Maria, Jen and Betsy just sacrificed the safety of the neighborhoods and kids living on the side streets of Middle by eliminating the street parking on Middle.

Unlike Santa Cruz Avenue, the Church and Little House really don't have adequate parking lots. The apartments definitely don't have adequate parking. The elimination of parking on Middle will push parking from these locals onto side neighborhood streets, which weren't designed for this level of usage.

The increased parking on side streets could have a detrimental effect on emergency vehicles in a number of ways. First, if side streets become congested with parked vehicles, it could make it more difficult for emergency vehicles to navigate through the area quickly and efficiently. This could lead to delays in response times and potentially jeopardize the safety of individuals in need of emergency medical attention or other assistance.

In addition, parked vehicles on side streets could make it more difficult for emergency vehicles to access buildings on those streets. Emergency vehicles such as fire trucks or ambulances require a certain amount of space to maneuver and park in order to effectively carry out their work. If side streets are crowded with parked vehicles, it could be challenging for emergency vehicles to find suitable locations to park and carry out their work. This could lead to delays in response times, which could be particularly detrimental in emergency situations.

Another potential concern is that parked vehicles on side streets could obstruct the view of drivers and pedestrians, making it more difficult to see oncoming traffic or pedestrians and neighborhood children crossing the street. This could increase the risk of accidents, particularly if emergency vehicles are trying to navigate through the area quickly and safely.

Removing street parking on Middle Avenue in Menlo Park could have a number of negative consequences for the surrounding community, particularly for those who rely on the availability of parking spaces to access important services and amenities in the area. This is particularly true for the senior center, church, and apartment buildings with residents with access and functional needs.

For seniors and those with mobility impairments, the availability of parking is crucial for accessing services and social activities at the senior center. Without adequate parking, seniors may be discouraged from attending events or activities, which could lead to social isolation and reduced quality of life.

Similarly, individuals with disabilities or other functional needs may require convenient access to parking in order to travel to medical appointments, access necessary equipment, or simply participate in community life. Without nearby street parking, these individuals may be forced to travel further or rely on less convenient transportation options, which could be a significant barrier to their participation in community life.

The Church on Middle Avenue also relies on street parking for its congregation and visitors, particularly for events such as weddings or funerals. Removing street parking would make it more difficult for individuals to attend these events, potentially reducing the church's ability to serve the community.

The apartment buildings on Middle Avenue also have residents who rely on street parking for access to their homes. This is particularly true for individuals with access and functional needs who may require close proximity to their building in order to safely and comfortably enter and exit their home. Without street parking, these residents may be forced to park further away, which could be a significant barrier to their ability to live independently and participate in community life.

For decades we have been favoring designs and policies that incentivize driving and discourage biking or walking while also saying we're extremely environmentally progressive. Finally we are realizing that was mistaken.

Great decision by council. We're going to look back on this with pride. I'm happy to tell my kids our city decided to make a street safer for them over cars.

Misha:

This just more feel good nonsense from our council. It WILL NOT get people to give up their cars. It will simply move the cars to other streets. All so these council members can pat themselves on the back for "doing something" to "save the world". All the while doing ZERO to save the world and everything to make life more difficult for residents. You know, the same residents they supposedly represent and work for.

Menlo Voter:

The goal was to create a safe bike lane on middle. If no one stops driving but they start to park on side streets instead, that's still a win for bike safety.

Saying this will make life more difficult for residents doesn't make sense given how many residents, including me, spoke out in favor of this change. I think you're saying it will make life more difficult for *some* residents, which is true. Most policies have to make tradeoffs. So it's also true that this new policy will make life better for some residents!

Misha:

There is already a bike lane on Middle if I'm not mistaken. It didn't require removing parking.

Another reason for the apathetic homeowners of Menlo Park to get out and vote in the next election. Our city council now has a majority who believe that single family homes and our cars are a horrible idea. They’re plowing ahead at full speed and destroying the Menlo Park that attracted us in the first place. We can start by replacing Wolosin in ‘24.

All hail the glorious and most holy bicycle! No matter how many people this inconveniences, and how impractical the results, and how few bicycle riders there are compared to car drivers, and how manifestly superior car driving is to bicycle riding for most uses, we must pay our obeisance.

I predict an increase in vehicle speeds on Middle as a result of the elimination of parking. Wider streets tend to make people feel safer speeding. So, what the do gooders have actually done is make Middle less safe, the exact opposite of their intention.

Misha, you sight “ For decades we have been favoring designs and policies that incentivize driving and discourage biking or walking while also saying we're extremely progressive.” How long have you lived in Menlo Parl? Three years?
I and my children attended Menlo Park schools and rode bikes to-and-from. As a 61-year resident of Menlo Park, I believe this whole debacle could be averted by simply posting: No Parking signs between the hours when school-age children commute to and from school. This would allow parking at low travel periods, appeasing Middle Ave. Residents and accomplishing the safe bicycle artery to and from schools - while costing the City coffers practically nothing.
I still ride my bike daily on Middle Ace. and have no problem staying in the bike lanes and avoiding accidents.
I agree with the recommendation for addition of stop signs at intersections and raised crosswalks. Speeding and distracted drivers (ie: cellphone usage) is the biggest safety problem on Middle. In addition, the back-up at University Ave. in the a.m. and the soon-to-be delay that will result at Middle/El Camino when Stanford’s development is completed, already has Southbound drivers cutting through tranquil Allied Arts Neighborhood, thereby creating a new safety issue for Menlo Park.

I appreciate the difficulty of this decision and see both sides of the issue. While additional bike lanes are of course desired, there are some real impacts to Option 1 which is being pursued.

I applaud Council Member Comb and Vice Mayor Taylor for recognizing that the proposed Option 1 has identified zero solutions to mitigate the impacts to affected parties.

Council Members Nash and Doerr seem oblivious to the impacted parties and the potential impact to residents who live on streets adjacent to Middle who are going to be highly impacted, as well as the bikers along these streets.

I encourage everyone to watch the city council discussion at the link below:
Web Link

I am blown away at the lack of data and facts. For instance, in considering this proposal, there was no data collected regarding the volume of bike or auto traffic nor a breakdown of historical accidents. Rather, virtually all of what was presented was anecdotal evidence coming from interested public commenters.

Council Members Nash and Doerr seem to be shooting from the hip and asking repeatedly for additional modifications to Option 1 with no data nor analysis on the potential impact. The discussion about the privileged parking in Allied Arts and the potential closure of the Blake/Middle intersection are good examples. I found both Council Members' actions reckless.

As much as I would like to see bike lanes, I can't agree enough with Council Member Combs who remarked, "It's Christmas time on Middle."

Isn't this decision supposed to be a "trial"? If so, where are the decision criteria and timeline for assessing the results? What metrics will be used to compare current conditions with trial conditions?

Decisions about safety and usability must take into account what happens on Middle AND what happens on side streets -- before and during the trial.

I hope the Council and staff will not proceed until the measurement plan is in place.

Iris, the Council NEVER establishes measurable success criteria for field trials. Instead, it sometimes pays attention to resident backlash. Sad....