There are better alternatives to solve this need

There has been sufficient community input from the community to indicate a desire for better opportunities for traveling comfortably by bicycle in our city, however, at no point has the Mobility Planner and other involved Staff look beyond the initial questions about if we like bicycles to determine how much we like them compared to other needs (aka prioritization), or what cost we are willing to pay to get them.

For example, if you ask me if I want to see more bike trails in our community I would say "Yes", but if you ask I want more detached trail connections that are bikeable where roads don't exist or if I want a bike lane on asphalt next to a necessary vehicular artery, I would not want more bike options that have to share high volume vehicular corridors.

Furthermore, if you asked me if I want to make driving a vehicle more painful and less efficient in order to offer independent dedications within the same right of way for enlarged sidewalks, landscape strips, low-stress bike lanes, and vehicles; I would say "no". If you asked me if I thought we should avoid trying to stuff "low stress" ped/bike facilities into the same corridors as primary vehicular routes I would say "no, we should look at alternative streets that are less travelled by vehicles but have similar routes to access parts of the city (like 3rd street or 6th street).

Additionally, if you asked me how much money I wanted to spend on this project I would refer back to the discussion about my priorities for spending our money within the city.

None of the surveys or discussions put forth by City Staff to date have asked follow-up questions like these so the process simply has not been thorough enough to be considered adequate by any measure that would justify shoving what feels like an anti-vehicle bias down our throat.

Before the City government makes another ideological move that props up a minor user group at an UNEQUITABLE expense of a major user group they should be asking sufficient questions like those listed above and considering better alternatives that don't foster so much divisiveness. Next steps for the City to consider could include:

1. Seek an alternative like 3rd or 6th streets to create a corridor that prioritizes bike/ped and leave the primary vehicle corridors alone.

2. Leave the vehicle lanes on 7th street alone and prioritize what they want to see within the ample space that exists on both sides that currently provide sidewalk and landscaping. There is not room for everything at the grand standards Staff has recently adopted so this option will likely require City Staff to choose between trees/landscaping and bike/ped if they insist on creating an active transportation corridor on 7th street.