Answers to People Power Questionaire 

 Bike Access 

Yes, I support this trail.

I envision creating it as soon as possible by encouraging the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission to abandon the idea of spending millions to study expanding Highway 1 instead of funding other local transporation priorities.

Lacking expertise in this area, I won't even venture the wildest guess as to how much it will cost or how long it will take (other than way more and far longer than one would ever expect). I assume that I will be provided with detailed information on any specific proposal that comes before me.

For almost a decade now the city has planned to put in a bicycle connection from Broadway to Brommer. Please describe one or more of the following options that you would support: the original Two bridge Broadway-Brommer Connection? A one bridge alternative that traveled through the Arana Meadow with narrow one way bike paths, then went into the dry drock so as to avoid construction in the riparian zone? A steep ramp with tight turns from the Frederick Street Park to the Harbor?

First of all, I'll preface this by saying that my familiarity with this issue is limited; I've read various articles in the local media over the years, reviewed web sites pro and con, but I can't claim to be fully informed on this.

I understand the reluctance of the bicycling community to accept an alternative that involves doubling the length of what would otherwise be a very short trip (options C and D). However, my honest, and instinctive, reaction, is to oppose construction of the bike path as described in the various proposals (eight feet of concrete plus another four feet of something else); "roads" of any sort are vectors for the invasion of non-native plants and disease, both during construction, and afterwards. They also block normal transit patterns of wildlife.

Given the valid concerns raised by the bicycling community, I don't see that option B is a worthwhile expenditure of public funds either. I'd suggest going back to the table and coming up with some new alternatives - perhaps an elevated path with less obtrusive lighting would be a viable alternative? That would have less of a long term disruptive effect on the ecology (although admittedly would be more visually intrusive), as the only direct impact would be during construction and in the areas where the posts were emplaced, and the normal "roadside" ecology emerging from such a disruption wouldn't be able to take hold. Perhaps something that went through Frederick St. park and then hooked up to Stagg lane? Or from the end of Windham Drive and skirted the southern portion of Arana Gulch?

 Livable Cities Issues 

I, along with the Green Party of Santa Cruz County, CA, do not support widening Highway 1. It would be a massive waste of taxpayer dollars that could be better spent on all sorts of other projects that would faciliate alternative transportation modes, and is an admission that our current jobs/housing imbalance is permanent (which is the real source of the problem - people commuting to jobs in Santa Cruz that can't afford to live here, and people commuting out of Santa Cruz that can't afford to work here).

Furthermore, it ignores technological developments on the mid-term horizon (twenty years and out) that have the potential to dramatically alter the density with which traffic can flow (computer guidance, etc.), and the possibility that the car, as a mode of transport, could be rendered obsolete by the emergence of technologies like PRT.

It is ridiculous to starve other programs in order to cobble together funding for an EIR, when no demonstrated proof exists that the citizens of this county are willing to assume the regressive tax burden necessary to fund the widening of Highway 1.

Do you support bicycle boulevards as a traffic calming/bicycle advocacy measure? To make a bicycle boulevard, one blocks automobile through traffic at strategic points while allowing bicycle and pedestrian traffic to go through. The best example is probably California Ave. in Palo Alto. Do you support the concept? Which of the following (if any) would make good bicycle boulevards? Pine? King? Cayuga?

My lack of familiarity with this concept and the areas cited limits my ability to comment... this would seem to be a reasonable proposition for portions of Pacific Ave., which appears to already be designed in the fashion described (without the bicycle friendliness). In general, I support measures which encourage bicycling, but I'd want to understand how this would impact the traffic flow in the neighborhoods in question... would it simply drive cars off of each of these streets and onto residential side streets?

What steps would you take (if any) to promote bicycling? I would:

• support a yellow bike program
• use the city's power to arrange bulk purchases of commuter bicycles that could be lent to individuals willing to commit to riding them on a regular basis
extend such a program to the schools, making a bicycle available to any and all students wishing to use it to travel to and from school (thus familiarizing kids with bicycle usage early on, and perhaps causing them to delay the purchase of and dependence on an automobile)
• arrange for bicycle purchasing loans to businesses that wanted to encourage employees to bicycle to work
• work with the Santa Cruz Community Credit Union to arrange for bicycle purchase loans for low-income workers
• encourage people to purchase and register bicycles by paying people $50.00 when they registered a bicycle
• work to develop a program through the city that would allow bicycle riders to purchase accident and liability insurance at an affordable rate

I would also work to address the jobs/housing imbalance, and to encourage the construction of high density affordable housing along major transit corridors and in urban core areas, to make it more practical for people to live near where they work, and to encourage and strengthen neighborhood commercial districts so that people can also shop and play near where they work (see my Broadening The Dialogue document). This would address the root causes behind the need to travel solo in a vehicle.

 On Street Bike Issues 

There are many areas on Santa Cruz where the removal of on-street parking is simply not feasible, because no off-street parking exists, especially given the massive conversion of garages into secondary housing units, and the existence of retail areas that were developed before we became so dependent on the automobile. I don't support this, unless business and residential users have reasonable alternatives, and are consenting co-participants in the decision. Furthermore, given the rapid aging of the overall population, I can easily see older individuals not finding it feasible to walk significant distances and needing the ability to park directly in front of or near businesses.

The City of Santa Cruz is currently considering reconfiguring Soquel Avenue. Do you support the Soquel Task Force's recommendations for bike lanes on Soquel? Including the elimination of the merge lane onto Capitola Road?

I don't know enough about this to comment. If a task force of citizens that is broadly representative of the various interests has made such a recommendation, I'd be inclined to go along with it, but I'd have to see the details before making any commitment.

 Bike Safety/Law Enforcement 

Like I said above, I'd go a lot further than that - I'd do everything in the city and school district's power to maximize the number of students riding bicycles to and from school, and elsewhere. This would create a vast and vocal constituency among parents and youth, for bicycle usage, and encourage the life-long use of bicycles and other forms of alternative transit.

Do you support having bicycle classes as an alternative to tickets or infractions?

What tickets or infractions? In concept, yes. Anything that encourages people to get on a bicycle is good.

What else do you think should be done to improve bike safety?

Like I suggested above, encourage bicycle registrations by paying people to register their bikes, and requiring periodic safety inspections; we could also encourage basic safety knowledge by paying people $50.00 if they successfully passed a basic bike safety exam and test.