Editorial: Council headed the wrong way on Broadway

If all goes as the Sonoma City Council plans, Broadway will get skinnier in the coming months. The current design of five lanes of traffic will shrink down to three lanes as drivers head north past MacArthur Street.

Sound familiar?

Like the proverbial ping pong ball, the question of building bike lanes on Broadway has bounced around City Hall for the past year. The council, led by then-Mayor Logan Harvey, himself an avid cyclist, pushed for plans to reduce traffic to four lanes to make room for traditional bike lanes in April 2020. It was a decision in direct conflict with the results of a citywide survey, that showed 61% of the 831 respondents favored keeping the road at five lanes. Despite that, the council voted 3-2 in favor of a road diet.

The clap back was swift and significant. The flood of fury from constituents caused Harvey to back pedal on his plan just a month later.

“I do not want to put something forward that the community feels was not considered, they were not noticed about and they broadly do not like,” said Harvey told the Index-Tribune in May 2020.

And so it seemed Broadway would stick with the configuration that has been in place since the 1955, when the city removed the angled parking spots that lined the street in favor of more lanes of traffic.

But then something terrible happened.

On April 17, a woman was severely injured, her dog killed, when they were hit by a car while attempting to cross Broadway at Andrieux Street. The tragedy inspired the council to recommit its efforts to pedestrian safety along the “gateway to Sonoma.”

It’s a solid goal. However, in its frenzy to align with Caltrans’ fast-approaching paving schedule for Broadway, the council rushed to make a decision that was poorly investigated and seems wildly unpopular with the community, if social media chatter is to be believed.

It was bikes, not pedestrians, that the majority of the council focused on Monday when they approved a design (Option B) that even city staff called “confusing.” Although Public Works Director Colleen Ferguson preferred a more traditional model (Option A) where cars park next to the street, Mayor Madolyn Agrimonti ignored the recommendation, expressing her reasoning in a somewhat meandering train of thought.

“You know, I’ve thought about this a long time and I actually prefer Option B and I’ll tell you why, because I think, well, first of all I would never cross Broadway. I’ve only done it four times since I’ve been here. Because it’s such a panoramic view you disappear, you just disappear in that area,” she said. “So I go back to the bikes. I really think it’s innovative, it’s different. And there is a separation between parked cars and the bikes.”

Jack Ding also voted for Option B as well, although he seemed more focused on whether the road could be easily changed if people did not like the striping.

“I am wondering if we can choose Option B and later choose Option A because this is very new for people. Is it possible, or totally no? Any chance to change (in the future)?” Ding asked.

At no time did any of the council members in favor of the change give an impassioned or reasoned explanation for their vote — something constituents deserve. Leaders have to make hard choices, and while they never appeal to everyone, they owe us their decision-making logic. A compelling reason why this specific change is necessary, and why this design is the best option for Broadway, is not too much to ask.

Councilmember Kelso Barnett, on the other hand, did take the time to make a compelling argument, but it was against the change. He pointed out holes in the traffic studies, potential safety pitfalls and reminded the room how unpopular this change was with voters last year.

“I sort of feel like this process is being rushed at the last minute, and I think it’s a major change for Sonoma,” he said.

It was rushed.

Bike lanes and pedestrian safety are topics worthy of discussion and review. Hopefully this change ends up being a net positive for our city, encouraging less dependence on fossil fuels. But this process was messy and opaque, leaving many wondering: Why, exactly, is this the best decision for Sonoma?