The loss of ALL street parking On Middle is unfair and unwarranted!

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

I encourage residents who are negatively affected to challenge the City Council’s decisions.

IMPORTANT CORRECTION (April 26, 2024):

The current pilot bike lanes are ten-feet wide NOT nine-feet, as previously stated in this post.

---

Adding bike lanes to Middle Avenue (Middle”) in Menlo Park is a great idea. These reduce the level of stress for bicyclists riding on streets with much faster vehicle traffic. And when properly designed, bike lanes provide enough space for bicyclists to safely pass vehicles parked on the street, avoiding both collisions with opening doors and feeling the need to suddenly swerve into the path of possible passing vehicles. Previously, Middle had eleven-foot-wide parking strips, and these offered bicyclists about four feet of separation from parked vehicles. This distance generally worked well for experienced bicyclists but did not satisfy everyone, especially some young students at Oak Knoll Elementary School and their parents (Note 1). While I have not seen evidence (data) that riding bikes in the parking strips was dangerous, conventional bike lanes will improve the experience of bike riding on Middle and might increase bike usage. Time will tell.

In February 2023, the Menlo Park City Council reviewed three alternative designs for bike lanes on Middle, and unfortunately, it selected the one that most favored bicyclists and most inconvenienced motorists who use street parking when it insisted on the use of non-conventional, ten-foot wide bike lanes – which eliminate all street parking on Middle – rather than conventional, seven-foot wide bike lanes which would have preserved street parking on one side of Middle. This decision unnecessarily and unfairly impacts motorists who live on Middle and anyone who visits them. Why did the Council make this trade-off? I believe the Council decision was NOT well-reasoned. It claimed the wider bike lanes provided significantly more safety for young bicyclists, a position neither advocated nor endorsed by the transpiration consultant that prepared design drawings. And the Council largely ignored the negative effects its preferred design has on motorists.

Similarly, the Council unnecessarily and unfairly eliminated most of the parking at the front of Nealon Park (“Nealon”) without adequately evaluating both bike safety issues and the impacts of lost convenient parking for motorists using the popular park playground, picnic area and playing courts.

In this post, I will explain my positions, recommend alternative pilot designs I believe would fairly balance the interests of bicyclists and non-bicyclists, and describe my concerns about how the City planned and is now conducting the pilot project. I also encourage residents who are negatively affected by the current design to challenge the Council’s decisions and advocate for a more reasonable and fair one.

Note 1

I could not find any “official” count of the number of Oak Knoll student who ride bikes to school, so I personally observed them on April 2, 2024 from 7:45 am to 8:15 am. The weather was great for bike riding, and the number of riders on Middle was similar to before the bike lanes were installed. Only ten students were riding on Middle without an adult companion. Since Middle and Bay Laurel are the most popular bike routes, I counted the bike riders that used both streets as they approached the intersection of Olive and Oak.

• Middle Avenue:      23 Students      13 Accompanying Adults           Ratio 1.8 to 1
• Bay Laurel:             24 Students        6 Accompanying Adults            Ratio  4 to 1

Bike Lane Design Alternatives

Once the City Council (“Council”) decided to remove the eleven-foot-wide, parking strips on Middle, it considered three different designs for buffered bike lanes (“bike lanes”).

• Design #1 uses ten-foot-wide bike lanes and eliminates ALL street parking.
  
• Design #2 uses conventional seven-foot wide bike lanes and retains street parking on one side of ALL the blocks on Middle Avenue.
  
• Design #3 is similar to Design 1 except street parking is retained on one side of a sections of Middle that the City views as having “high demand” for street parking, i.e., near The Community Church, two apartment buildings, and between University and the Shell station. There, conventional seven-foot wide bike lanes would be used.

The Council selected Design #1 after three council members claimed Designs #2 and #3 would subject young bicyclists to an “unacceptably high” level of risk of potential “dooring”. Dooring refers to a collision in which a bicyclist either rides into an open vehicle door or is struck by an opening vehicle door.

During the February 14, 2023 Council meeting little time was spent discussing Design #2 because it was clear that several council members were determined to eliminate all parking on Middle. So, the most fair and reasonable design (Design #2) received little consideration. A video of this meeting is available on the City website.

It is important to note the Council did not seek a fact-based assessment of the bike safety characteristics of the three design options from a bike network design expert, and instead, relied on amateur opinions, including their own.

Figure 2 is the only comparison presented by a transpiration consultant. It was unaccompanied with a credible assessment of the relative safety of Design #1 and Design #2. I think this might have happened because even though Design #1 does NOT provide a significant amount of additional safety, i.e., “bigger is not always really better”, the consultant knew Design #1 was preferred by several council members. It is noteworthy that this chart does not explicitly claim that ten-foot bike lanes are significantly safer than seven-foot bike lanes. Why? Because that claim would not be true.

Bike Lane Design Controversey

Bike Safety

1. I believe standards-compliant, seven-foot-wide, bike lanes provide enough space for bicyclists to avoid dooring without the need to swerve dangerously into passing vehicle traffic.
2. The City has NOT presented compelling evidence that ten-foot-wide bike lanes offer meaningfully better protection against “dooring” than standard seven-foot-wide bike lanes. (Note: there is no meaningful difference.)
3. There already are seven-foot-wide, bike lanes on Oak Grove and Santa Cruz Avenues and five-foot-wide bike lanes on Valparaiso, and all have sections where street parking is permitted. (Figures 2, 3 & 4). And all three appear on the suggested “Safe Routes to School” maps for Hillview Middle School students . I have not seen evidence that “dooring” has been a significant bike safety problem on any of these streets with either five or seven-foot-wide, bike lanes.
4. I disagree with claims Oak Knoll Elementary School students need the “protection” of ten-foot-wide bike lanes on Middle. 
   (a) I have lived near Middle for almost four decades and observed that these students generally are careful, conscientious, and well aware of their biking environment. I believe risky behavior is extremely rare. (b) Almost half of them are accompanied by adult riding companions who provide guidance on how to safely use Middle. (c) All young bicyclist need to learn how to ride safely in standard bike lane configurations instead of ones that are “super-sized”. The latter provides an unrealistic bike environment not found anywhere else in Menlo Park and can lead to over confidence. (d) finally, all parents should require their children where some brightly colored clothing or helmets to increase their visibility to motorists. That is an extremely inexpensive and important safety measure.
5. The Complete Street Commission has reported that there was only one reported collision between a vehicle and either a bicyclist or pedestrian along the entire length of Middle during the three years ending September 2023. Two other incidents occurred at the intersection at El Camino but the Commission did not report that a bicyclist was involved. Also, no incidents of actual “dooring” have been reported.
   

On-Street Parking

1. I believe the loss of all the street parking which is valued by one hundred households and their visitors – is unwarranted and unfair. 
2. The Council did not specifically collect data on how Middle households viewed the loss of all street parking, so the Council was not in a sound position to fairly evaluate this trade-off. It appears to have not considered this information important.
3. Finally, less than six vehicles are typically parked on Middle between Fremont and Olive. But this small number understates the value of street parking for Middle households, as their visitors frequently park for short time periods during the daytime. The small quantity also means that prior to the new bike lanes, bicyclists seldom had to pass many parked vehicles. 

My Recommendations 

The City should install standard seven-foot-wide bike lanes between University and Olive and preserve street parking on one side (Figure 6).

---

---

Nealon Parking Controversy

Important Update (April 10, 2024) – The City Complete Street Commission is now considering a new design for parking at the front of Nealon that would (a) restore a large number of parking spaces and (b) eliminate the bikeway altogether. It would employ “back-in” angle parking and require motorists traveling eastward on Middle to perform U-turns either on Middle or at Morey Drive just beyond the park. Blake cannot be used because access from Middle has been blocked as part of the pilot project. Will this new design create new vehicle or bike traffic problems? Hopefully, a professional transportation consultant has endorsed these changes. The Council is expected to review this proposal in early May.

The history and justification for the separated bikeway (“bikeway”) at the front of Nealon remains murky. This bikeway was included in all three bike lane designs for Middle when the Council selected a bike lane design but I do not recall a discussion about the bikeway. In fact, I cannot find any Council documentation that explains the rationale for either (a) eliminating the head-in parking area or (b) adding a bikeway in that space. It appears three council members believed bicyclists (a) could not safely pass behind vehicles that are backing out of head-in parking spaces and (b) cannot safely pass by vehicles parallel parked on Middle.

However, the large reduction in parking near Middle – from 45 regular parking spaces to only 14 –  significantly  inconveniences users of both the playground and playing courts. 

Nealon Parking Evaluation

1. The Council has poorly justified its decision to eliminate most parking at the front of Nealon.
   
2. It claims bicyclists could not safely pass behind vehicles in the prior head-in parking area without providing any supporting accident data or professional assessment by a bike network expert. 
   
3. It’s claim bicyclists could not safely pass alongside parallel-parked vehicles at Nealon without providing any supporting accident data or professional assessment by a bike network expert. 
   
4. The Council did not collect any data on how users of Nealon Park viewed the large reduction of parking spaces at the front of Nealon. So, the Council cannot fairly evaluate the “cost” of adding the separated bikeway. 
   
5. The Council assumed that most bicyclists riding on the section of Middle between El Camino and University would use a separated bikeway. I disagree. Most would continue to ride along the street because it’s more convenient and not considered unsafe.
   

Final Thoughts RE: City Planning Process

So why has this project been so controversial?

The Council did NOT educate itself and residents about the measurable trade-offs associated with this project. The claimed safety benefits for bicyclists are speculative – and I believe, overstated, supported by personal opinions rather than the expert advice of a bike network design professional. And the highly visible and negative impacts of lost parking have NOT been adequately addressed.

Also, the Council failed to provide good opportunities to air their views, understand the positions of individual council members, and get answers to their questions. The Council’s reliance on surveys, emails and 3-minute comments at council meetings is a poor substitute for public hearings.

This situation creates several big problems.

• It sharply reduces the quality of Council decision-making.
• It weakens our community’s confidence in its city leadership.
• Most residents do not see the value of participating in city planning processes.

Final note: It makes little sense to survey residents about this project – either before or after the pilot project – when the City did not provide relevant important information, i.e., it FAILED to inform them of the actual expected trade-offs. That is a a key Council responsibility.

It is not too late for the Council to re-evaluate the design of the entire bike lane pilot. I encourage residents to encourage them.

Final Thoughts for Residents Living On Middle And Users of Nealon Park

The Council will NOT preserve street parking on Middle unless affected residents strongly protest. I recommend you organize, submit a petition, send emails to individual council members, publish a guest opinion in The Almanac and demand a special public hearing that requires the Council to listen to your concerns and respond to your questions. You clearly deserve this opportunity and respect.

A hearing should also address issues related to parking at Nealon.

---

Relevant Earlier Posts

(Blog Post) Does Replacing All Street Parking On Middle Avenue With Bike Lanes Actually Make Sense? (February 8, 2023)

---

Comment Guidelines

Welcome to my blog. I encourage constructive comments that increase the value of community discussions.

On The Almanac website, bloggers – not the editor – establish guidelines and moderate comments. Please adhere to these guidelines; otherwise, your comments could be removed.

– Focus on ideas, concerns, issues, trends that affect Menlo Park.
– Do not include personal attacks on others who comment. (I am the judge)
– Avoid disrespectful, disparaging, snide, angry, or ad hominem comments.
– Please support opinions with reliable facts and reputable sources.
– Stay on topic.

In general, please help keep this a welcoming place for everyone.

Thank you

Dana Hendrickson

Menlo Park Community Activist
Co-Founder,  Elevate Art Menlo Park