San Luis Obispo’s illogical transportation agenda

March 28, 2023

Opinion by KEN HERRMANN

Celebration missed? Don’t worry, you didn’t miss much.

Just in case you missed it, there was a celebration and ribbon cutting for the street work that has been done around San Luis Obispo in the past year or so. If you are not interested in such a celebration do not fret, as there were enough people there patting each other on the back for the atrocities they are forcing on us.

This is not Chico, Santa Barbara or Disneyland or any other place that has done something new, or first, but someone wishes to make it so, to appease their boredom, their resume’, the “authority” of their position or squeaky wheel special interest groups.

I think the best part of the entire celebration was when a motorized skateboard went down the street, in the middle of the street, going the wrong way, and none of the five public official’s, including the chief, appeared to notice.

Recent changes to traffic conditions in SLO also appear not to be justified by any firm metrics. Yes, the two bikers that we lost recently were mentioned and their loss is not to be minimized, but these street changes had little to do with them for the planning was started before their loss.

Contacting the city about these changes, as I did in Dec. 2021, you will most likely get a response that the changes are “based on best practice design guidance” from various governmental agencies but you will not find, upon study of those resources, that the city is choosing the best designs or guidance.

In fact, the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) “Urban Bikeway Design Guide,” says conventional bike lanes, “increases bicyclist comfort and confidence on busy streets, creates separation between bicyclists and automobiles, increases predictability of bicyclist and motorist positioning and interaction, increases total capacities of streets carrying mixed bicycle and motor vehicle traffic, visually reminds motorists of bicyclists right to the street.”

In other words, what we had was good.

But, in examples of design hypocrisy, for greater safety and visibility, cars have been directed, with painted lines, to approach High street from Buchon, Islay and Teft Streets at right angles while on Marsh and Higuera Streets bicycles have been moved into inescapable channels, and away from visible mirror range, to be in the blind spots of right turning vehicles.

When considering pedestrian safety: Pedestrians on sidewalks are now much more aware of bicycle traffic for bike racks have been moved to just the right position to force handle bars into clothes, elbows and children’s faces. The transportation committee has also considered allowing bike riding on sidewalks.

Everyone has experienced the insanity of two separate traffic ways to cross, or access parked vehicles on Marsh and Higuera streets. Have you also walked or ridden through the Froom Ranch / LOVR and Dalidio / Madonna Road intersections? There are valid reasons the Vehicle Code has bikes share the road with vehicles and not pedestrians. Note: I ride my bike to Home Depot.

The city continues to promote electric vehicle usage so “E bikes,” which, like mopeds, are motor vehicles, are joining pedaled bikes in the bikeways to get around town while signage along Madonna Road properly say, “No Motor Vehicles”?

So far the environmental damage and slavery resulting from the mining and disposal of the new mineral battery technologies in Electric Vehicles (EV’s) is of little concern.

Do you remember how we used to sneak five cars into the front of the Post Office on Marsh Street?

The city now says we can only park three, but in January the mayor said that reduced street parking is why we are getting a new parking structure.

So, the new parking structure will be to: 1) replace street parking, 2) support city decisions to greatly reduce off-street parking requirements, or their mitigations, for private developers. (Is that why 550 Higuera, a thirty unit property, was allowed no off-street parking?) 3) set aside general parking for electric vehicles only, and 4) donate space for a theater complex.

So how do we address the general parking deficit we face from an increased population?

It is expected that visitors to the city will not need parking, and will travel by means other than private vehicles.

Of note: This last summer the city increased the parking metering hours by one-third and increased, and will again increase, the hourly rates reportedly to recoup a loss of $4.1 million dollars due to COVID. This fee increase is important for the city can now give $3.9 million to the theater group to take up space in the to-be-built parking structure, and also to support creditors income requirements.

The good side of these street changes? In an attempt to support lower-cost housing the city planned separated bike lanes, along the North Chorro and Broad street bike corridor, will depress property values in the effected areas following the loss of on-street parking and more competitive parking in the neighboring streets. Compensation for the loss of property value should be a possibility. Ask the city, it likes spending our money.

Overall the city administration has done an admirable job of diving into the public’s pockets to change the city in significant ways without utilizing quieter streets for bike routes, PSAs for reminders of California Vehicle Code road rules, and relying on citizen responsibility and intelligence to work together on our roadways, as in past years.

Ultimately, an important point to remember is that Vehicle Codes say bicycles have rights to the roadways, especially if other routes are busy with pedestrians or other perceived hazards. It is up to motor vehicles and bike riders to move defensively and watch for, and protect each other, including when the city has removed, or suggests, other routes.

P.S. The snacks at the party were rather generic. You didn’t miss much.

If you would like a critical and technical response to the city’s transportation mistakes, ask the City Council for a copy of my letter to them dated Jan. 7, 2022. Or my piece in CCN dated January 18, 2022. T. Keith Gurney also has good points.

Ken Herrmann has been a pedestrian, bicyclist and a commercial driver around SLO for over 40 years and has spent 35 years in boots-on-the-ground public service, which he left in disgust.


Loading...
18 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“relying on citizen responsibility and intelligence to work together on our roadways”

This guy!


Go get ’em, Ken! I know this man, and he’s a good guy.


It’s like driving on a miniature golf course: confusing signs, weird paint schemes, zany traffic lights, Koo Koo bollards, paisley medians, whoopie!!!


Virtual signaling at its finest. All this taxpayer money wasted on these projects becasue they tell us this is the transportation mode of the future, all the while the city wants to waste even more money on another parking garage, why? bycicles are the future not cars and garages to house them.


Because the only radicals are the ones who think that cars should be the only safe/convenient way to get anywhere in this city and think that it would be better to have a 1960s designed city for our 2023 population. There needs to be a better balance between cars, bikes, and pedestrians; the bike lanes and the parking structures improve that balance by creating a downtown which doesn’t have as much traffic running through it’s core, is easier to visit for residents who don’t want to drive and still accessible for residents and visitors who come via car. Are you really free if you HAVE to drive everywhere you go?


We wouldn’t have a “2023 population”, if the city hadn’t authorized the far too many housing sprawls around town. SLO used to have a building moratorium, that only allowed new housing in light of demand. That was thrown out for, “build the housing to encourage demand” current philosophy. Thus we have multiple massive housing projects, on a new section of Tank Farm Rd. that was built exclusively for these projects. Prado Rd., Buckley Rd., Orcutt Rd., LOVR, Madonna Rd., Broad St., etc all have new housing units. I won’t even mention the feverish blessing of the city, to allow nearly unlimited multiple extra housing features in backyards and former driveways. Yet, ZERO increase in infrastructure. The sewer plant is hardly larger. We have created no means of more water. The ONLY streets made for the increase in traffic, is inside these projects.

I remember clearly, when the SLO airport was way way out of town. Now we have thousands of people living nearby, that complain about the airport noise…

Creating the problem, then going out of their way to accommodate it while claiming “we NEEEEED it because SLO is growing” is dishonest and corrupt at best.


A great piece demonstrating that there are more of you out there who are questioning our city’s reasoning, expense, and competence with what it’s doing with bike lanes in this town and in our neighborhoods. Neighborhoods used to matter in San Luis Obispo. Between the what the state is doing with housing legislation and what the city is doing with bike lanes, our neighborhoods don’t seem to matter anymore.


If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. The city leaders need to reign in their “La La Land” staff and the special interest groups that control them.


Lot of slab designated for bicycles. I assume motorist will pay for maintenance of the HMA? Doesn’t sound equitable for a city hell bent on equity?


Bicycle infrastructure is cheap and notably doesn’t get destroyed constantly like cars/trucks do to their own roads. In reality it’s tax payers, including bicyclists who gain no benifit, who pay for our car infrastructure. Look at Google Earth, how much land have we set aside for cars compared to all other forms of transportation? No need for equity, but how about a fair deal and a bit of fiscal responsibility on the part of motorists?


And yet another example of leaders kissing ring of the marginalized minority (in this case bicyclists) to the detriment of the majority.


I’m not sure what marginalized minority city leaders and bureaucrats are “kissing the ring of” (you sure it is a ring and not a bottom grommet?), but it isn’t the real cyclists of SLO County. They don’t want or advocate for these irresponsible, nonsensical, dangerous transportation corridors of chaos.


I ride a bike in SLO, I support cycling and I have been very involved in the cycling community. I think you’ve done a good job of outlining the puzzling aspects and inconsistencies with the current situation.


This is one I’ve especially been dismayed by. “… on Marsh and Higuera Streets bicycles have been moved into inescapable channels, and away from visible mirror range, to be in the blind spots of right turning vehicles.”


I drive a small, and very short fuel efficient car. I often can’t see over the large parked cars on Marsh St, so I don’t know in advance if there are bikes in the new bike channels. I have to start my turn, pause to peer down the channel, and then proceed. This has caused me to almost get rear ended several times. And on my bike, I’m always afraid that someone’s passenger will door me, and I’ll have no way to avoid it because I’m stuck in that weird channel.


And if you think Marsh Street is nuts for the dangers it creates for cyclists and turning cars, you’ll love the two-way cycle tracks the city will build on Chorro and Ramona which will have bikes coming from two directions, one of which is totally in driver’s blind spot, cars trying to cross through that mess, and dozens of driveways — including busy commercial driveways — crossing these tracks from which cyclists cannot escape if they become aware of impending danger. The article author is correct that the city claims it’s following “best practices” when in fact it has no clue what best practices may be and often does dangerous things clearly not among best practices. This continues because there’s a flood of money available for it that must be spent; by city ordinance (passed by city council) 20% of transport funds MUST be spent on bike stuff. That’s just not right.