corridor. Instead of calming traffic, the roundabouts aggravated the automobile drivers using Chorro. Much to our horror, and I am sure an unintended consequence of the project designers, many motorists began using Lincoln Street as a bypass around all the roundabouts. Traffic surged along Lincoln Street, with a small percentage of drivers recklessly speeding to make up for lost time. Unfortunately, it took neighborhood residents getting organized and conducting our own road usage studies to document the problem and the greater risks to families with children who had to buy portable "children at play" signs to slow traffic, and seniors who daily took their lives in their hands when they tried to back out of their driveways. Fortunately, when the roundabouts were removed on Chorro, Lincoln Street returned to simply servicing the neighborhood. Lincoln Street residents are convinced that a dramatic change to Broad Street will have a cascading effect on Chorro Street traffic, which in turn will resurrect the "Lincoln Street Bypass" and destroy the quality of life of the neighborhood. We hope that the residents of the surrounding interdependent neighborhoods be included in the early planning stages so that unintended consequences of dramatic changes can be identified and properly considered in weighing alternatives. We were not informed about the first meeting and only learned about the project via word of mouth of folks who live along Broad Street. This is a great idea! I support separating auto and bicycle traffic. I would love to see an overpass over 101. The most important aspect of a bicycle boulevard, which the city has done a great job of incorporating on Morro St., is minimizing stops. The fewer stops the better, that's what makes biking a fun and appealing alternative to driving. I've lived on Broad St. for the past 21 years. I think the bike path is a good idea and I'm willing to share the road with everyone, but please don't take away any of the parking on the street that the residents and their renters need for their quality of living I live North of Foothill but like to bike downtown when I can. I typically take Broad Street but like many dislike the stop signs along the way and find it reduces the enjoyment. A bike boulevard that removes impediments to flow would be great. I also return via Lincoln because of the absence of stop signs. I also agree that car owners would be disadvantaged from this move but I believe this is what we should be doing - getting people out of cars and onto bikes and sidewalks. I am not a fan of the bike "improvements" I've seen in SLO to date. The bike path and intersection at California and Foothill is confusing and over-run by pedestrians texting without looking where they are going, so thank you for trying to force me off the road into that path. The green lanes seem to get invaded by cars as much as the old bike lanes did, so I'm not sure what we've paid for there. The redo of Johnson and Laurel just makes cars merge over left and back to the right, right when they should be looking for cyclists ahead of them instead of cars to the left. And the bike boulevard we already have is a hazard; just today trying to drive across on Pacific, I couldn't see past all the parked cars along Morro to see the bikes (which I knew from the signage were not going to stop) so I just have to keep edging further into the lane to the point where I'm in the way with my car by the time I see the non-stop cyclist. Really, it's not that hard to stop a bike at a stop sign. Try it sometime. So as far as a bike boulevard on Broad; no. I don't see the point. And as far as the bridge, what's wrong with the underpass (with sidewalks and bike lanes) just one block over at Chorro? The only thing I think that is hard about Broad as it is now is the number of cars parked on the street, and you know as well as I do that you're not going to get those to move. Nor do you have room to widen the road to put in a bike lane alongside. I get that people riding bikes make towns better. I don't agree though that any of the improvements implemented so far are really making the difference you've hoped so you have zero support from me on making more of the same changes. Do you have any numbers on people who've actually started riding more due to improvement X? How about the number of injuries or collisions at a given intersection, have they gone down? Saying "we did X" isn't the same as "we have seen a statistically valid change in the number of Y since Z was changed." And the next time someone rolls out a survey that says "people say they'd ride if they felt safer" I will want to scream; people will say anything as an excuse to not get out of their cars. Show me an actual statistically valid change in the number of riders as the percentage of the total population, and then you'll have a point. At the end of the day, you can't make people not be lazy. But you can reduce the number of hazards those of us who do ride have to face. Ticket the people driving and texting (not just during "distracted driving awareness day" or whatever). Ticket the speeders. Ticket the rolling stops. Put traffic cameras in place and ticket people via the cameras. Get the people who are supposed to be controlling those cars to actually follow the law. I believe that the northern terminus of this bicycle boulevard needs to be extended west on Ramona Avenue for one block, between the Village at Garden Creek (to the south) and the Foothill Square Shopping center (on the north). Ideally, it would then make a connection across the LDS Church property to Foothill Boulevard where a user-actuated traffic signal should be installed at Foothill & Ferrini to permit peds and bicyclists to cross Foothill safely. The connection across the LDS Church property should be negotiated with the church leadership, but the best route would appear to be the easterly 10-12' of their property immediately adjacent to the masonry wall that separates them from the shopping center delivery alley. A Class I bike path with adjacent pedestrian tracks could be easily constructed next to the masonry wall. This project could transform the Bicycle Boulevard into a "Safe Route to School" project because of its value in improving non-vehicular access across Foothill Boulevard to the two schools served by Cerro Romauldo - which is planned to be another Bicycle Boulevard at a later time. I would love to see Broad Street become a one way street going towards foothill from the 101 over-pass. Parking remains on both sides of the street; however, parking would be headed in the same direction. On the odd side of the street there would be a bike designated area, similar to the Pismo Street bike lane. Since Broad Street is narrower than Chorro and Lincoln, the bike lane should be one way towards Foothill. A lane going towards town could be implemented on Lincoln. If and when a bike and pedestrian bridge comes about over 101, this bridge would become a two way directional bridge for bicycles. Bikes could easily cross Chorro to reach the bridge from Lincoln. Apparently the on and off ramp on Broad will be closed in the future. And this seems to be outside the city's jurisdiction to close the on and off ramp, but it must be in the city's power to change the direction of a street. This would eliminate the number and the speed of cars on this section of Broad Street. Eliminating parking is not feasible, but mixing bicycles and cars going in either direction at speeds far greater than 25 mph is dangerous, especially for the people on the bikes. I see families of one adult and two little kids filling up a car lane with extremely discourteous drivers behind them. Also, eliminating the straight thoroughfare from Foothill to the freeway would eliminate a lot of the problems on that part of Broad Street. I've heard about the on and off ramps closing for 27 years, not 30 that I had stated at the first meeting. But nonetheless, it has been a long time and the last time I brought up the problem with the traffic's speed I was mailed a brochure how out of our own pocket we could solve the problem. I think introducing a bike "lane" or "boulevard " could be be an answer, but the people who are impacted personally (the residence in that part of Broad Street) should have the stronger input. I like the whole project, concept and guidelines. I'm all for bicycling and it's so much more fun without all of the stop signs too! But to what expense? Who should have to loose? I would like to have a complete parking and traffic study, including the study of shipping and receiving traffic for all of the locations involved on that stretch of Broad Street from Peach Street through to Monterey Street. There already isn't enough parking in this area of town for it's permitted land use. I want to see the City and the Community to take special care of the Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa and it's Church properties not only when there is some awesome concert in the plaza but really care about the property. Everyone is always so excited about the concerts and events that are held in the plaza but no one ever thinks to take care of the Mission itself. It has been here since 1772 and is the biggest reason why our City is here. The schools have been a valuable part of our community since 1876, the first school in our county. Are we not going to care about weather the children can get to school or not or if their parents have parking to pick them up? You mention impact on congestion at "drop-off and "pick-up" times. That's not the only time we need parking. We have meetings, during the day, deliveries, mail, field trips, guest speakers, parents picking up sick children, just to name a few other times that we need parking. What are we going to do if you take away our Broad Street parking then? This is more than a fun way to get from one side of town to the other on a bicycle.... this impacts hundreds of children daily throughout the school year for 2 schools. I reside at 756 Broad Street and very much support this undertaking. However, my one concern is that if the construction of this bike boulevard is phased that our portion of Broad Street (south of Highway 101) not be constructed last. Our portion of Broad Street is in desperate need of such "street calming" features as roundabouts, chicanes and/or bulb outs. Bicyclists, pedestrians and cars are all at risk when cars run through our stop signs without stopping. So a small round about would be most welcome at the intersection of Peach and Broad. Thank you. Allan Cooper At the last public meeting, two groups (including the one I was on) proposed making "single lane" one-way streets (in opposing directions) on Chorro and Broad Streets, with the vacated lanes being dedicated to bicycles. As I drive and walk the neighborhood, I think the redundancy of the two dedicated bike lanes is problematic. What may seem a more balanced approach would be creating a single-lane one-way street on Broad and using the abandoned car lane for bikes, and leaving Chorro as a two way street. For argument sake, let's say that a one-way southbound car lane begins at Ramona and Broad, and provides the current access to the freeway. Additional traffic calming features (beyond the current road bumps) could be added reduce car speed on Broad. Additionally, the cross streets that intersect Broad, e.g., Mission, Center, could have bulb outs that would necessitate a more deliberate (and slower) left turn off Broad. Taking this concept one step further, all cars exiting the freeway at Broad would be required to turn right onto Lincoln and proceed to Chorro (for travel to downtown or left towards Foothill). Very excited about this. 1. I'd recommend the "under crossing" versus the "over crossing" for bike/ped traffic at Broad and HWY 101. I believe your photo on the top right of the slide showing this crossing is from Davis, CA and that crossing is very nice compared to the other HWY crossings in Davis which are "over crossings". 2. I didn't see anything detailing how the "two way cycle track" crosses from the south side of Ramona to the north side of Ramona to connect the "Church Bike Path". 3. I'm curious about other's proposals of "one way cycle tracks" in different directions for Broad and Chorro. As a daily bicycle commuter, I don't mind hopping over to Chorro from Broad or vice versa. 4. Broad street really should not have parking on both sides. I feel sorry for the residents on Broad - but honestly that road is too narrow. How many rear view side mirrors are broken on that street every year? I support the highest level of discouragement of cars on bikeways such as what has been put in place on Morro. The Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard is a great idea. It should be designed to prioritize bike traffic while allowing limited motor vehicle use. I support the bike blvd. I use the Roalman Blvd daily and I would use this one daily as well as it connects my work commute. Would love to see it named after a woman - I am sure we have some of those in this city? The BSBB project should proceed. If the city is serious about bike and pedestrian safety, it would ensure that traffic speeds and street signage are enforced and vehicles and bikes abide by the speeds and signage. Any additional increase of residential or commercial infrastructure (and corresponding increases of vehicle traffic) should be prohibited until the areas (Chorro, Broad and all cross streets) traffic flow is returned to the city's own determined traffic capacity limits. A Broad Street Bicycle Blvd will make biking and walking to school much easier for the children that attend Bishops Peak and Pacheco. Every day, for the last 4 years I have ridden from 3242 Johnson Ave. with my son PJ on our bicycles to Pacheco Elementary School off Foothill Blvd. It’s a five-mile ride each way, and it covers a range of cycling conditions from the completely separated Class I Railroad Safety Trail to the completely unprotected residential streets that are too narrow for bikes and cars to travel side-by-side. Two years ago, a large group of concerned parents came to this budget planning meeting and expressed concern about the safety of commutes like ours. As a result, the City prioritized funding for studies about the Broad Street Bike Boulevard. Last year, we were thankful to have city staffers join us on our commute so they could see, firsthand, how scary it is to ride down Broad St. with cars passing us illegally over double-yellow lines. The study phase was a success, and now it is time to complete the Broad Street Bicycle Blvd which will improve air quality, create a safe route to schools and help the City meet its mode share goals. More importantly, it will protect the children whose families are working to help the City achieve those goals. Broad Street Boulevard is in great need of this project. I am in favor of creating a safer environment for the public and, in particular, for our children. I support the Broad Street Bicycle Blvd Project and support ALL bike safety and enhancement projects. Distracted drivers are an increasing problem for cyclists as evidenced by several tragic encounters in the last few years. Please make bike safety routes a high priority. It is an investment in our environmental future and encourages bike travel - good for traffic, health and the environment! Great idea While I endorse making Broad Street one way, making it one way all the way to Foothill would result in a traffic and safety nightmare, given the very heavy traffic coming into Broad from Ramona and the traffic in and out of Foothill Plaza. The Broad/Chorro/Foothill intersection area is already hazardous. Making this the turn around point for a one way street will exacerbate an already dangerous situation. Perhaps having the one way start at Murray, which is already a divided street, might make sense. We have enough bike friendly streets now. It is becoming too hard to drive and park downtown. Bicyclists do not do the bulk of shopping. Don't handicap downtown businesses further. I support the implementation of this plan! Bike boulevards are a wonderful additional amenity to our bike infrastructure. The current availability for safe bike travel for families who live on the south side of town, but commute to the north side for work or school is problematic. What about the South half of broad street from at least Tank Farm to downtown? It seems that half needs help too as the bike lanes are totally unsafe for children. As one who both drives and bikes this route between Foothill and downtown (and through up Broad to the east), I believe alternative #1 provides the best options: #1 provides a bike detour of the hill on Broad with the Almond diversion;; #1 doesn't make a complex vehicle maize of one-way streets like #2, or vehicle diversions like #3. In no case do I believe a future bike overcrossing of 101 at Broad is necessary or cost effective; Why mess with another Hiway 101 crossing? Just use the Chorro underpass for the bike boulevard. Save some (a lot) of money, and the Chorro street is less hilly towards Foothill. I am a recent addition to Serrano Drive (4 years). While I love the idea of a making Broad St more bike friendly and slowing down the traffic, I must admit I am feeling a bit boxed in when I look at the diverter map and the 71 Palomar project. A year ago Dan Matthews posted regarding taking a look at both the Broad Street Bike Blvd project along with the 71 Palomar development of 41 housing units. Based on both projects moving forward I am favoring making Broad a one way towards Foothill with addition of speed management updates and parking on both sides in one direction. Here is the body of Dan's message which I feel impacts this projects success and our neighborhood; Currently, there is a project in the works that could jeopardize several of our neighborhoods and negatively impact any plans for a Broad St. Bicycle Blvd. Likely, many have not heard of this development at 71Palomar Ave. that includes building 41 housing units; likely to be occupied by students due to its prime location. This address is the old historic Sandford Farm House, also known as the Delta Tau Fraternity House. The City Cultural Heritage Committee is reviewing this item at its next meeting on March 28, 2016 @ 6pm. From there it will go before the Architectural Review Committee for approval. If the project in its present form is approved and it breaks ground, think what this high density housing in this location will do to increase traffic, parking issues and noise...contending with more of these issues in the neighborhood can lead to resident owners moving out and more homes being bought for student rentals; thus loss of the neighborhood as we know and enjoy it today. Additionally, Luneta Dr. adjacent to the 71 Palomar project is slated to be opened up to two-way traffic, thus providing a shortcut from Tassajara off Foothill Blvd. to Palomar Ave. and Serrano Dr. dumping traffic directly onto Broad St. This would negatively impact several neighborhoods with much increased traffic. I would suggest a higher use for this property would be a much lower density housing project, a restored historic home (ie; Jack House) for public use, a city pocket park (much needed in this NW sector of SLO), and keeping Luneta St. blocked to through traffic. Any or all of these possibilities need to be considered in order for the Broad St. Bicycle Blvd. to be effective. Thus, I recommend that both of these projects be considered together; sent to the City Planning Commission and the City Council for a thorough vetting and consideration. I'm delighted by this project. I ride often with my kids from the area north of Foothill to Downtown, and it would be wonderful to be able to ride along Broad and under/over the freeway directly. I'm particularly excited about the safe crossing proposed for Foothill; crossing Foothill from the North side is currently a substantial challenge. Many thanks for all your hard work on this project! We support creating a safe environment for cyclists. I am a cyclist myself. We live on Chorro St. near Mission St. The traffic at certain times of the day is already very heavy and, as another commenter said, cars are speeding and "gunning it" at the stop signs. We are concerned about increased traffic on Chorro due to the diversion of traffic from Broad and the related noise and safety concerns. Additionally, an increase in traffic would impact our quality of life and possibly the value of our home. We support the idea of making Chorro and Broad streets one way in opposing directions, with a full bike lane and parking on both sides. Bike lane traffic would be in the same direction as car traffic. Bravo San Luis Obispo! Having cycled in many communities with good bicycle infrastructure, I can say from personal experience that having North Broad be a bicycle boulevard will make it much easier and safer for people to cross town using means other than a car. I am for this project 100% Will this change Chorro to a non-bike street? I am still concerned with the growth around Broad Street south of South and Santa Barbara. There are no means to safely cross Broad except at South and Santa Barbara, at Orcutt, at Industrial Way and then at Tank Farm. That is too great a distance to have so few pedestrian or cyclist activated street crossings. The City Council Minutes of the August 15th, 2017 Meeting clearly summarize & reflect the Citizen Residents of the neighborhood North of Hwy. 101 between Santa Rosa St. and Patricia Drive. We are a loving neighborhood at the foot of Cal Poly, The Villages (400 person retirement community), 3 elementary schools, 1 hospital, 2 massive student off-campus housing enclaves (Valencia Apt's & Mustang Village) and 3 retail strip-style shopping plazas. We are clearly THE most age and activity diverse neighborhood in the City. We love bicycles as well as walking, However, NOT at the expense of destroying our neighborhoods. The fixed variables on Broad & Chorro Street's are their width. They cannot be changed. Broad street is a very narrow 34 feet. Chorro 44 feet. The other fixed variables are the residential speed limit rating of 25 MPH and maximum allowable tonnage of 5 tons. Authorized City allowed vehicles in excess of 5 tons (Trash, Fire, Deconstruction haulers, Parcel delivery vehicles, etc.) make up at least 50% of the oversized vehicles permitted. The other 50% are non-permitted vehicles which fragrantly flaunt the legal street weight limit and are hiding behind vehicle code 10.48.040 allowing them to transverse Broad & Chorro streets IF in route between deliveries. This is a foolish law favoring the delivery companies and their clients at the expense of our citizenry and should be repealed. These oversized delivery vehicles take up much needed road space creating safety issues for bicyclists, pedestrian, and auto users. These delivery vehicles in excess of 5 tons are usually at least 9 to 11+ feet wide making narrow Broad and Chorro streets even more narrow; especially where on-street parking is permitted on both sides of the street. The city should focus on enforcing the current laws ticketing recidivist non-authorized delivery vehicles along with speeders whilst improving both on-street signage, crosswalks, sidewalk access, and traffing calming measures. This would help to make the streets safer for everyone potentially encouraging increased bicycle and pedestrian usage. It is also a LOT more pragmatic and cost effective. Thank you. Dear Commission Chair and Members: Please recommend that the Board of Supervisors allocate Parks Public Facility Fees or other funds to cover the estimated shortfall for the Request for Proposals to provide consulting services for construction and right-of-way documents for the Bob Jones Trail 4.4-mile extension. This work is needed to move the extension project to “shovel-ready” status and thus eligible for grant funding. The county must fulfill its commitment to complete this stretch of the City to the Sea Trail. Further delays could cause work that has already been completed to expire, adding additional cost and time to a project already years behind schedule. Yes, this is a copy and paste letter from the bikeslocounty website. However, I wholeheartedly agree that this is an important project and that it would be a waste of our funds as a community to abandon the research that has already been done towards completing the project. Sincerely, Eric Stebbins Thank you so much for your efforts on these two proposed approaches. I feel both are great approaches that captured the communities input very well. After reviewing the two alternatives I feel Alternative 2 (one way traffic) is my prefered option. One of my main concerns was to not overly impact vehicle traffic flow on Chorro. In my opinion, alternate 2 is the best neighborhood approach that does not shift the vehicle traffic problem to another neighboring street. Again thanks for your time putting this together. I wish I could have been at the last meeting. Thank you to city staff for compiling input from the community and transforming it into two options. After attending the last meeting where both options were reviewed in detail I fully support Concept Alternative 2 (Broad/Chorro One-Way Couplet). As a cyclist who commutes daily this option provides the best infrastructure to encourage more bicycle trips through the Anholm neighborhood. From a safety perspective this option excels because: 1. Provides dedicated lanes where cyclists do not share the lane with cars and are not overtaken by passing cars 2. Bike lanes on Chorro have an 11 foot separation from the drive lane (3’ paint buffer + 8’ parking lane) providing a safe and welcoming environment for both experienced and new cyclists alike. In addition the parked cars provide a physical barrier between bike lanes and drive lane. The major downside to Concept Alternative 1 (Bicycle Boulevard w/ Traffic Diversion) is the neighborhood traffic implications. It reduces vehicle traffic on Broad by 80% while increasing vehicle traffic on Chorro by 60%. Chorro is already above the established “Max neighborhood traffic threshold” of 5000 vehicles/day with ~6000 vehicles/day currently and Concept Alternative 1 would push it to ~9800 vehicles/day. This is pushing traffic on Chorro very close to the established “Roadway Capacity” of ~11,000 vehicles/day. I didn’t see traffic data for Lincoln St (from Chorro through West St) but I imagine traffic would increase due to congestion on Chorro with vehicles looking to bypass a large section of Chorro using a street (Lincoln St) with no stop signs. Concept Alternative 2 reduces traffic on Chorro by ~15% bringing Chorro almost under the “Max neighborhood traffic threshold” while continuing to keep traffic on Broad well below the “Max neighborhood traffic threshold.” This is a better balance for the Anholm neighborhood. I applaud city staff for thinking outside the box with Concept Alternative 2. Option #2 presented on Thursday, March 23, 2017 is a POOR option for residents in the Anholm neighborhood. This option is estimated to increase traffic at LEAST 20% on narrow Broad Street which is only 34 feet wide. For perspective, Chorro is 44 feet wide - approximately a car and a half width wider than Broad Street. Option #1 is a much more practical choice given the increase in future population growth and current commercial revitalization at the north end of both Broad and Chorro Street. Broad Street needs two-way traffic at the north end of the street in order to provide reasonable access to the Foothill Shopping Plaza, Ferrini Square, Valencia student apartment complex and The Villages retirement community. Chorro Street needs two-way traffic as well because the north end of the street provides access to Foothill Shopping Plaza and University Square Shopping Plaza. In addition, both Broad and Chorro are direct conduit routes to Cal Poly. Why divert traffic through the East/West facing streets to traverse the residential area between Highway 101, Highway 1 (Santa Rosa St.) and Foothill Blvd.? This makes no sense and would be highly disruptive to a residential neighborhood filled with young children, pre-occupied college students and senior citizens. Given a cost vs. benefit analysis, it is clear Option #1, as it currently stands, is far superior as it supports today's needs as well as the future needs of this neighborhood. Thank you. As a homeowner on Chorro & Mission and a building/business owner on Broad & Lincoln, I am extremely interested in the status of the Broad St Bike Blvd. I absolutely love the idea of making our city more bike able while making my Anholm neighborhood as safe and enjoyable as possible. Personally, I haven't yet decided which plan I prefer, as both have positive and negative aspects. Alternative #1 seems to solve the issue of speeding cars and congestion on Broad, only to pass the buck onto Chorro and Lincoln Streets. While Alternative #2 spreads the flow more evenly, it may need to do more to combat the problem of cars treating Broad St like one big freeway onramp. Either way, I look forward to more positive discussion about the Bike Blvd, and am excited about the future of SLO! San Luis needs more walking and biking paths that are safe. I live in the Laguna Lake area and see many close calls. If we have more designated areas for bikers and pedestrians to use it will make traveling safer for many. I do see many bikers use the bike lane but then go on the sidewalk and or mingle through traffic when it is stopped which is very unsafe. If we can separate the walking and bike lanes this would be most helpful. The plans are abusive to the neighborhood residents, disabled, elderly, young children and those unable to ride bicycles. Plans need to take into consideration social justice in this alleged era of enlightenment and equality. An important start would be to close the on and off ramps to Highway 101 on both sides of the freeway at Broad. That would immediately reduce vehicle traffic on the streets that bicycles utilize. The increase in the amount of pollution due to greater distances necessary for drivers (due to one way streets, restricted streets, traffic diversions/buffers and prohibited turns) will add more miles for routine trips to neighborhood stores and downtown. Certain streets will suffer and carry a greater burden under either of these plans. Back to the drawing board, please. It's time for a large neighborhood meeting followed by another larger meeting with the bicycle groups so that we can all work on this together. I do not support any plan that increases traffic on Chorro St. between Foothill and Palm beyond today's level which already exceed the level in the current General Plan. Therefore, I do not support a General Plan amendment to allow this. My answer to the question being asked of the Planning Commission ("Is accepting volume increases along effected streets, by virtue of their reclassification, an acceptable tradeoff to improve the cycling environment along Broad Street as a means to increase ridership?") I do not believe it is an acceptable tradeoff. It will further erode safety for the residents along this corridor, as well as all of the people who will continue to use Chorro as a bike street to get from Cal Poly and the apartment complexes along Foothill to downtown SLO. Additional traffic on Chorro will also degrade the neighborhood, making walking, parking, crossing Chorro street to visit neighbors, or just being in the yard a more stressful experience. As shown in Alternative 2, bike lanes should be protected at minimum by parked cars and ideally, barricades. It is not enough to simply paint bike lanes a bright colour, there must be a physical component to make people feel safe. Not enough people bike in SLO because there is not the proper infrastructure, making it the harder choice. A direct vein of pedestrians and bicyclists should be constructed between Poly and downtown, bringing vitality and commerce to the city’s core. American city engineers love to build 10’ wide lanes because they believe it increases safety. However, an 8’ lane if more than sufficient. People drive slower and more cautiously when lanes are slimmer. The downtown core of SLO should be car free, and the streets around the edges should be turned into woonerfs. It is time to follow the examples of European cities, such as Oslo, Copenhagen, and Barcelona, and place a premium on the pedestrian experience in the city core. And if you want to remove the cars from downtown, take away the parking. It’s an idea that seems radical, but one that works. For older people who prefer not to have to walk too far, we live in a college town, get some students to pedal around cycle rickshaws who want a bit of pocket cash. Younger people are choosing not to own cars and move to cities that are walkable and provide superior public transportation. Let’s build a city for people, not cars, and one that will be comfortable 50 years from now. Many of these proposed changes will negatively impact residents without providing an equal boost in value to cyclists. Rather than focusing on taking something away from the people who live on these streets, how about focusing on adding something for everyone. The overpass over 101 would not take anything away from anyone and would be the greatest value for all. Taking away on street parking, shifting streets to one-way, and increasing traffic to a smaller street in order to provide ease to a small segment of people who don't even live here are not good solutions. To the city planners that are keeping this terrible project alive: There are far fewer cyclists using Broad Street than homeowners and renters that use it to gain access to their residence. Surely quality of life for the many residents of these streets has to rate higher than your desire to be a part of some groovy new project or win a planning award. Please listen to the people who live here and stop this madness. Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard Project. By default, I can only support Alternative 1. Why not close the highway on/off ramp to Highway 101 on Broad Street NOW while establishing a bike path on Broad Street. THEN, study the traffic (both bike and cars) to see the result. My assumption is that many people travel on Broad to take the off/on ramp. This action should greatly impact the amount of traffic on Broad as well as Chorro Street. This on/off ramp is dangerous as it is - the on and off lanes are too short on a highly traveled highway. Implementing any of these alternatives prior to the closing of the on/off ramp appears to be premature. However, I have the following concerns: increased use of speed humps/speed cushions used in all alternatives; reduction of street parking on Chorro Street (Alternative 2); lack of use of roundabouts and visual cues; and use of chicanes. As a long-time resident living on Chorro Street, I am extremely interested in how speed humps/speed cushions are used. I was so glad to see the ones that were once placed on Chorro Street removed. They did not significantly keep cars from speeding on the road (either speeding over the bump or moving to the side of the road to try to evade it) and the emergency responders, at that time, indicated their concern (and mine now) that response time was impacted. Alternative 2 appears to indicate that curb parking would be eliminated on one side of Chorro Street. Curb parking is highly used on this street and this alternative would require individuals living on this street and who no longer have curb parking, as well as visitors, to cross a very wide street with more traffic. People may resort to jay walking and pedestrian accidents or near misses can result. As a person living on this street there have been occasions where I have had to park on the other side of the street it is not a practice that I would like to have to do every day - there is just too much traffic and an issue of safety. Roundabouts have been shown to be extremely effective in reducing speeding since a good roundabout design places a high priority on speed control. Why not more roundabouts - perhaps replacing the multiple stop signs along Chorro Street which require police presence periodically? In addition, have visual cues been considered for the area. Visual cues help drivers recognize that they are entering an area of increased pedestrian and bicycle activities. Lastly, my research indicates that the use of chicane's (Alternative 3) are not always considered effective as an a driver can maintain speed and drive down the centerline if there is no on coming traffic. 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. 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. 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. Great work! As a cyclist and motorist I believe alternative 2 offers the greatest advantages to both groups and also to the impacted neighborhoods. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. John Schutz As another writer stated, a very small percentage of travelers are using bicycles in SLO. Of course their safety is a concern. But the cost, labor and disruption to vehicular traffic for the benefit of bicyclists on Broad is unfair to the majority who drive, and who pay for the roads through gas taxes. And there is simply no way that any vehicular limitations on Broad Street will not directly impact the traffic as well as, and ESPECIALLY, the residents (and their property values) who live on and near Chorro Street. Chorro is wider than Broad and ALREADY HAS BIKE LANES. One must wonder why bicyclists are deliberately taking the Broad Street route knowing it is less bike-friendly? If bicyclists were to share the road instead of riding in the middle of the lane and blocking traffic, and started to obey stop signs, traffic lights and other traffic laws as they are supposed to, drivers would become a lot more tolerant. I live near a corner and can verify that no more than one out of ten bicyclists come to a stop at the stop sign, and when they do it is usually because there is vehicular traffic in the intersection. It is galling and exasperating watching bicyclists deliberately flaunting road laws while expecting more rights and consideration for their chosen mode of transport. Both Broad and Chorro Streets would be safer for all if delivery trucks going to businesses at the north end of town were to take alternate routes via the Santa Rosa and Foothill corridors. They don't belong on the Chorro and Broad residential streets. First, I am very impressed with the amount of analysis that has gone into developing the three alternatives. The summary presentation is clear and the pros and cons are clearly stated. Second, I was the City's project manager for the previous traffic calming project for the Chorro/Broad neighborhood. That project (mostly speed humps and traffic circles on Chorro Street) was the City's most successful failure. It resulted in a 20% reduction in traffic volumes on Chorro Street (traffic shifted to Santa Rosa) and a reduction in 85th percentile speeds on Chorro from over 30 mph to something just greater than 25 mph. BUT, it slowed access to and from the downtown for North City residents, who showed little concern for quality of life and safety concerns within the Chorro/Broad Street neighborhood. It became a fairly nasty "rights" issue. After the considerable smoke cleared, the City removed all speed humps on Chorro and the cross streets, all temporary traffic circles (people complained they were ugly, so even temp facilities should be attractive), reduced the height of the speed humps on Broad, and installed stop signs at two or three Chorro Street intersections. Third, I'm somewhat concerned about the timing of this effort. While I know the bicycle committee wants to purse meaningful and effective projects, I'm not sure that now is the time for a Broad Street bicycle boulevard. If the Broad Street ramps to Highway 101 are removed on the west side of the freeway (I'm not sure about the east side), the demand for cut-through traffic to access Route 101 at Broad should be reduced and shifted to (I assume) a new Santa Rosa Street interchange (the mother of all interchanges, heh, heh). At that time, a bike bridge over the freeway MIGHT make sense and Broad Street could be and effective connection to the downtown. The reason I say "might" is that if overall traffic volumes in the area stabilize or are reduced, the need for a dedicated bike route to the downtown might also be reduced. Furthermore, the bridge over the highway is expensive and the funds needed to construct it could fund a whole bunch of other bike projects (such as completing the Railroad Safety Trail). Finally (thank God you say), of the three alternatives, I like Alternative 3 the best AT THIS TIME. But I would ditch the chicane. This alternative would further slow traffic on the southern part of Broad. I'd probably leave the stop signs on Broad alone for now, even though they would appear to impede the flow of bike traffic (in actuality, they don't, and I suspect most vehicles currently make boulevards stops at those intersections). I admire the City staff and bicycling advocates for tackling such a tough issue, especially given the history of traffic calming in the neighborhood. But the issues have not gone away and need both near-term and long-range solutions. I would be happy to meet with staff to discuss the particulars of the alternatives and offer advice and insight. I suspect you have been receiving a fair amount of advice already. But I know the area very well and offer my help if ya want it. The best of luck. Terry Sanville Principal Transportation Planner (blissfully retired), City of SLO I am supportive of safety for cyclists in our city, but as a resident in the area affected by this proposed project, I am opposed to any alternative that will route increased traffic volume onto Meinecke. The volume of traffic and the speed at which people currently drive is not acceptable and your analysis indicates that this situation would only be worsened by the proposed diversion alternatives. Traffic currently zooms by the front of my house on Meinecke at well over the speed limit of 25 mph, and I wish that the city planners would put effort into investigating ways in which traffic volume and speed could be reduced - not increased. Greetings. I was hit by a speeding cyclist in SLO in 2011 and was shocked to learn that there is an unwritten law in the city that exonerates SLO cyclists from being at fault when involved in a vehicular collision, by both the cyclist and the officer who arrived shortly, curiously dressed in white, as well as by the clerk behind the window at the SLO Police Dept. The cyclist offered to bribe me out for $150 and the officer's first words were to inform me of this unwritten law. I invite everyone to please inquire about this unwritten law for yourselves. It certainly explains the abhorrent behavior of city cyclists, riding at night without headlamps, flying through stop signs, and in my case, flying alongside congested traffic at full speed as I slowly turned right to enter a shopping center. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in a level of disruption to neighborhood residents and the motoring public that outweighs the purported benefit of providing a “low stress” bicycle route. In addition, • Traffic diversions resulting from Alternatives 1 and 2 would increase vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. Alternative 1 would also increase congestion on Chorro Street, further increasing greenhouse gas emissions. • Alternative 1, by closing Broad Street to through traffic, would necessitate an amendment to the Circulation Element, because the street would no longer function as a residential collector street as it designated in the Circulation Element. In effect, Alternative 1 would change Broad Street from a collector street to a local street, which would be inconsistent with the Circulation Element. Traffic calming measures similar to Alternative 3 are a more reasonable way to provide a calmer environment for motorists, bicycles and pedestrians with less disruption to neighborhood residents and the motoring public. If Alternative 3 is considered, I suggest: • Removing at least 2 of the stop signs on Chorro Street, which would improve traffic flow, reduce congestion and greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce noise levels from accelerating and decelerating traffic. • Eliminating the proposed chicanes on Broad Street. • Eliminating either the proposed traffic circle on Broad Street at Mountain View or the proposed nearby speed cushion. Installing both devices in such close proximity would be redundant. I recently married and moved into a house on Chorro St. near Foothill Blvd. There is constant vehicle traffic in front of our house, which takes away peace and quiet that anyone would want in their home. I drive to downtown and other places in SLO, and I also ride my bike along Chorro St. to downtown. It seems that the biggest deterrent to riding bikes on Chorro St. is the volume of traffic. Although I haven’t studied the numbers in detail, based on the traffic counts, it is clear that a high volume of cars travel from downtown SLO to Foothill Blvd via Chorro St: http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/public-works/programs-and-services/transportation-planning-and-engineering/traffic-data The traffic volume also contributes to a lot of disturbance for residents. From what I understand from reading about the 3 Bike Blvd options, the maximum neighborhood traffic volume along Chorro St is already exceeded and will remain exceeded no matter which option is chosen. This is something that must be addressed both for bike safety and residential peace. I designed an alternative that would deflect vehicle traffic to use Santa Rosa Street to get to and from Downtown and US101. It is simple, low cost, and leaves residents with close to the same convenience that they have today. This reduced vehicle traffic will provide for safer bike riding along Chorro and Broad Street. No bike lanes or expensive, fancy freeway overpasses are needed. The premise of this approach is to make it less convenient for non-residents to use Chorro and Broad to connect from downtown and US101 to Foothill Blvd. If it is more convenient to go on Santa Rosa, people will start using that route rather than cutting though the neighborhood. Here are the only changes to the streets that need to be made: Chorro at Murray Create a diversion that prevents cars from going straight or turning left heading north or south along Chorro St. through Murray St. (Right Turn Only heading North/South along Chorro.) Cars heading East/West along Murray may go straight or Turn right. (No left turn) Bicycle and pedestrians may go any direction. This may be accomplished by connecting the center side walk that goes along Murray St. to stretch across Chorro, while leaving a wide enough gap in both directions for Bicycles to pass through. Broad at Meinecke Heading South along broad street, left turn only. Heading North along Broad St, Right turn only. Heading West along Meinecke, right turn only. Bicycles and pedestrians may go any direction. Meinecke at Benton Heading east along Meinecke, no right turn. Heading west along Meinecke, no left turn. Bicycles and pedestrians may go any direction. This is to prevent people from using Benton as a cut through street, because of the inconveniences added by the above 2 diversions. What this does These simple changes make it slightly less convenient for cars to use Chorro and Broad St. to get to downtown. With these changes, it will make it more convenient for cars to use Santa Rosa St. Google Maps Results For simplicity sake, I will use the starting and ending points that best demonstrate how these changes affect driver choice of routes. Any other starting and ending points would simply be expansions of these routes and thus produce the same result. Chorro at Walnut to Chorro at Foothill Current State https://ibb.co/mpFa4v At 3 minutes, using Chorro St is the fastest route, so drivers choose it. Potential routes after changes are made https://ibb.co/mBrtra https://ibb.co/dynYra If the above changes are made, it will take drivers 5 minutes to use Chorro and Broad Street to get from Chorro at Walnut to Chorro at Foothill. Thus, it will be faster for them to take Santa Rosa St. (4 minutes). People tend to take the faster route, diverting traffic out of the Chorro/Broad NEIGHBORHOODS, onto the main road (Santa Rosa). I ran out of time, but still need to do a similar comparison for these other routes; however, I expect the result to be similar, based on the new traffic flow with the proposed changes. Chorro/Foothill to Chorro/Walnut Broad/Foothill to US 101S US 101S to Broad/Foothill Chorro/Foothill to US 101S US 101S to Chorro/Foothill I live on the Morro Bicycle Path and it is my observation it is used very little. The path took many street parking spots and my house is difficult to get out of forcing be out to a very difficult corner on Osos to leave by residence. Has a study been completed on how much the path is really used. It appears more bicycles use Osos. If we are going to have bicycles paths then shouldn't the bicycles be forced to use these paths. Now the city is again planning another bicycle path near Chorro. When streets are closed it only pushes traffic to another area and this path will impact the very busy and fast traffic on Chorro. I appreciate the SLO wants to be bicycle friendly but at what cost to there citizens. I bike to work every day, from near Meadow Park to Cal Poly and back. The bike boulevard and other bike safety measures make my commute enjoyable and safe. Bike commuting for me and my family is an important and integral part of our lives. In the past I have used Broad to take kids to daycare, and currently use it to access that side of town. Any additional bike safety measures in my opinion are welcome and sorely needed. I'm against the proposed changes to Broad and Chorro Streets (all of them). I live in the Foothill area and walk to downtown at least 3 times a week. I never have issues with cars at any of the intersections, so the idea that it would make for easier pedestrian access is false. The number of bicycle and car issues are few. They're mostly generated from bicycles going through stop signs especially on Chorro Street. This seems to me to be a solution looking for a problem. If any of the proposals are given consideration then I'd like to see a temporary setup so that the impact to the neighborhoods can be evaluated. I'd like to see metrics taken that show the number of bicycle trips are increased and metrics on the number of vehicles that travel on these two roads and how they are impacted. If the idea is to move the cars to Santa Rosa, then there should be a traffic analysis of how this would impact Santa Rosa. I think a better solution would be to have a bike boulevard on Lincoln Street since the amount of vehicle traffic is light. Hopefully this is in the preliminary stages and more analysis will be completed. Work with Caltrans and do a test closing of the Broad Street on/off ramp. Then do a traffic study and decide the best way to approach the Bike Blvd plan. We definitely need traffic calming in the neighborhood and a safe route for bikes. Closing the ramp might be the answer without changing parking, more speed bumps and unnecessary construction. We do not need a repeat of the 1997 traffic calming plan. Also consider Lincoln Street for the bikes, it is wide with no stop signs. I live on Serrano Drive off of Broad Street. My observation is that the way bicyclists ignore the existing stop signs on both Broad Street and Chorro Street is what creates problems for both themselves and those driving these routes. It is not unusual to safely pass a bicyclist on either street only to have them blow through the next stop sign and then have to pass them again. If they stopped, they would stay in the flow of traffic and things would be safer for them. Changing the neighborhood to cater to these relatively few users does not seem logical. Instead of catering to these unsafe riders, the City should enforce the traffic laws already in place which would put money into the City coffers. Aggressive enforcement would also be a big deterrent to the cyclists who fail to follow the same traffic laws that the rest of us must. That being said, I am against any alternative that would put more traffic on Chorro, Meinecke or Lincoln Streets. Why should the tax paying citizens of these streets be penalized for the unsafe actions of a few. This is a classic example of if it isn't broken, don't fix it. These are thorough fares for all our citizens to use. If traffic laws are adhered to, they can be safely used by all just the way they are. I find the idea of changing Chorro Street into a one way street extremely short sighted. Chorro Street is one of four streets that connect the North and South parts of San Luis Obispo bisected by Highway 101. This road serves as a major thoroughfare for private, commercial and emergency vehicles. What greater need is there that necessitates this change ? A safer bike route balanced with the major inconvenience to the homeowners and commuters ? Going by that logic the bike boulevard on Morro Street would have been placed on Osos and Santa Barbara Streets. Bicycle safety would be better served establishing a Class 1 or 2 bike lane on Lincoln Street. I live on Chorro Street and I regularly use Lincoln Street to cycle because of the lack of traffic and lack of stop signs. While a bicycle/pedestrian bridge on Broad Street over Highway 101 may be a long term goal, it is unlikely to be realized without a great deal of money. For a fraction of that cost a bicycle/pedestrian bridge, over the creek, on Montalban Street, would better serve to promote bicycle commuting to and from the Anholm neighborhood. I live off Tassajara from Foothill & work downtown. I have not only driven this route daily for the past 8 years to work, but also to pick up kids and deliver them to school. I find the thought of making this a one way street absurd and bias to the few that are trying to change the "look" of our community. I have seen limited bikers on the route that would not demand this change not to mention the ones I do see fly through stop signs ignoring traffic signs as previous responders have indicated. Just a cursory glance of the feedback even indicates this to be a small minority trying to be the "squeaky wheel". Now let's talk COST! There is already tremendous traffic during work hours on Santa Rosa and California, so to push for closures or one way streets for Chorro and Broad is an obvious misguided and personally agenda oriented idea. I don't think the City is giving adequate attention to the concerns of the residents of this neighborhood. I think all the alternatives could seriously disrupt life for those folks living in the upper Broad/Chorro neighborhood. You would serve your constituents by listening to them instead of imposing your own attitudes. There are two major technological disruptions on the radar that are highly germane to the BSBB discussion. The first is that electric bikes are now becoming commonplace and relatively inexpensive, much cheaper than a car. The second is that somewhere around 2021-2023 we will begin a rapid switchover to autonomous (electric) vehicles. This means that many families will own just one car and will use inexpensive autonomous e-cars for many of their local trips, even sending their kids to school that way. This means that much less parking will be needed. There's already an electric bike leasing business in town with 150 bikes on the road. E-biking/biking is a huge overall benefit to the users and to our community and the globe. So, my opinion is that taking away parking spots to create bike boulevards should not be a major concern. This is not to say that I necessarily agree with the BSBB, it's just to say that parking loss should not be a concern. Don't make bike blvds. in old neighborhoods with streets narrow enough to take away their street parking! Build bike blvds. into new streets that will still allow street parking for residents. How about Northbound bike traffic utilizes Lincoln and southbound bike traffic uses Broad street? One way bike lanes for Bikes.....not for auto traffic. When I ride, that's how I get around. Also, let's be sensitive to the seniors in these neighborhoods. They are plentiful. They need to park in front of their homes. Many don't have the luxury of good health to park across the street or a block down to get to their homes safely. They are already challenged to stay in their homes. Let's not make it more difficult. There is absolutely No reason to carry through this proposal! Bicycles are currently given room on most major and minor thoroughfares in this City and in rural areas adjacent as well. Not only are the City staff misrepresenting the actual count of individuals who ACTUALLY LIVE AND PAY TAXES HERE that WANT the project to proceed. They make this empty statement at meetings and in writing primarily to shut down opposition to this horrendous plan, and further insult the City current residents who live on that street and in that vicinity, who do NOT want this plan. This has been the ongoing disrespect of longtime City residents and taxpayers, whom pay through our taxes for many plans we do not agree with. So often at council meetings we hear from outsiders who want what the City is proposing. It is a slap in the face of the folks who live here. This plan will fail in a spectacular fashion. The first resident on North Broad who needs emergency services at their residence either a medical emergency or a fire emergency will either be put in extreme house or health jeopardy due to lack of normal curbside parking space. When the City is sued under these circumstances, or some life is lost to jeopardy of the situation, we the taxpayers and friends of those who live on North Broad will pay for this shortsighted project that pits cyclists against homeowners. Do those multitudes of cyclists that ride down NorthBroad daily (as if) feel safer when an emergency vehicle or UPS vehicle is suddenly parked right in front of them, forcing them to dart out in traffic? How many cyclists will see the danger of the complacency of this change and likely stay away from this section of road now dedicated to them? This is a lose lose proposition. The cyclists will lose and the homeowners will be permanently stuck with an unsaleable home due to the project. You ruin this street at the risk of continuing to ruin the City you claim to love. Preservation is the only way you will keep this City one of the most desirable in the state. While I am all for riding bikes, many riders in the city do not obey the traffic laws and should not be given specialized treatment because they are on bicycles. I’ve continually have to cross over the double yellow line in order to avoid riders riding to close to the outer bike line just because, or due to debris near the curb or riding double or even triple wide instead of single file. And many times there is oncoming traffic. In addition Broad St. in that section is a major thoroughfare to the freeway and is far too narrow for a bike lane unless there it was made into a one way street. That raises the question of which direction ? Both ways are equally as important. And what about the residents who live there and need to park on the street since those homes are older and may not have enough driveway area? Chorro (if an option) would also be a bad choice. I do have an option for consideration. What about using Lincoln as the bike blvd.? It’s the widest in the area and does link to Chorro. As a Senior having a safe way to access downtown should be just the beginning of walking & elecric / bike paths in SLO. As the longtime safety director for the San Luis Obispo bike club it is my observation that as long as we are riding along with traffic without some type of buffer we are second class citizens. We have the same rights and responsibilities as cars. We should have the same safe places to ride a bike as well. By doing the option with a buffered bike lane it is telling all users as well as the auto traffic that we are equal users on our roads. If this does not work out it can always be changed to some other option. Most of the bike riders pay taxes for an auto, so the idea we are not paying our fair share for the use of the road is a false narrative. Ken Price slobc safety director 805-489-9779 You would be killing downtown businesses - lots of citizens from Morro Bay and Los Osos use Chorro street to downtown- what are your plans for Santa Rosa and the increased traffic- - I don't mind going slow but stop and go is another story!- When was the last time you were driving on Chorro and actually see a bicyclist stop at a stop sign ? - Having Broad street the bike path till the Lincoln market then improving the sidewalk bike lane on Chorro under the freeway is my suggestion - and less downtown business from the Coast .No matter how hard you want and try people will not give up their cars-especially when they come from the coast!! I live on Chorro Street between Murray and Foothill. The current speed limit on Chorro is 25 mph as a result of previous, hard fought for, traffic calming efforts by people in the neighborhood. At the time city staff told us it was impossible to change the speed limit to 25 mph on Chorro. Years ago the speed limit (as best as I can recall) was about 35-45 mph. Vehicles frequently sped well above the prior speed limit. Back then Chorro was also a city bus and fire truck route. It was often used by large noisy commercial trucks too that sometimes caused my house to shake. The annoying noise and shaking issues caused me to install special sound deadening dual glazed windows near the front of the house to reduce the annoyances. Thank goodness for increased safety that additional stop signs installed at the Meinecke and Mission intersections provide. The stop signs help slow traffic and deter speeders who were often accelerating from Murray or Foothill streets. The stop signs also provide helpful traffic breaks so that my neighbors and I can more easily/safely enter or exit our driveways. I oppose the reduction of parking on Chorro, or limiting parking to only one side of Chorro. Making Chorro and or Broad streets one way streets would cause me, and my neighbors, to have to drive longer distances to and from our homes. When I drive at night on Chorro the majority of bicyclists I see ride without lights and often blow thru stop signs which endangers all of us. While I do not live on Broad Street I am concerned that limiting parking on Broad would be a hardship for people who live there. I'm also concerned that the Broad Street bike boulevard may substantially increase traffic on Chorro St. That would be undesirable and more dangerous. Re: Support for Chorro/Broad Streets bike improvements Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: I am 30+ year homeowner in San Luis Obispo. I drive, bike and walk regularly in the City. I am fully in favor of making the Chorro/Broad corridor safer for all types of transportation – whether human powered, or mechanically powered. I bike and drive on Chorro Street regularly for recreation and transportation. My son is a recent homeowner on Chorro, and it is on my usual my usual morning bike route. Having protections for cyclists will improve safety for all – motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. It will improve the neighborhood, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and encouraging environmentally friend transportation alternatives. It will also provide a Safe Route to School for Pacheco, Bishop’s Peak and Cal Poly students. I do not believe that as a regular cyclist, I am a “special interest”. Nor do I believe that as a motorist I am entitled to full use of a public right of way. And as a homeowner, I do not believe that I have an absolute right to parking in front of my house. In fact, my street front parking was removed for a bus stop and bike lane and few years ago. While I would have preferred to keep the street front parking, I certainly understand that when balancing safety and environmental considerations, that I can make accommodation for the greater good. Thank you for moving ahead with making the entire City safer for all those who live and work here. Sincerely, Joel Diringer, JD, MPH I live on Serrano Drive and ride my bike downtown to work everyday. I encourage you to provide a beautiful and save bicycle boulevard on Broad Street. The benefits to a bicycle boulevard for me are 1) safety, 2) more bikes less cars (net zero city) 3) increased property values. I support the bicycle boulevard to improve bicycle access from Foothill to downtown. I respect the concerns other residents have, particularly those who live along the route, but the city must change and improve as it grows. We need better bicycle infrastructure to encourage additional cyclists and help transition more people from their cars reducing traffic and pollution. A limiting factor for many cyclists is the ability to have a safe route to the places they want to go. Bicycle boulevards, if done right, provide better cycling infrastructure that will enable more people to cycle for general needs and not just recreation. Generally I support options #2 and #1 in that order. Whatever the final choice, it needs to create a significantly better option than a typical surface street -- so things like wide bike lanes with barriers from traffic, single one way way car lane with bike lane, significant traffic calming -- would all work to provide an arterial for cyclists that will help improve the quality of life for all SLO residents and visitors. I would like to register my support for the Planning Committee’s Directive for the middle portion of the Anholm Bikeway (without diverters, only traffic calming measures), and my opposition to the Staff plan which relies on diversion of most Broad street traffic onto Chorro. To reiterate some safety concerns regarding the staff proposal for a dual protected bikeway on one side of Chorro street, I’d like to point out that (including cyclists heading for Poly, who will continue straight down Chorro and not turn onto Broad), the plan will set up TWO intersections where cyclists will have to cut diagonally across traffic – in one of which they will have their back to oncoming vehicles. This traffic, I might point out, will be made even heavier by the diversion plan. Besides the increased likelihood of a collision from this arrangement, residents along Chorro are also still going to have an increased chance of a collision with cyclists coming from the “wrong direction” down the street when they are attempting to back out of their driveways. With the obvious deficiencies of the bikeway design, the city is bound to become involved in any lawsuits which ensue. On a more philosophical level, I’d like to point out that the concerns of the neighborhood residents, who are obviously most affected by these changes, are being completely ignored in the staff proposal. In the most recent design charrette, 10 of 11 groups took out the ostensibly “required” diverters in their proposed designs, and the whole group there in voting placed diverters as dead last in their preferences for design elements. Now, there is certainly the argument that inconveniencing a small number of people to enhance the greater good is a fair mechanism for civic improvement – for example, building a freeway through a neighborhood might negatively impact a thousand residents, while allowing ten or twenty thousand people a quicker, easier commute. This is a fair point. The staff bikeway plan, however, will negatively impact a thousand residents and over eight thousand drivers (by your own figures) in order to marginally improve the bicycling experience for (optimistically) a couple hundred riders. This situation is categorically unfair to the majority. If you adopt the Planning Committee’s calming plan (without any traffic diversion), the majority of residents and drivers would have to agree that this is a reasonable first attempt at solving the problem, and then would not be able to seriously object to further changes if this solution proves to be unsatisfactory. Trying a milder solution and seeing what kind of improvement might result is a far better approach than imposing a demonstrably unpopular one. As a 30 year resident of San Luis Obispo, I support and appreciate the city's commitment to making our community safer, particularly our streets and outdoor spaces. Having protections for cyclists in the Broad St. - Chorro corridor will make it safer for everyone that uses these streets -- those that are going to school, to work or to their homes regardless of their mode of transportation, but especially for people that ride bikes or walk. Having protected bike lanes will help those drivers that feel uncomfortable around cyclists and they will provide a safer route for those that want to use their bikes to use our streets. I owned and lived on in a home on Santa Rosa St. for 25 years -- and I understand living with a large volume of traffic and limited parking options. I'd much rather have the whoosh of a bike riding by my house than the noise of non-stop vehicles. I support the Lower-impact Alternative first rather than the extreme Preferred Alternative which is highly stressful for the neighborhood. Please consider creating a safer biking route from South Higuera to Broad St. A TON of employee's live on the southern most part of town, but do not feel safe biking over to broad via Tank Farm Rd. It would help out the community and reduce traffic if there was a safe bike route down Tank Farm rd. Thank you! I am so frustrated. A few bicyclists want to change our neighborhoods for their benefit. I grew up and still live on Mission Street. I have been around this area for many years and I see no reason to add this expensive and intrusive project. As far as I know there has been no bicycle accidents in this area. There was a bike fatality on Foothill Blvd. do to a drunken teenage driver but hat has nothing to do with this project and wouldn't have prevented it. We live in our neighborhoods because we like the way they are. I don't know where all the power that was given to the bicycle community came from but I resent it. Leave our neighborhoods alone. They are just fine the way they are. I really do not like the idea of changing any traffic configurations on either Chorro or Broad. But especially now, when the terrible mistake at 22 Chorro is going full steam ahead. Why can't the city wait to see the impact on traffic and PARKING once that building is occupied, before adding another layer of problems to that area? I'd like to sentence anyone in City Government who approved the building at 22 Chorro to drive in that area every working day forever. It's already a mess, and will be more so when the tenants move in. Why exacerbate the problem?? This is something that is badly needed.Traffic and traffic safety was one of the reasons I moved out of the Foothill/Tassajara area two years ago. Broad Street was my "go to" route when heading downtown on my bicycle. While the street may have been adequate when it was first designed, it is now used as an arterial roadway by motorists. There simply is not enough room for motor vehicle and bicycle traffic when you add parked cars on both sides of the street. I am an avid cyclist (I ride over 10,000 miles a year) and have the skill to deal with the traffic but most people do not. This discourages bicycle use and puts people in cars. Giving people safe routes to ride through town will increase the use of the bicycle as a primary mode of transportation and reduce the number of motor vehicles traveling on our streets; making it safer for everyone. My 15 year old daughter was hit by a car while riding her bicycle in San Luis Obispo.. The event was emotionally devastating for our whole family, not to mention the $20,000 hospital bill. Furthermore, our daughter has recovered, has no recollection of the event due to concussions and continues to want to ride in SLO My husband and I will not let her ride her bike in SLO because it is too dangerous for cyclists. . We have heard from many other parents who feel the same. . I have been looking at the streets in SLO and when both sides of the street are filled with parking, there is no place to safely ride a bike. I believe limiting parking on the street is the only way to provide enough room for bikes to travel safely. I was upset with the opinion in The Tribune by the city planner who warned " this will happen in your neighborhood next." We have to prioritize keeping our citizens safe over the private individuals right to park in front of his house. I do believe more people will ride bikes when the streets are safer. For those of us who have experienced the dangers of currently riding, it is already too late. I support the creation of a safe bike path from Foothill through downtown, as all of my family would benefit. We are a one-car family that relies heavily on bikes to get around town. The creation of such a route would also encourage other families to adopt a greener, healthier lifestyle. Dr. Paul Marchbanks, Professor of English at Cal Poly I am extremely disappointed that city leaders are willing to negate the voices of people living in these neighborhoods and willing to spend money on a plan that benefits so few. It is frustrating and shocking that more consideration is not being given to pedestrians, and most importantly to the people in these neighborhoods whom will be negatively impacted, and instead focusing on a small group of cyclists that will benefit from this whimsical plan. Homeowners, drivers trying to get across town, pedestrians, emergency and delivery vehicles, pets and small children in these neighborhoods, all of these groups will be negatively impacted by this proposed bike boulevard. The statistical data presented to support this logistical nightmare of a plan does not call for such drastic measures just so that a few hundred cyclists will benefit. There are no major cycling accidents occurring in our neighborhoods, if anything the city should be concerned about pedestrian safety as there are more pedestrians than cyclists. To move forward with this plan when the people of the neighborhoods impacted have voiced clearly against this plan is shameful. People need access to get across town in their vehicles, sorry, it is sadly a fact that people need vehicles to either perform their jobs or get to their jobs. Access to our jobs is the way that we can afford to live in these lovely neighborhoods that the city is trying to unsettle. I do not support the proposed special bike route. Parking is already difficult to find even in some of our parking structures, especially on weekends. The money it would cost for the bike route proposal should be used for more important needs of our city. Please do not make Broadstreet a bikes only road since it is a very important freeway access road for people living on the north side of town. We cannot afford to lose all the street parking either. With a little extra courtesy, we can all share the road. Our city council is making a lot of bad decisions, i.e. the building on the corner of Choro and foothill. As a home owner/resident of the Anholm Tract, I would like to state my case against the Broad Street Bike Blvd. Although I like the idea of safe walking and bike routes, I do not feel the current plan will work for our neighborhood. For the past 50 years, Broad and Lincoln Streets were never meant to be major thoroughfares across town. Chorro St. was built to handle some cross town traffic, but currently seems to be traveled at max capacity. The existing plan will not only further restrict traffic flow on Chorro St by creating a 1 way, but will also increase traffic through Broad St and Lincoln St. Even if Chorro St was intended to be a major thoroughfare, Broad St and Lincoln St certainly were not. Secondly, the residents of Chorro St, who will have their street parking removed, will also have the added inconvenience of finding parking. Our neighborhood already has an issue with parking, as does the whole of San Luis Obispo. The best plan, which has been an option all along and many cyclists currently use, is to direct bicyclist down Lincoln St and across Mission St to Broad St. Let's leave the situation as it is, with minimal signage, so as not to pollute the visual aesthetics of this designated historic neighborhood. Thank you. Roadways are in the Public Domain, they can and must evolve to serve the changing needs of the whole community: Within the last six months, two SLO County residents have been struck and killed by cars while riding their bicycles. They were both riding in accordance with the vehicle code and they had the same right to use a public road for transportation as any other citizen who might be walking, driving or riding a bike or horse. The SLO City Council is in the process of gradually improving the safety of residents who utilize bicycles for transportation and recreation. They are not alone in this effort. The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments and other local City governments, including those of Morro Bay and Paso Robles, are actively working to improve the safety of cyclists and pedestrians throughout the County. This is an ongoing and very gradual process, working within the limitations of available resources. It is meant to have a positive long-term effect on traffic congestion, air quality and public health. Currently the SLO City Council is focusing on improving the safety of people who travel by bicycle along the corridor between downtown and the neighborhoods along Foothill Blvd and in the vicinity of Bishop’s Peak. The Council has been soliciting input from City residents; the process is ongoing and no decision on a final course of action has been reached. There are currently two draft options being considered for implementation. The options utilize portions of Chorro Street, Mission Lane, and Broad Street and in the case of Option Two, Lincoln Street. Neither of the proposed options have a net negative effect on the flow of car and truck traffic through the area. In fact, Option One has the potential to improve traffic flow through this region of the city by removing bicycles from vehicle travel lanes. In the Marine Corps, where I spent 24 years on active duty, we refer to roads as Lines of Communication (LOCs.) The function of an LOC in the military is primarily to move forces and supplies. In the civilian world, LOC’s functions are to facilitate personal travel and commerce. Improving the safety of people who choose to use bicycles for travel along the Broad/Chorro corridor will do just that while also encouraging more City residents to choose to utilize multi-modal transportation options. The protected bike lanes proposed in Option One would improve travel for cars and bicycles alike through this area, by removing cyclists from the vehicle travel lanes where they currently are traveling. Cars and bicycles along most of the proposed route would not need to be as concerned about avoiding each other because they would be physically separated. Not only will the proposed project make car drivers and bicycle riders safer and more comfortable (and I’d like to point out that the vast majority of bicycle riders are also car or truck owners; my wife and I have a truck, an RV and a car) the proposed changes will also likely have a long term increase in property values. Similar improvements have been implemented across the State and Country and have increased property values throughout the effected communities because they make the communities more desirable places to live. Though the proposal appears to be a win for people travelling by car and by bike, there is some opposition to the project. It stems from the potential reduction in on-street parking availability along a portion of the route. Yes, implementation of Option One would require a change in the habits of neighborhood residents who currently choose to store their privately owned vehicles (POVs) on public property. They would have to store their POVs on their own property or on property that they rent. Roadways are public property. They are in the public domain and their benefits are to be shared by all members of the community and by people travelling through the community. Making public streets safer for all users allows more people to safely pursue healthy, active lifestyles while simultaneously reducing impacts on our air quality and our already congested roadways. The Bishop’s Peak student who wants to ride a bike across town to school should be able to do so safely. The Cal Poly student whose only means of transportation is a bicycle and who needs to get to a job downtown at night, should be able to do so safely. The retired Marine who wants to ride from his office over to Cerro San Luis to go for a mountain bike ride with friends after work should be able to do so safely. The parent who wants to go for a morning bike ride with their children over to SLODOCO for breakfast should be able to do so safely. And, the cycle-tourists who are attracted to this wonderful place we call the Central Coast should be able to enjoy it safely. In the proposed Bike Blvd., we have an opportunity to gradually improve the safety of our transportation infrastructure while adapting to our growing population, our changing climate and the changing lifestyles of current and future generations. The members of Bike SLO County who reside throughout San Luis Obispo City and County support the City Council in their effort to provide transportation options which help make our community safer, cleaner and healthier now and in the uncertain future. Respectfully Submitted, Mike Bennett LtCol USMC, Retired Executive Director Bike SLO County Thank you SLO City Council for supporting safer bicycle routes within our city! We are a one-car household and utilize city bike lanes daily. The more residents who bike, the more everyone benefits - less traffic, less pollution, less impacts to our roads and healthier lives. We live on the other side of Broad Street, on Rockview Place (near Stoneridge), and need safer bicycle lane enhancements to that portion of Broad as well. Thank you for all your efforts to encourage a safe bike commuting city! No, please don't do this! There are many people who can't or won't ever ride a bicycle in San Luis Obispo. Please stop trying to get residents to stop driving cars. It isn't feasible for many, many people. Has anyone considered how this change to Chorro and Broad Streets might impact traffic on the already congested Santa Rosa? I also would like to point out that people in many of the older houses on Chorro have no option but to park on the street. I'm not in favor of any change, but if change must be made Alternative 2 seems the least harmful to the neighborhood. The feelings of the people living in the neighborhood should be given the highest priority as they will be impacted the most. A sense of community is at the core of this debate, as the "bike boulevard" is a physically and emotionally divisive issue. Street access for cars as well as adequate parking as planned for this historic division in decades past should be adhered to. Retrofitting a bike boulevard won't work for this neighborhood. Parking should not be a priority for the public ROW. While I sympathize with a shortage of parking in a neighborhood, the PUBLIC ROW should accommodate the PUBLIC, not the few. This is a critical link that is currently uncomfortable to ride by many. Providing a safer space for cyclists would be greatly appreciated. Please address your energies and monies to improve traffic congestion and lack of parking that effects all city and county residents. Catering to the perceived needs of the very few cyclists is ill advised and not serving the needs and wants of the majority of your constituents. I live in the neighborhood on the other side of Foothill, near Bishops Peak and regularly travel these routes to downtown (and my husband does daily to work on the west end of downtown) both by car and by bike. I have actually never found the areas for the proposed bike blvd. to be problematic to ride on as they currently are... in fact, we regularly rode bikes to our preschools on Murray and then on Center Street with our 4 year old riding an independent bike, and I wouldn't consider myself to be a "strong and fearless" rider. I am however not opposed to making our community in general and this route in particular more bike friendly. I attended the meeting #4 last night and felt that both of the 2 options presented were pleasantly acceptable and thoughtful. I am extremely pleased that the ideas of turning chorro and broad into 1-way streets and closing the fwy onramps are no longer part of the plan. Though I rarely (if ever) park on the streets that are designated to lose parking, that does concern me, especially with all of the new high density development without adequate parking that is going in to this same area. I don't believe your parking studies took this into consideration - so the parking loss is far more impactful than was discussed in the meeting. And what was discussed in the meeting was already adding a 4-5 min walk for people to get to their residence from where they might park (many who are elderly in this neighborhood, and not capable of doing that) vs. adding 45-65 seconds on to a bike commute by choosing the Lincoln Street alternative. Strong and confident bike riders could still CHOOSE to ride on Chorro if they don't want to add onto their bike commute by 1 minute, but others like us with more vulnerable or inexperienced riders can CHOOSE the calmer route, as we currently do, with no problems. When we talk about bike deaths and preventing them, we need to focus on areas like Foothill Blvd, California Blvd, the OTHER end of Broad Street (Hwy 227). I feel very strongly that you should do what ever it takes to save all parking along all of Chorro St. when adding bike paths. The bike riders do not have anything invested in the property of where they wish to have free passage. That is a special old local neighborhood which older homes and narrow driveway so street parking it very important to some of those many old time SLO homeowners who have invested in the ownership of a home. Their taxes should alway entitle them to have parking in front of their home located on any street the own property on in the city of SLO. Bike riders need a safe place to ride, but it is no fair to take property right away from any tax paying real estate owner to just please a few who with to us their bike.as transportation. Please proceed with this propped project. I walk in This neighborhood four days a week with my two young children and look forward to them being able To safely ride their bikes to school and around town using this corridor. I support clean modes of transportion and am thankful for safer routes to enjoy bicycling in our town. Please include pedestrian refuge areas at Meinecke/Broad and Meinecke/Chorro as part of the plan. Meinecke is experiencing significant vehicular traffic as motorist view this as a cut-through street. Many residents of the Villages walk Meinicke with significant difficulty crossing Broad and Chorro. Please include traffic calming measures on Meinicke Avenue as part of the bicycle boulevard plan (end of street calming measures as well as at points along the avenue - as cars routinely reach 50mph). I understand that many need to drive, that said, more pedestrian/bicycle friendly streets will increase quality of life and benefit the entire city. Thank you. Hi - I live just off Chorro and ride my bike daily between Foothill and downtown. My daughter and I ride regularly to her school too. A new, separated bike path on Chorro would be a wonderful addition to the neighborhood. I understand that some of those who park on Chorro now would probably need to park on my street, Venable. That is fine by me, it's a public right of way. If Foothill is going to develop as proposed in the General Plan, there will be a lot of new residents in the area. A dedicated bike lane to downtown will hopefully encourage more of them to ride instead of drive. The whole bike boulevard revolves around safety. The question is, whose safety? Certainly the people riding bikes. Somehow the safety of pedestrians got thrown in here. Don't they have sidewalks? The safety of the residents of Chorro Street and their visitors seem to be ignored. If you're elderly walking anywhere is a huge problem. Having to cross the street is even worse - virtually impossible for some. People with small children People with packages. To me, the folks living on the street should have priority. I live in the Foothill Blvd area with my wife and two children. We are a bicycling family; my wife and I both bicycle commute to work, and our children love to ride their bikes. Although for the past 11 years we sometimes ride our bikes as a family to the downtown area, we are hesitant to do so, especially in recent years, due to the lack of a safe, protected bicycle lane. In recent years, the traffic on these streets has increased, as has the number of reckless and distracted drivers. Distracted driving and associate traffic injuries and fatalities is an increasing and documented problem in our country. If there were protected bike lines, we would make substantially more trips downtown via bicycle. Promoting bicycling with safe, protected bicycle lanes addresses many problems in our local community and the world: climate change, traffic congestion, downtown parking infrastructure, and the ever-increasing obesity epidemic. I am surprised that neighbors would oppose protected bicycle lanes because such protected lanes would, hopefully, encourage more automobile drivers to use Santa Rosa Street instead of neighborhood streets. I would love to see more bicycle and pedestrians and less automobile drivers in my neighborhood. Finally, I have seen many comments that oppose development of bicycling infrastructure because many cyclists do not obey traffic laws. Although this is likely true, the real problem here is that human beings, whether they are automobile drives or bicyclists, do a poor job of obeying traffic laws. For every bicyclist in SLO that regularly does not obey traffic laws, there are probably 10 to 100 automobile drivers who drive over posted speed limits, do not come to a complete stop at a stop sign, run red lights, and/or check their cell phones while driving. In order to improve safety, the correct solution is to increase fines for, and better enforce, traffic infractions while improving education. Opposing the development of safer bicycling and automobile routes acts counter to such efforts. The time has come for the City of San Luis Obispo to be bold in moving forward toward a future not dominated by the personal automobile. The Preferred Alternative of the Anholm Bikeway (Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard) proposal makes that step by creating safer streets and balancing transportation needs of those who drive cars, ride bikes, and walk. In comparison, the Lincoln St. Alternative continues to make active transportation secondary to automobile traffic. Bicyclists and pedestrians are moms and dads, schoolchildren, grandparents, coffee shop workers, business owners, and other hardworking citizens. We all deserve a safe route to our destination. Thank you for your help in making this possible. I live on the Foothill side of town, and I strongly support safe bike routes between Foothill and downtown, and would go even farther to say there is a great need to provide a safe bike route to San Luis Obispo High School from the Foothill area. This would offer an alternative to families with kids at SLOHS. Just go take a look at the traffic on San Luis Drive, California and Johnson in the mornings and afternoons from 3:10-3:45. If students had a safe bike route to SLOHS (and even including a direct bus in the scenario) this would also decrease a significant amount of congestion in that part of the city. This is a great idea, I feel unsafe with the existing bike infrastructure. This will reduce my trips via car and help promote more cycling in the City. Broad Street currently provides direct access to and from southbound 101, and Chorro is a cross town alternative, one of the few streets that can get you straight across town without having to make a bunch of turns. Any attempt to restrict or divert traffic from Broad will only increase traffic on Chorro and Santa Rosa Streets, and would provide an increased risk to public safety. Santa Rosa already has enough traffic on it. If there were a future problem, such as the creek bridge failure on Santa Rosa Street, like we had on Foothill Blvd 15 years ago, cross town traffic would be diverted to California, Chorro, and Broad. If a firestorm were to blow into town from the north, east, or northeast, where the hottest winds come from, any traffic diverters or other traffic calming measures would become obstructions and road blocks on a direct evacuation route to safety. Unless you think you and your family can outrun it on your bikes. While a bike/pedestrian path would be nice for the minority who want to use it, that should not take precedence over the majority who would not use it. It needs to be a dedicated path separate from our roadways. While maybe providing safer bicycling for those few who are able to bike, this project will cause a traffic and neighborhood mess. And how will it impact public safety responses? There is a fire station just down Chorro and those firefighters may not be able to drive their equipment down Chorro or Broad to get to an address on Chorro or Broad. With all of the other financial impacts facing the city right now, this project would be more wasteful than helpful. I would like to see a bike path from downtown San Luis Obispo through the vineyards into Edna Valley wine country. It would benefit local wineries (particularly tasting rooms), tourism, recreation, and so much more! Thank you. This is a horrible idea. This will lead to even more traffic on Santa Rosa and Chorro and be a hinderance to all the residents, myself included, on broad street leaving and coming to their homes. Our city council is approving so many projects and expanding the town in such a way that our infrastructure will not be able to handle the population increase. Taking away a major surface street like this will only add to the the abuse the surrounding streets already see. Our tax money could go somewhere much better than the image campaign this project is for a “bicycle friendly town” The issue is speed of traffic. Traffic calming measures that include stop signs and crosswalks is the tried and true method. There is literally not one crosswalk on Broad Street through this district. Perhaps a City crew could spend 4 hours painting crosswalks and installing 2 stop signs and then let's see the result. If it works, you just saved a lot of money and a lot of hassle. Please consider this. Biking in SLO is too dangerous as-is, and I support the creation of protected bike lanes in order to make biking safe and practical. Kudos to SLO for their vision and their willingness to move forward despite the very vocal anti-change crowd. Again, please stop wasting money on a plan that won't help improve the safety of bicycles. The best way to improve the flow and safety of both cars and bikes is to make Chorro and Broad one way streets through Anholm. Traffic simulations will show that this is the most safe plan. Any plan that requires turns and moving around barriers add a risk of error and simulations will show that these plans aren't as safe. Let's start using 2018 technology by providing traffic simulations to show which is the best plan. We are thinking that a safer and easier option, especially in the interim if all interests cannot agree to a bike blvd, would be to slow traffic down.! 20-25 mph, for cars and bikes-speed limit strictly enforced, as it is not now enforced. Pedestrians would be safer, bikers would be safer and we would have less car noise and pollution..ideally we might have a round about, so cars don't have to stop and start so often, which would decrease noise and the acceleration of car exhaust into our homes and air. Thank you Michele Brooks and Larry Hazen What about going back to the drawing board and working with Lincoln street again? That was an option that many people in the neighborhood were in favor of, but staff said it would add 1-2 minutes for bikers on their commute. If this is really about safety, which will encourage more bike riders, why can’t we go with this option? It seems that using Broad, rather than Chorro, would also add time for a rider? But now this is the number one option- to close Broad basically and push even more traffic to Chorro. This option is really unfair and creates more of a hazard on Chorro street. Please try to make a decision that is beneficial for everyone involved. And try to remember all the young families that now live in this neighborhood and still want to enjoy walking, crossing streets and feel safe doing so. I believe a bike boulevard will be great, but not at the expense of the neighborhood. I think the bike paths are a terrible idea . By restricting traffic flow and diverting onto side streets it will create more problems. Slowing traffic down on Broad and Chorro is a better solution. Please stop wasting time and money on the plan. I’m all for the plan. I think it is unfortunate that people think that driving is the only way to get around town. If anything is beyond a few blocks, you hop in your car and drive. When you drive in your car, you are isolated from the rest of the community and don’t interact with anyone. It divides communities and causes problems. Slo is such a unique place in California and allowing bikes to be a priority will keep it that way. If you have lived in the Bay Area or SoCal, you’d know that cars rule the road, and traffic is a nightmare. The car obsessed culture also makes it so that people live further apart and are more isolated from one another. Driving makes people angry, pollution is disgusting, and it’s wastes too much time. Building a city for bikes, as slo has done, will continue to keep the community together. Even if this plan may seem to make a small difference or just cause an inconvenience to drivers, it will encourage people to bike more and make the city closer and happier. How many people have you seen that are super angry on a bike? Everyone that’s biking is jacked up on endorphins. That’s a good thing. Slo is doing something special here so keep pushing to make the plan as good as it can be without being as much of an inconvenience or cost to the city. Re: Anholm bike boulevard deliberations Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: I am 20+ year homeowner on North Broad Street between Mission and Ramona. I drive, bike, and walk regularly in our neighborhood and throughout the City. In general, I'm in favor of making the Chorro/Broad corridor safer for all types of transportation, for people living in the neighborhood and those passing through. When I cycle I am much more acutely aware of my safety, and believe that dedicated and protected bike lanes will encourage more people to use bikes instead of cars. I support the goal of reducing car trips as well as greenhouse gas emissions in SLO. I also recognize the families seeking safe routes to school for Pacheco, Bishop’s Peak and Cal Poly students. I do not believe that as a regular cyclist, I am a “special interest”. Nor do I believe that as a motorist I am entitled to full use of a public right of way. And as a homeowner along the proposed bike boulevard, I recognize that I don't have an absolute right to parking in the city street (Broad) in front of my house. I do understand the concerns of those who oppose the loss of street parking. I also recognize that this decision is ultimate a delicate and messy attempt to balance many local, municipal and neighborhood interests, and I applaud the (mostly) civil and inclusive nature of this process. Sincerely, Geoffrey Land I would like to see traffic calming measures. I drive Lincoln & Chorro daily (too old to bike... but I walk a lot !) We need to face the fact that our old narrow streets are what we have to live with on this side of town. Although I do not live in the Anholm area, I do believe the residents there should have priority. As a taxpayer, I also object to the projected cost of this terrible plan. I would like to register my support for the Planning Committee’s Directive for the middle portion of the Anholm Bikeway (without diverters, only traffic calming measures), and my opposition to the Staff plan which relies on diversion of most Broad street traffic onto Chorro. To reiterate some safety concerns regarding the staff proposal for a dual protected bikeway on one side of Chorro street, I’d like to point out that (including cyclists heading for Poly, who will continue straight down Chorro and not turn onto Broad), the plan will set up TWO intersections where cyclists will have to cut diagonally across traffic – in one of which they will have their back to oncoming vehicles. This traffic, I might point out, will be made even heavier by the diversion plan. Besides the increased likelihood of a collision from this arrangement, residents along Chorro are also still going to have an increased chance of a collision with cyclists coming from the “wrong direction” down the street when they are attempting to back out of their driveways. With the obvious deficiencies of the bikeway design, the city is bound to become involved in any lawsuits which ensue. On a more philosophical level, I’d like to point out that the concerns of the neighborhood residents, who are obviously most affected by these changes, are being completely ignored in the staff proposal. In the most recent design charrette, 10 of 11 groups took out the ostensibly “required” diverters in their proposed designs, and the whole group there in voting placed diverters as dead last in their preferences for design elements. Now, there is certainly the argument that inconveniencing a small number of people to enhance the greater good is a fair mechanism for civic improvement – for example, building a freeway through a neighborhood might negatively impact a thousand residents, while allowing ten or twenty thousand people a quicker, easier commute. This is a fair point. The staff bikeway plan, however, will negatively impact a thousand residents and over eight thousand drivers (by your own figures) in order to marginally improve the bicycling experience for (optimistically) a couple hundred riders. This situation is categorically unfair to the majority. If you adopt the Planning Committee’s calming plan (without any traffic diversion), the majority of residents and drivers would have to agree that this is a reasonable first attempt at solving the problem, and then would not be able to seriously object to further changes if this solution proves to be unsatisfactory. Trying a milder solution and seeing what kind of improvement might result is a far better approach than imposing a demonstrably unpopular one. Thank you for your consideration, Jon Tarantino

Name not shown inside Neighborhood 1

September 4, 2018, 12:22 PM

Name not shown inside Neighborhood 1

September 4, 2018, 8:39 AM

Geoffrey Land inside Neighborhood 1

August 29, 2018, 7:56 PM

Mitchell Fisher inside Neighborhood 6

August 29, 2018, 10:01 AM

Name not shown inside Neighborhood 1

August 25, 2018, 8:25 AM

Name not shown inside Neighborhood 1

August 15, 2018, 2:48 PM

michele brooks inside Neighborhood 1

August 14, 2018, 3:21 PM

Name not shown inside Neighborhood 1

April 28, 2018, 5:34 PM

Name not shown outside Neighborhoods

April 26, 2018, 1:22 PM

Name not shown inside Neighborhood 10

April 25, 2018, 12:42 PM

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.