🚀 go-pugleaf

First some explanations for out-of-town bicyclists.
The Broadway-Brommer bike connection is an east-west link at the
eastern edge of Santa Cruz, between Santa Cruz and Live Oak.  There is
a bit of a shortage of east-west connections, with only 5 streets
open to bicyclists crossing a north-south cut line:
	Murray/Eaton Street, a very narrow two-lane bridge
	Yacht Harbor driveway, connects to Brommer at the
		northeast corner and, maybe, Atlantic Avenue at the 
		southwest corner of the harbor (my map shows a connection,
		but I've never ridden it).
	Soquel Avenue a busy arterial
	Carl Avenue (a very short residential street, that allows you
		to skip one block of Soquel)
	Prospect Heights (north of the freeway, and farther east the
		only only road north of the freeway is Brookwood Drive which is
		one-way, so you have to take Soquel and La Fonda if you
		want to get to Prospect Heights from the east).

(Note, there may be another east-west road up in the hills, but I'm
not aware of any until Mountain View and Laurel Glen, a detour of 10
hilly miles.)


For most bicycle trips, Murray/Eaton or Soquel are the only reasonable
east-west corridors, and neither one is particularly comfotable.
Soquel and Murray are about a mile apart at this point.

The proposed Broadway-Brommer connection is halfway in between Soquel
and Murray and connects two residential arterials, both of which
already see significant bike traffic.  The reduction in bike distance
between Santa Cruz and the 41st street mall, or between Live Oak and
downtown Santa Cruz would be between 0.5 and 1.5 miles, depending on
exact source and destination for the trip.  The proposed
bike/pedestrian path thus represents a significant short cut, and will
attract riders who normally prefer to ride on the roads (like me), as
well as people who prefer separated bike paths (like Martin).

The environmental study that is now being done does include Martin's
preferred alternative, a ramp from Frederick Street Park down to the
yacht harbor driveway.  This may well be the cheapest alternative
(except for "no-build"), but it isn't quite as easy as Martin makes it seem.
There is a 40-50' change in elevation between the park and the
driveway, with a slope of 30% to 60%, depending exactly where you measure.
To make the ADA requirements (which I believe is 4%, with flat resting
places every 20' of climb), the ramp will have to be very long,
completely covering the cliff, and probably requiring 2 or 3 switchbacks.

There are a couple of bridge options, and they are clearly much more
expensive than the ramp, but provide a more nearly level crossing from
Broadway to Brommer.  The steepest part of the ride on them would be
the existing 7% grade on the end of Brommer leading down into the
yacht harbor, with about 20' of climb.  Unfortunately, the early
bridge designs (by SJSU students) had too much slope to be
ADA-compliant, and a bridge that does comply with ADA regulations may
be too expensive.

Don Fong's point about the wetlands is a good one---the bridge would
have to be built right over wetlands that contain an endangered tar
plant species. If the bridge can be built without too much damage
during construction, I think that it may have a beneficial long-term
effect, by allowing pedestrians to view the wetlands from above
without damaging them by walking through them.

Overall, I believe this project to be a valuable one for the bicycling
community, but not an easy one to engineer or fund.  Although I agree
with Tom Holub that bike paths are rarely the right solution, I think
that this one can be justified.  Although I sympathize with Martin's
frustration at the glacial pace of planning and constructing public
facilities, I think that this project has been moving about as fast as
it can.  (Contrast it with the Mission Street widening, which still
hasn't been done mroe than 10 years after the planning.)

-- 
Kevin Karplus		karplus@ce.ucsc.edu

Due to budgetary constraints the light at the end of the tunnel is
being turned off.