|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Menlo Park City Council heard more than an hour’s worth of contentious public comments stretching into the wee hours of Wednesday, April 19, before deciding shortly after 1 a.m. to move forward with an existing schedule for an east-west bike route in town.
The one-year pilot program is intended to test whether new bike lanes on Oak Grove Avenue and other streets will provide a safer routes for bicyclists traveling between Menlo Park’s downtown and schools east of El Camino Real.
The pilot program, approved last December, would add painted bike lanes, with a minimum 18-inch buffer, or “sharrows” (painted markings on the roads that remind drivers to share the road with cyclists) along a route intended to give cyclists a clear path through downtown Menlo Park.
The bike route will start at Menlo-Atherton High School, run westbound along Oak Grove Avenue past El Camino Real to Crane Street, and then continue left with a mild jog across Santa Cruz Avenue, right on Live Oak Avenue, and continue left again on University Drive to Middle Avenue. The Crane Street bike lane would extend in the other direction to connect with Valparaiso Avenue.
Lost on-street parking
A total of 168 on-street parking spaces are planned for removal during the pilot project, according to Michael Tsai, assistant transportation engineer. Twenty-five are on Oak Grove Avenue near downtown, 78 are on Oak Grove east of El Camino Real, and 70 are on University Drive, he said.
Parking to be removed on University Drive will be on both sides of the street, and the parking removed on Oak Grove Avenue will be on one side only, with the exception of the first 400 feet east of El Camino Real, where parking would be removed on both sides, Mr. Tsai said.
The initial contract for the project design had a price tag of $236,000, but a $54,000 contract extension with Alta Planning & Design is required, according to city staff.
By not pursuing a project redesign, or opting to split the addition of the bike lanes into two phases, the city will not have to spend an additional estimated $15,000 to $40,000, according to a staff report. The amount falls within what has already been budgeted for the project, according to city staff.
The plan to install the bike lanes originated in citywide concern with providing safe ways for kids in town to get to school by bike. The council intensively studied a proposal to add bike lanes on El Camino Real, before it was decided that the plan was too controversial for the time being, and turned its attention instead to developing a safe east-west bike route to connect Menlo Park’s downtown to schools east of El Camino Real. The route was developed by city staff and the bicycle commission.
A report by Joint Venture Silicon Valley and the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition released in February showed that between 2011 and 2015, Menlo Park is the only jurisdiction among its neighbors (including Palo Alto, Redwood City, San Jose, Mountain View, Stanford, and the counties of San Mateo and Santa Clara) to experience an increase in the number of annual bike collisions and a decrease in the percent of people who bike to work.
At least 20 people spoke at the April 18 council meeting, arguing fiercely for and against the pilot program. Many of the speakers had waited through hours of the meeting that dealt with other matters, including the controversial issue of whether Menlo Park should become a “sanctuary city.” Opponents complained about the loss of 168 on-street parking spaces, which may make parking difficult for people who go to Nativity Church or shop downtown.
While the number of those arguing for and against the pilot was split about evenly during the meeting, Mayor Kirsten Keith said she received before the meeting about 10 emails against the project and 66 in favor.
In a change to the pilot program, the council agreed to allow Nativity Church to use street parking on weekends during church services until a sidewalk is built to connect the church and the school. The council also agreed to allow the church to have street parking for big events for up to 15 days a year. City staff was directed to work with Greenheart Land Co. to restrict its construction on Oak Grove Avenue during peak student commute times.
Three council members favored the motion to move ahead with the pilot; two council members, Ray Mueller and Catherine Carlton, abstained.
Mr. Mueller said he did not support the motion because it is not known yet if street parking will be allowed along the Oak Grove Avenue portion of the Greenheart Land Co.’s development at 1300 El Camino Real. If street parking is allowed there, he said, children will only have a car-free bike lane on one side of the street, which could create confusion for kids near three potential hazards: El Camino Real, the Caltrain tracks, and the Greenheart construction site.
He said he did not support the motion because safety for bicyclists would not be assured without the complete elimination of street parking there.
Ms. Carlton said she didn’t think the trial was designed to be as safe for bicyclists as it should be.
“I’m not saying this trial is poorly designed, but it could be safer,” she wrote in an email. Outreach and planning for the project were also lacking, she said, and she opposed the decision to limit street parking at Nativity Church to 15 events during the year because it seems arbitrary and could create parking trouble for people seeking to attend events such as funeral services at the church.
Downtown business owners Kerry Hoctor of Village Stationers, Matt Levin of The Refuge and Ciya Martorana of Carpaccio said they felt excluded from the public outreach process and opposed the parking removal.
Another frequently cited concern was that Oak Gove Avenue is often lined with the cars of Menlo-Atherton High School students. Where those cars will go when street parking is removed did not appear to be resolved.
Councilman Rich Cline said that the parking lot owned by SRI International at the end of Ravenswood Avenue on Middlefield Road appears to be empty most of the time and suggested that perhaps it could be subleased for high school or church parking. SRI International has a written agreement with the First Church of Christ, Scientist church to allow parking for church activities, according to Jeannie L’Heureux, the church’s executive board chair.
He also expressed doubt that the students who drive to school will switch to biking with the addition of bike lanes. “They’re in high school,” he said. “They’d much rather drive.”
By sticking to the current schedule, the bike lane and sharrow painting on the road will likely be completed in August, according to a staff report.
__
So glad this bicycle route will be ready for the new school year. It sounds much safer than the current situation. Now if we can only get drivers to obey the speed limits, especially in school zones.
I totally support the safer bike route, as well as the outside dining on Santa Cruz. Good improvements, but if parking spaces are being lost, better start building that long overdue parking structure!
Unfortunately, “the Menlo Park City Council has accepted the bike commission’s claim that this bike project will greatly improve bike safety – especially for students who must cross El Camino to reach their schools. But how does anyone really know? This important claim remains unexamined, and the current field trial plan does not adequately address bike and motorist safety issues. Instead, the Council, bike commission and many residents have incorrectly accepted this belief as an “article of faith”. There are many potential bike safety trouble spots within this project. Do parents really want their sons and daughters riding on streets that have not been professionally analyzed for safety by a bike network consultant and are not adequately tested for safety during a field trial. For likely less than $20,000, parents could have the bike safety information they need and deserve. Pennywise but pound foolish?
Read the entire post at https://www.almanacnews.com/square/2017/04/19/why-doesnt-the-bike-project-field-trial-evaluate-bike-safety
If this is a trial, what are the criteria for measuring success or failure? Who will measure and when? How long is the trial? Remember this is not just for schoolkids; it is for any bicyclist.
Did anyone discuss with developers the need to eliminate all trucks, worker vehicles, consrruction materials and trailers from Oak Grove so it is safe for bicyclists during the major construction projects over thd next several years? If this is a new e/w route, it must be available and safe 24 hr/day.
I think there are more safe routes, esp. over next seversl years.
Mayor says she recieved 60 emails in favor – gee wonder if Jen Wolosins blog begging people to write had anything to do with it. So stupid.
Nativity has hundreds of parents and parishioners, if the activist mayor is swayed by letter-writing campaigns, maybe the rules should have been stated early and the other side could waste their time writing too.
For all the work, it’s kinda sad the activists only got 60 emails in support. This plan is a trainwreck with only 23% of people supporting it and culminating in kids being funneled through a busy construction zone.
Also FYI – councilman Cline didn’t suggest leasing a parking lot from SRI, he wants to make-up a tax on a church to force them to take high school parking.
This whole plan is a badge of stupidity for the bike activists pushing this trash and the council for lapping it up.
Hopefully Greenheart construction, local businesses, nativity church, school, and local residents band together to really put truth to power. An ideological activist group is not a foundation for public policy.
Still waiting for the cowardly parking activists to stop hiding behind anonymous usernames when attacking public servants. It’s too bad the Almanac still allows this process, as it perverts what could be a useful public forum into a den of trolls.
Props to Dana, Peter, Jen, and others who aren’t afraid to own their views.
Yes cowardly “parking activists” – that quite majority that believes existing businesses, schools, residents, and churches shouldn’t be stripped of basic infrastructure in lieu of a poorly thought out plan driven by an activist group. Outrageous.
Here’s the notice of ALARM, a call to action from the bike coalition – calling all bike activists!!
This plan is about ideology – not kids safety.
If only they communicated with businesses in MP like they do their activist network.
https://bikesiliconvalley.org/2017/04/action-alert-menlo-park-oak-grove-bike-boulevard/
I would love it if all posters provided their names – mostly because I would welcome offline discussions with those who express constructive ideas; however, I realize that many residents would not want to publicly oppose their own friends and neighbors. In the end, readers simply need to judge comments on merit and accept that others are also smart enough to draw their own conclusions. Anonymity is an equal opportunity practice. Personal attacks only make the perpetrators and their followers FEEL BETTER. No one is swayed.
From Silicon Valley Bike Coalition:
“SVBC, working with the Menlo Park Bicycle Commission and Parents for Safe Routes, rallied members and partners to contact City Council and speak at public comment in support of Option 2”
Sounds like a lot like activism …
Congratulations SVBC for co opting the Mayor and Menlo City Council – using a “it’s for kids safety” message to push the bike agenda, is brilliant!
Re: the east-west bike route on Oak Grove and elsewhere:
Bicycles and motor vehicles do not belong on the same road — ever. It is n never safe. And getting rid of much-needed parking on Oak Grove just to allow bicycle riders to use that road is not practical at all, and is dangerous, and will cause a lot of problems for everyone who used to be able to park n Oak Grove. but — we must do everything any bicyclist wants, no matter how impractical or dangerous that is, or be attacked for not being “green”. And how can a line of paint on a road ever protect any bicyclists in any collisions with motor vehicles? It can’t.
Re: using “real” names here (or any internet forum):
Anonymity gives people the freedom to express their views without risking retaliation or any unpleasant reactions from those who know the writers. This issue has been discussed at length on many internet forums over the years, and the conclusion is always the same: it is the content of the post that matters, not who wrote it, and there is no practical way to verify anyone’s identity that does not take a lot of time and cost a lot of money — both of which are in very short supply on most websites. So — please stop asking people to post under their “real” names.
I’m very pleased to see the bike route approved and I look forward to seeing it implemented. I agree with @Louise68 in that Menlo Park should strive to separate traffic from vehicle traffic and I hope that Menlo Park would consider protected/buffered bike lines for this east-west corridor after the trail period is over — similar to the design for El Camino.
For those who agree that separating bikes and vehicles is the safest approach, a PHYSICALLY SEPARATE bike path between El Camino and Laurel PLUS two-way protected bike lanes (“cycle tracks) on the south side of Menlo WITH no street parking between bicyclists and the sidewalk curb would provide much greater safety and comfort for bicyclists and motorists than the proposed bike project, but the City Council refuses to fund a professional quality evaluation by a leading bike network design consultant. And NO downtown daily permit parking would be sacrificed as these spaces are currently occupied all day for free. The Council yields way too much to public pressure and relies way too much on their own personal opinions. For example, Peter Ohtaki has repeatedly stated – often indignantly – that there is way too much vehicle traffic on Ravenswood for safe biking; that is FALSE. Bicyclists everywhere, including locally, ride safely on streets that carry much more traffic; the critical factors are the particular physical riding environment and the design of suitable bike facilities. And Kirsten Keith simply relays unsupported claims from the bike commission. None of the Council members nor the bike commissioners possess the expertise needed to make all the essential determinations. FYI: See details of a possible Menlo-Ravenswood bike corridor at http://bit.ly/M-Rbikecorridor.
Did the mayor declare her conflict of interest when ramming bike lanes through the council?
she is a documented advisor to Jen Wolosins group, who is working with Silicon Valley bike on a propaganda campaign to inflate support this project.
May go a long way in explaining her extraordinary conduct during the meeting on the 18th of April.
Dana – I appreciate your attempt for dialogue, but you are dealing with irrational ideologues. Only thing left is court action. Hopefully Wolosin and others personally finance the costs MP will have in fighting this mess.
“Conflict_of_interest” should be advised there needs to be some monetary incentive for a conflict to exist.
It’s sad that “extraordinary conduct” now describes keeping a project “on track” that has already been approved.
Conflict of interest, it’s also noteworthy that Kirsten was the Council liaison to the Bike Commission – just merged with the Transportation Commission – and a friend of the Chairwoman of the Bike Commission. Kirsten was also the only Council member who last year opposed the Council’s decision to table the bike lanes on El Camino project. Pattern?
dana
as usual you have failed to show that 1) the current plan is bad and 2) that yours is better. Your plan to shoehorn a separated bike line on to a very busy menlo avenue makes no more sense that oak grove. your plan calls for using part of the sidewalk and forcing right turns to yield to bikes going straight makes no sense and will only make a congested, busy intersection busier and more dangerous.
and yes, i have read your proposal and have just as much experience (long time resident and cyclist) as do you in these matters
Conflict of Interest, Mayor Keith isn’t the only one advising Parents for Safe Routes–-apparently the advisory committee also includes Fire Chief Schapelhouman, Officer Ferguson, Planning Commissioner Andrew Barnes, as well as a board member and executive from MPCSD. Extraordinary! Are they all in Wolosin’s pocket? What an outrage!
https://sites.google.com/view/parents4saferoutes/advisory-committee?authuser=0
A civic group that focuses on safe bike routes for bicyclists is a great idea. However, like the City Council, any group is acting negligently and irresponsibly if it makes claims about the ABSOLUTE and RELATIVE safety of any particular bike route – especially ones with many trouble spot – before a bike network design expert performs a professional safety analysis and identifies potential mitigations, and a well-designed field trial tests all safety assumptions and measures. Parents for Safe Routes should be aggressively advocating this approach. Why would anyone think otherwise?
A civic group that focuses on safe bike routes for ALL bicyclists is a great idea. However, like the City Council, it is negligent and irresponsible for any group to claim a particular bike route – especially ones with many trouble spots – is is either safe or relatively more safe – before a bike network design expert performs a safety analysis, identifies problems and potential mitigations, and our city conducts a well-designed field trial that tests critical safety assumptions and measures. It’s time Menlo Park adopted contemporary bike network design practices and methodologies, and Parents for Safe Routes should be aggressively advocating this approach. Why would anyone think otherwise?
Sorry about the two prior almost identical posts; please disregard the first one. Thanks.
Dana
Maybe you missed the part of the headline, it clearly states that this is a trial. You asked to a field test, well that is whats happening. You are no more of an expert than the folks on the commission, the only difference is they chose to volunteer their time to move new bike routes forward. The route you suggest would need the exact same treatment as oak grove. of course any layman can see that menlo / ravenswood is no as safe as oak grove. and yes volume of traffic does matter. I also forgot to mention that part of Fremont park would be turned into a bike thruway from sc to menlo. how do you justify that?
MPer
Appears a lot of the respondents are very certain in their replies/discussion. People throw out “this is the safer route”, but yourself and others are very short on substance. There has been no evidence in any posts to support this claim.
Please provide actual bike usage data and the corresponding accident data along these routes. Without know the baseline accident rate and locations, how will know whether a trial is successful?
Question: Your are spot on. No one has performed a safety analysis, not even the consultant hired to design the bike facilities proposed initially by the bike commission. Ask the City Council, bike commissioners, and project supporters for an analysis of any kind or quality that supports the claim of greater bike safety and one experiences one or more of the following responses. (1) improved safety is simply obvious – often expressed with indignation, (2) a personal attack on the credibility or motives of anyone who disagrees, (3) bike commissioners say it’s true so it must be, and (4) the field trial will determine whether it is true.
Many residents HAVE pointed out potential safety trouble spots https://www.almanacnews.com/square/2017/04/19/why-doesnt-the-bike-project-field-trial-evaluate-bike-safety so (1) is clearly false, (2) I ignore this behavior (3) the bike commission lacks the expertise to support its claim and has not even attempted to do it, (4) the field trial plan will only monitor reported bike-vehicle COLLISIONS but few bike accidents involve actual collisions and even fewer are reported. Most bike accidents occur when bicyclists avoid a collision but “crash” in the process. Only a bike network design expert can assess the safety of this project and design effective ways to assess bike safety during a field trial.
Finally, even if the proposed bike facilities were to improve bike safety on University and Oak Grove that does not mean this solution is safer and at least as convenient as the existing bike lanes on Valparaiso, Glenwood, and Laurel, so how does the City justify the investment and the associated negative impacts?
Residents like you and I can only point out specific concerns and hope their City Council will address them. It’s not an issue of cost; it’s about the quality of our bike planning process and city leadership.
I frequently ride my bike to the library crossing east at ECR onto Ravenswood. For years I’ve expected that crossing to be improved for bicyclists. I’m aware Oak Grove is a quieter street and an easier ECR crossing, but will only rarely go that far out of my way. I doubt the trial bike lanes will change that. An improved Menlo/Ravenswood crossing is still be needed. It also looks like way too much parking is being displaced. The current trial looks ad hoc and unintuitive. I’m sympathetic to the criticisms above of City Council.
I always find it amusing to read comments, such as those by Jp and Really above, accusing bicycle and pedestrian “activists” of having an undue influence over the design and use of our roads. Let’s not forget that prior to the 1920s, public roads were considered public spaces, open to any and all users, not just cars. The wide range of road users, and the resulting chaotic conditions, meant that no one could go too fast or cause too much damage to other folks using the roads.
That all changed with the advent of the automobile. As speeds increased, so did the danger, with annual automobile fatalities in the U.S. increasing from fewer than 1000 in 1900 to more than 15,000 in the 1920s. To avoid responsibility for the carnage, and to counter growing calls for restrictions on the speed and use of automobiles in cities, the auto industry launched a campaign to restrict non-automobile uses of the roads, even creating a new offense – jaywalking. The efforts paid off, and we now have a system where car drivers feel entitled unfettered use of the roads, regardless of the risk to pedestrians and bicyclists or of the untold damage the use of private automobiles has done, and continues to do, to our environment.
I don’t think that the removal of parking from Oak Grove Avenue and the striping of bike lanes along this corridor will magically eliminate all the risk of riding a bicycle in Menlo Park, but it will at least remind car drivers that bicyclists are entitled to use of the roadway. If I had my way, I would require that all cars in Menlo Park be equipped with an engine governor limiting them to a maximum speed of 25 mph while driving in Menlo Park. That was the idea behind a ballot initiative in Cincinnati in 1923 that was ultimately voted down following an all-out lobbying campaign by local car dealers. After that victory, the auto industry went on to influence the enactment of our current legal regime, where the use of roads is strictly limited for pedestrians rather than for cars. Activism, indeed!
(See http://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history for an entertaining history of the “crime” of jaywalking.)
Construction is about to begin on the Greenheart project that abuts Oak Grove on one side. There will be a lot of construction traffic of 18-wheelers hauling dirt for the basement, and many other trucks bringing materials, cement, workers. That is not something kids on bikes should be near. This trial should be held after construction is complete. Just look at Santa Cruz Ave. for a small idea of all the vehicles that could be involved. They will be affecting Oak Grove. Serious accidents are waiting to happen if the trial occurs during this construction period.
Hey, I get it. Biking *is* dangerous. I am a confident vehicular cyclist (heck, I commuted by bike in Boston, in the winter!)–but I do not allow my highly skilled son to bike without me downtown, period. Not sure when I will, either. Maybe the day I stop seeing every 10th driver looking at a phone? At any rate, I have a lot of sympathy for those who are afraid to bike in our city and would never tell someone to ride somewhere they didn’t feel comfortable.
There are a lot of folks who feel differently, though, and they and their kids (especially their kids) are riding all over the roads and sidewalks through town. Unfortunately, most of the kids I see out there now are inadequately prepared to share the road with massive vehicles and seem sublimely unaware of their frailty. And yet they ride. And if the Santa Cruz Ave construction is any indication, many of them will continue to ride, even on roads that are narrowed, chewed up, and full of trucks.
At this point, I’m not sure this is even about getting *more* people on bikes, although maybe someday that will happen. Our roads are only getting more dangerous by the day. Construction is also going to be happening adjacent to Glenwood, on Alma, and (at some point in the not-so-distant future) at 500 ECR. Traffic in every intersection along the ECR corridor will increase (not just at Oak Grove).
I couldn’t care less about whether we have perfect conditions for a trial. I’m a realist. I don’t think those conditions exist, as our landscape is changing constantly. We will never be able to compare apples to apples, no matter when we start. In the meantime, however, I hope the city can stop looking for a home run and get to first base on the bike safety front, by improving the routes that people (and yes, kids!) are already using, just a bit. And I’m proud of our council for their realistic assessment of the situation and their push to move forward in the face of organized resistance.
Katie a large segment is worried that the “let’s just get to first base” mentality will come at the cost of serious injury, or heaven forbid, a loss of life.
I lost my best friend at 12yr old who couldn’t stop and went under the back wheel of a turning truck. He was riding on a clear morning to meet us. The willingness to push aside legitimate concerns as just ‘naysayers’, sends chills through my spine.
Spend your energy educating young cyclists to the realistic road conditions rather than attempting to provide a cloak of safety – green paint won’t stop a vehicle or register to a 10year old to make different decisions. The fact is, cars are only increasing and if you want more bikes, we need high density housing in MP. But that will add more people and guess what, more cars. Your Boston experience should tell you that the best thing method to protect bike riders is to educate and practice defensive bike skills.
Also- as previously asked. Katie do you have the data on bike usage and collision data in MP demonstrating providing evidence that this the “safest route”? Would be helpful to be transparent with this data so that the bike trial can be fairly assessed.
Last question – the city council has said nativity church can use parking up until a sidewalk is installed along oak grove. Do you know why the council would commit to capital expenditures for a trial? This decision has the appearance that the success of the bike trial and permanency of changes to be a forgone conclusion.
Katie:
“And I’m proud of our council for their realistic assessment of the situation and their push to move forward in the face of organized resistance.”
I see no evidence of “organized resistance” although I would welcome more residents challenging the central claim that this project will improve bike (and motorists) safety. If you have seen a professional safety analysis for this project and a field trial plan that will evaluate all the potential significant trouble spots, please share it with everyone. I would welcome this project if there were persuasive fact-based arguments for it and the trial plan was flexible so different ways to mitigate the negative impacts on non-bicyclists would be tested. For example, why not test different scenarios for limited street parking on weekdays, weekends, daytime and evening instead of insisting on no parking? The current approach is unreasonable and unnecessary.