Front Page  »  

Stop the San Luis Obispo bike lane insanity

May 4, 2023
T. Keith Gurnee

T. Keith Gurnee

By T. KEITH GURNEE

After approving the Anholm Greenway with its “protected” bike lanes at a staggering cost of $6.3 million—nearly six times the original estimate—one would think the city might pause to reflect on how much money it’s been spending to trash our streets and diminish the livability of an historic neighborhood. And it cost the city another $1.3 million just to get the project bid ready!

With construction starting on this project that’ll eliminate over 90 on-street parking spaces at a time when the state is densifying single-family neighborhoods and prohibiting cities from imposing parking requirements within ½ mile of transit stops for that additional density, could the city take a more damaging action? Add in the fact that it will expose cyclists to dangerous two-way bike lanes on one side of Chorro and Ramona streets, it will only be a matter of time before the city will regret its decision.

Yet the city is doubling down on such decisions. This summer, the city will be splurging another $9.7 million to infect more of our streets with these zany “improvements.”

Next up: Monterey and California streets, Santa Barbara Street, and Morris Street. This fiscal insanity has been spawned by the city’s Active Transportation Committee (ATC) that’s packed with bike lobbyists, the special interest group that’s determined to make a mess of our streets.

Coming on the heels of the recent bike versus pickup collision that killed a cyclist at Grand Avenue and Fredericks Street, one of the members of the ATC—Garrett Otto—wrote a letter admonishing the Tribune for reporting that the cyclist crashed into the pickup.

While it’s premature to blame either party for this tragic accident that awaits the results of an investigation, Otto’s comments lay bare his clear bias for bikes.

Should we be surprised if the Tribune’s report proves accurate? Perhaps not. Many residents have seen bikers routinely blasting through stop signs throughout the city, including cycling families with their children in tow. To them, stop signs are mere “suggestions.”

Protected bike lanes will certainly not fix that problem.

The city’s unsightly, expensive, and unsafe distribution of these crazy projects throughout our neighborhoods is just plain nuts. Visitors and residents alike can’t believe what this council is doing to our streets. Our community and our neighborhoods deserve better.

When will this City Council come to its senses and stop this waste of taxpayer’s money to the detriment of our town? With this council, probably never.


Loading...
Subjects:
Related:


26 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

In Idaho, bicycle riders are legally allowed to treat stop signs as yield signs. In other words, if it’s safe, a bicycle list need not stop at a stop sign. Research shows this increases the safety of drivers and bicyclist.


-25

I love in SLO. I own two homes there. I like the new bike lanes and all the new bike and pedestrian infrastructure. I believe it’s a wise investment. One avoided death will more than pay for it. The streets are made dangerous by cars, not bikes. In an accident, the car always wins. Cars just need to slow down.


-68

Streets are made for cars, which is why it’s illegal and very dangerous to walk in the street. Bicycles, by law, must obey all vehicle traffic rules and regulations.


When they don’t, cars in the streets become as dangerous for bicycles, as people walking in the street.


Confusing drivers, with a mish-mash of new lines and lanes of bright colors (which have as of yet, has not been carefully explained by the city to the residents), while making major streets more narrow for everyone, is most dangerous of all.


And, if we find it puzzling, think about the tourist who discovers the maze of lanes and lines they have never encountered before.


43

“Confusing drivers, with a mish-mash of new lines and lanes of bright colors “


So ignorance of the law is an excuse now? I hope they don’t own any guns.


“which have as of yet, has not been carefully explained by the city to the residents”

They did, you missed it.


Cars, by law, must obey all vehicle traffic rules and regulations.


-40

>”Streets were made for cars”

This is plainly untrue, most of the streets in this town were designed long before the invention of the automobile. It’s important to remember that the concept of building cities around the car is less than 100 years old, a utopian vision that our country has spent trillions of dollars and millions of tons of asfalt to accomplish, all folly.


What’s remarkable is that fixing our infrastructure to make our streets more accessible is better for you, the motorist. More bikes means less cars for you to compete with on the road, more parking in downtown, less conflict points, a better experience.


I don’t understand the disdain for road markings – the alternative is bikes riding in the middle of the street which would be obvious unsafe for them and I imagine would infuriate you as you crawl down Marsh Street at 10 mph.


2

No. Most of SLO’s streets were NOT made for buggy’s and horses (which, by the way, you still had to yield to, just like today) SLO was relatively small for the number of people that called SLO home, because most lived outside the town. Even then, the major streets; Higuera, Monterey, and Marsh, were built uncommonly wide for the day. The city entrances in 1939 were the top of Monterey St., Higuera at the cemetery, and Santa Rosa St. at Murray Ave.


Around 8000+ lived in the immediate area, or had a PO Box, prior to WWII. In 1946, 17,000 did. Many who had trained at Camp SLO and Camp Roberts, returned to make it their home. Many who were hired to operate Camp SLO and Camp Roberts, never left.


From that point on, SLO was built exclusively around cars…not bicycles.


23

What you say is mostly correct. Most of the streets in SLO were built after WWII – the old city didn’t stretch from the airport to Cal Poly, and lots of that development was done around the automobile because that was the prevailing growth philosophy – we had all the space in the world and no one could saw the downsides of car-only design. SLO was not a city built for the bicycle (arguably no city has been, not even bike famous places like Amsterdam) and I’m not saying we should design cities for one mode of transit.


That’s where the plot always seems to get lost: the pro-bike lane people like me don’t want to ban cars and force you to give up driving (I drive!). But we should design our city around transportation options: pedestrians should have more space downtown and in commercial areas, slow moving bike and car roads near by, faster larger arterial roads with either protected bike lanes, or a separate bike path near by, more frequent buses, small coffee shops and barbers walking distance to people’s homes, more homes near groceries and parks so fewer people clog the roads and parking spaces…. How is all of this so controversial?


-12

But you would be wrong, again:


https://calcoastnews.com/2023/02/san-luis-obispo-debates-allowing-bicyclists-to-ride-on-sidewalks/


https://calcoastnews.com/2018/09/bicycle-advocate-leader-or-hyhttps://calcoastnews.com/2018/09/slo-city-council-votes-to-remove-multiple-parking-spaces/comment-page-2/pocrite/


Ahttps://calcoastnews.com/2018/09/harmon-and-christiansons-poorly-made-plans-for-slo/nd, from the left side of politics:


8

It’s the people driving cars you have to be concerned about. I used to ride my bike. Not anymore. I walk a lot and I’ll check twice before I cross the street.It’s the same old story, people driving and looking at the phone. Some of the bycyclist and people on skateboards don’t pay attetion but that’s a small percentage.If your driving the speed limit or just under and your paying full attention to everything around you, your not going to hit a bycyclist a skater a Cat or a dog or a pedestrian. Period. And you most certainly will not run into a young couple and their Dog as you go 60mph at a sharp curve.


25

Sorry Boomers, the City is progressing beyond 1970’s thinking. Don’t worry, you can still drive, the cyclists will just have a bit more protection from you. At least DMV isn’t making it harder for you to keep your ability to drive (legally), yet.


-78

The cyclists need protection from themselves,not motorists. 90% of them have total disregard for traffic laws.

I ride a motorcycle daily. If I rode it the way cyclists ride,I’d need a wheelbarrow to haul the tickets to court. The difference between motorcyclists and bicyclists is this, Motorcyclists believe (rightfully so) that they are almost invisible to motorists and ride with that in mind. Bicyclists think that it’s the motorists responsibility to watch out for them and ride accordingly.


91

I think a good idea would be to License bikes just like cars, have bike riders pay for the lanes just like car owners do. I think a good starting point would be $200/year. Also confiscate any bikes that do not have a license plate.


15

The truth is that bike lanes are safer and more comfortable for pedestrians, cyclists, and the motorist. Cars don’t like interacting with bikes, the comments make this clear, and neither do bikes. Again, bike projects are good for drivers. These very popular and over-discussed plans when brought to life will make SLO a shining example of multi-modal transportation in North America.


The more uncomfortable truth is that Mr. Gurnee and his comrades advocate for mandatory automobile ownership, where every person must drive and park for every trip and those without licenses because of age, disability, or discomfort with driving are second class citizens. Move to Santa Maria, it’s the kind of city you are asking for.


-125

16 Million on bike lanes? Total insanity. Years ago I used to ride my bike thru SLO Town didn’t need no stinkin bike lanes then.


137

So, cyclists blowing through stop signs is a product of the new dedicated bike lanes. I doubt it. I know you don’t like change, but I love what the city has done. Atascadero is doing the same thing, and I don’t hear anyone complaining about what they’re doing.


-161

One question I have is, if the property fee title is to the middle of the street and the property owners pay taxes on the curb gutter and sidewalk improvements (as in curb your vehicle where designed) what give the city to right to take away your assessed and paid for parking space? Another concern I think about is the campus atmosphere created throughout the city plus the dangerous mix of tourist that are not accustomed to the entitled bicyclist. I routinely see bicyclist run lights, stop signs and make turns as though nobody else is on the road. Just sayin.


149

I don’t want to come across as anti-bike, but I’ll say this: Their general attitude has always pissed me off. By and large, they tend to think they’re better than car drivers, that they’re the ones saving the environment. But don’t even think of charging them a bike registration fee to help contribute to city funds.


It is especially unnerving to watch bikers just blow through stop signs and stop lights. I witness it regularly each week. They just don’t care.


Thanks, Keith.


185

Bicyclist should not have to pay licensing fees. The simple act of riding a bicycle, compared to driving a car, saves the city money. Heavy vehicles do considerably more damage to roads than do lighter vehicles like bicycles.


-28
1 2