Dear Commissioners, City Council Members, and Mayor,
I believe bicycle use is a good idea for those who are able. Everyone wants a nice environment. That being said, the idea of making Solano into a bicycle "friendly" boulevard as described in the Parametrix Technical Memorandum is one of the craziest ideas I have ever seen. The impacts on businesses, neighboring residential streets, public transportation users, delivery services, persons with limited mobility options, user safety, and so many others will be extremely negative for the community. There are so many flaws acknowledged in the report, it is hard for me to understand how anyone could consider the plan a good idea. The bike lanes on Marin and Washington are well designed, provide relatively safe riding lanes, and are more than sufficient for the needs of bicyclists. Anyone who cannot ride on one of these two bike-ways, then cross over by foot (or bicycle) to Solano Avenue should not be bicycling to begin with. I hope the Transportation Commission and the City Council will abandon this ill conceived plan. I fear some members of these bodies may have already made up their minds, and no amount of rational thinking or analysis of the plan will persuade them to do the reasonable thing, i.e., abandon this crazy idea.
I have thoroughly reviewed the Parametrix Technical Memorandum. This is a very long, detailed document, citing many examples, and referencing other documents. I find the memorandum is probably beyond comprehension to most individuals. Technical jargon is used throughout, acronymic reference to other documents with no way to know what the documents are about or where to find them for further study if one had the time or inclination to consult them, and pictures of “similar situations” that really have no relevance to Solano Avenue are used throughout. Consequently, the memorandum is likely of little use to the average Albany resident, and probably even to decision makers. One glaring omission is the cost of the proposal. The project is anticipated to cost 30-50 MILLION DOLLARS. Where will this money come from, especially now that the revenue from the race track is apparently gone? Is there some secret fund that is not mentioned in the memorandum? If traffic calming is the goal, why not spend some of this money on more traffic signal lights. This would most likely cost less than 30 or 50 million dollars, even including the cost of the urgently needed rebuilding, not just resurfacing, of Solano Ave. This would be much more effective for traffic calming, and would have a much greater and more positive effect on traffic and pedestrian safety than the proposal.
Let’s go through the Executive Summary, point by point.
Page 2, bullet point 1: “Maximize space efficiency”. I don’t believe the study makes a case for this. If anything, much space is lost or rendered useless.
Bullet point 2: “A substantial amount of existing parking will be preserved”. What is not emphasized is that a substantial amount of parking will be lost, to the detriment of the business environment on Solano. It also speculates that some of the parking to be “preserved” would actually come from loading zones and bus stop abandonment. Bus stop abandonment is counter-productive, and will tend to further discourage the use of public transportation. Public transportation needs all the help and encouragement it can get. Merchant suppliers rely on loading zones for the delivery of merchant supplies. Get rid of these and Albany merchants are threatened with extinction.
“Guidance for Asymmetrical Bikeways”: this section mentions biking and “rolling”. What is “rolling”, does this mean roller skates? The term is not defined in the memorandum. If it does mean roller skating, it should be taken out of the discussion. Roller skates have no business being on Solano Avenue. This section mentions the ADT on Solano as 8,000. This is so far above the recommended limit for shared use it is ridiculous. The recommended limit is only 2,000 to 3,000 ADT. The proposed design would, in the words of the report, only be appropriate for “stronger, more confident riders”. No kids, no older adults, no physically challenged persons?
The report goes on to state a “shared lane does not provide an ideal biking/rolling experience”. Lane markings and signage are proposed to be used to compensate. When was the last time you observed a high compliance rate of signage and speed limits? Not going to happen. The current speed limit on Solano in Albany is 20 MPH. Signs are few, far between, and suffer from poor visibility. They are routinely ignored by motorists. This section goes on to state some elements remain uncertain and will require further evaluation. Factors related to parking, loading, and public transit…as well as behavioral factors may not be fully understood until the concept is implemented. What has the consultant been doing for the last 6 months? Why is there not an updated analysis for consideration? How much has the consultant been paid for this incomplete report, and how much more are they going to be paid to come up with a viable plan? One intent of the design is to calm traffic, yet the memorandum states “the long term behavioral outcomes of vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians will depend on real-world use and observation.” In other words, the consultant has no idea what the effect of the plan will actually be.
Parking, Loading & Curb Management: there is a calculated parking space net loss of 6%. The analysis of this is flawed. The actual loss is apparently unknown. It depends on factors such as potentially converting pop-outs (restaurants would love this), loading zones, bus stops, handicap parking, etc. to parking. It also seems to suggest that existing pedestrian pop-out bulbs would be removed and could add to parking. What about the state law requiring, I believe, a 20 foot sight line at intersections marked with red (no parking) paint on the curb? Will potential merchant patrons (and the merchants) benefit from reduced parking? Not all patrons live within a block or two of Solano Avenue. To quote the report: “Some elements of the concept remain uncertain at this early stage.” In other words, the plan is nowhere near complete.
Public transit: the plan calls for the elimination of several bus stops. This is contrary to public policy and public goals. The goal is, or at least should be, to encourage the use of public transit, not discourage it by making it less accessible.
The plan seems to elevate the use of the roadway for bicycle use over the needs and safety of pedestrians. The existing “bulb-outs” at intersections (which were installed at great expense several years ago to enhance pedestrian safety) will be eliminated. How can this change in priorities be justified? Seemingly also disregarded are the needs of the merchants. How are they supposed to have the merchandise they need to operate their businesses delivered? Lack of road-way access will make it difficult if not impossible to deliver supplies to the merchants. It will certainly not happen without seriously disrupting traffic. Routing delivery vehicles to adjacent residential streets is not workable and will certainly invite the ire of the residents on those streets.
Solano Avenue is not an appropriate place for bicycle traffic. The negative consequences of this plan far outweigh any dubious benefits. The concept would actually reverse past progress in the protection of pedestrians, putting in place new (old?) hazards that were replaced years ago. Traffic would be disrupted, causing frustration and anger of drivers. We don’t need more road rage.
Solano Avenue is in serious need of reconstruction, but this is not the right way to do it. You have an obligation to Albany residents and taxpayers to come up with a better plan than this ill advised concept. Even if you have already made up your mind on this proposal, I urge you to give the concept additional serious thought, and consider what is best for Albany as a whole, not just a small sub-set of residents.
Sincerely,
Peter Campbell Albany resident, property owner, voter, and taxpayer.