Laserfiche WebLink
R 1RWc needs to focus on releasing traffic congestion in this area. Reductio- of lane- YAll <br />exacerbate the traffic problem and risk to pedestrians and bikers. Lanes shoVid not ,e ; ep rp csed. <br />+1 1. I'd like to see improvements to help traffic flow. That seems to be the lowest priority for the <br />city. Don't Itnow specifics of these "improvements" but in general the city seems mach more intent <br />on impeding rather than facilitating traffic flow. <br />1. In general I don't support traffic engineering that reduces flow for the thousand of cars using the <br />roadways in favor of the few bicyclists usinf the roadway. I would support safety mitigation that <br />makes sense in specific locations without impacting through vehicle traffic <br />i, we have sidewalks with stoplights at intersections, people should use them instead of jay <br />walking. 1 don't want to see any more compensation for bikes, because it'll end up closing car lanes <br />down for an ever-growing city, and I've run into more bicyclists not abiding the rules of the road, <br />and we in cars have to make the compensations for them ... I don't think so! Taking av:;=v a left hand <br />turn lane will just back up traffic even more. <br />1. Ana in that topic, changing Farmhill from 2 lanes to i has negatively impacted Redwood City. <br />During high traffic, I have to wait at lights that I never had to before. And T,-,,!- ' ;g+: " :c <br />Edwevood is now a nig '-mare. Three to four I'gh': =ycles to -F t is c_ s! _ :.: .- c - rs a <br />waste c`fuel and additional pollution while wa, ic'e whn __ we never did befcr_. Ci,a c it - ac!+to <br />two lanes <br />2! support the overall goal but deeply ccncern�c r. bout the construction arc. Oc ! aues that <br />are implied. <br />2. Let's see the parking program work effective:v for a year be ore taking par: g o;` - C --incl Our <br />neigh 2 s rhood is already impossible nights ana vneekends! <br />21 have some concerns regarding some of the proposals. I'm not sure if by supporting. I we Jid be <br />agreeing that I'm in favo- of all of these suggestic ns. <br />1, 1 feel like this is going to cause a lot of traffic and why is it such a short portion of El cami-no. plus <br />I'm sure we will have to sacrifice an lane from el camino to create the bicvcls •ane. i `e-1 like we <br />don't have a that big of a demographic of bicycles in Redwood City. Why not create a uric-, lane on <br />a parailei street like Pennsylvania ave along the Caltrain. <br />1 1 strongly oppose! Bicycle and pedestrians can travel just as =asily on side streets! EI Camino <br />already is taxed to an extreme use We don't need additional construction <br />