HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-19 City Council (7)~+
TO:
C ty of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Repor
......... HONO~BLE CITY CO~CIL ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
11
DATE:MAY 19, 2003 CMR:281:03
BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLANSUBJECT:
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reconamend that Council
approve in concept the attached bicycle transportation plan and direct staff to prepare final
environmental documents and a resolution for Council approval for final action, returning
on the consent calendar. Staff and the PTC differ on only one element of the plan:
The PTC recommended Action Step 2.4 in the Implementation Plan, which reads
"Eliminate sidewalk bike paths from the City’s bikeway network and remove existing
signs where they exist", be revised to read "Phase out sidewalk bike paths where safe
alternatives are provided." Staff does not support including sidewalk bike paths in the
City’s bikeway network for safety reasons, and recommends maintaining the current
language in the Plan.
BACKGROUND
In 1999, Council authorized funding in the operating budget for preparation of a
comprehensive bicycle transportation plan study pursuant to the policies and programs in
the Transportation Element of the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. The firm of Wilbur
Smith Associates,a national transportation planning and engineering firm with offices in
San Francisco, was selected to work with staff and the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory
Committee (PABAC) to develop the plan.
The draft bicycle transportation plan (Plan) builds upon the bicycle transportation policies of
the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, assesses the strengths and deficiencies of the
existing Palo Alto bikeway system, and identifies bicycle facility needs for the future.
The study process included extensive community input from stakeholder groups, including
the Chamber of Commerce, the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), the PTA, as
well as meetings with other local agency representatives, direct input from cyclists at local
bike shops, and a community workshop. The plan was reviewed by PABAC and the
City/School Traffic Safety Committee, and was the subject of one study session and two
CMR:281:03 Page 1 of 8
public hearings of the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC). Subsequent to the
PTC meetings, the plan was revised and finalized to incorporate the input received.
DISCUSSION
The plan includes six chapters: Introduction, Existing Conditions, Needs Assessment and
Analysis, Recommended Bikeway Network, Bicycle Support Facilities and Programs and
Implementation Plan. It addresses the following broad objectives: to serve bicyclists of all
levels and abilities; to improve safety; to improve connectivity and eliminate gaps; to
improve intermodal connectivity, and create the opportunity to reduce auto dependency.
Recommended Bikeways
The recommended bikeway network doubles the number of miles of bikeways in Palo Alto,
including paths, lanes, routes and bike boulevards (See Chapter 4, Figure 6, of the plan). If
fully implemented, the bikeway network would consist of 12 miles of off-road bike paths
and trails and 76 miles of on-road bike lanes and bike routes. Key features of the plan are
the expansion of the network of bicycle boulevards, 7 new or improved bicycle
undercrossings or bridges at ban-iers to bicycle travel (e.g., creeks, railroad tracks, etc.), new
bike lanes on arterial streets, and spot improvements at difficult and problematic
intersections for cyclists. This network responds to community priorities to improve safe
bike routes to schools, removing obstacles to travel and improving safety for bicyclists on
maj or streets and intersections.
Nea~ork of Bike Boulevards. The plan recommends quadrupling the number of miles of
bike boulevards to 12 miles, on up to 8 new bike boulevards on local and collector streets:
Homer Avenue, Matadero Avenue, Greer Road, Park Boulevard, Everett Street, Ross Road,
Maybell and Donald Avenues and Melville/Guinda. These bike boulevards were largely
designed to improve bike safety for students commuting to elementary, middle, and high
schools.
Bike Lanes and Bike Routes on Arterial Streets. The plan recognizes that skilled cyclists use
arterial streets despite heavier traffic volumes because they often are the most direct, time-
efficient routes for both intra-city and inter-city trips. Such streets need to have bike lanes
or wider curb lanes for bikes to share with vehicles and need to have traffic signals that are
responsive to bicycles. The plan incorporates the recommendation of the Draft E1 Camino
Real Schematic Design Study to accommodate bike lanes on E1 Camino Real.
Ne~.~, Ct’ossitzgs of Railroad Tracks. Railroad tracks are a significant barrier to bicycle travel.
New bicycle undercrossings at Everett (consistent with the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit
Center Plan), Homer Avenue (scheduled for construction this summer) and in south Palo
Alto in the vicinity of Matadero Creek between California Avenue and East Meadow Drive
are proposed. In view of the plans to ~eatly increase the number of trains and initiate Baby
Bullet express se1-¢ice along the Caltrain line, further study and consideration of full
vehicular, bike and pedestrian ~ade separations may need to be explored.
CMR:281:03 Page 2 of 8
Spot Improvements at Major h2tersections. Spot improvements at eight key intersections
are designed to improve safety at particularly difficult and complex crossings identified by
the City/School Traffic Safety Committee. These intersections are along existing bicycle
routes where better design would enhance safety and access for student cyclists and skilled
cyclists.
Emphasis on Safety Education and Promotion Programs
The plan emphasizes the critical importance of ongoing safety education and encouragement
programs for bicyclists of all ages, as well as for motorists. It also supports the continuation
of the City’s cooperative efforts with the PAUSD to provide safety education programs at
the elementary, middle and secondary levels, and to offer education programs to the
community at-large through the City’s Alternative Transportation Modes program.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The PTC reviewed the plan at a study session on May 15 and held public hearings on June
5, 2002 and August 14, 2002. (Refer to the two PTC reports and meeting minutes,
attached.) At the conclusion of its deliberations, the PTC voted 7-0 to recommend that the
plan be forwarded to the City Council with their enthusiastic recommendation.
Over the course of the PTC review of the plan, several issues were raised by individual
Commissioners, including: the trade-offs associated with designating bike lanes on arterial
streets; the need to incorporate park paths into the bikeway network; the need to emphasize
the plan is not a static document and will be updated and amended as needed in the future;
the removal of sidewalk bike paths from the City’s bikeway network; and the need to
identify future improvements at the Alma/Charleston and Alma/Meadow intersections and
grade crossings at the railroad tracks.
There was substantial public testimony at PTC hearings in support of incorporating bike
facilities on arterial streets and, in particular, E1 Camino Real. At the time of the PTC
meetings, the plan designated E1 Camino Real as a bike route (i.g. bike route signs, but no
striped bike lanes). Commissioners expressed reservations based on concern that providing
space for bicyclists on E1 Camino Real would be to the detriment of space for pedestrians
and vehicle parking. Similarly, individual Commission members expressed concern that the
installation of bike lanes on Middlefield Road would diminish the carrying capacity for
vehicular traffic.
Subsequent to the PTC deliberation on the Bike Plan, the Draft Schematic Plan for E1
Camino Real was completed and reviewed by the PTC. The schematic plan succeeds in
reconfiguring roadway space to provide wider sidewalks, wider medians, bicycle lanes and
vehicle parking. The PTC endorsed the E1 Camino Real plan at its meeting on March 12,
2003.
CMR:281:03 Page 3 of 8
Commissioners also requested that the plan more explicitly reference the Comprehensive
Plan program that calls for the "development and periodic updaw of a comprehensive
bicycle plan". It is not intended to be a static plan. As facilities are built or further
feasibility studies determine the viability of specific projects, the plan should be updated.
The Bike Plan is intended to guide and promote bicycling and to ensure that the needs of
bicyclists are considered in all matters affecting bicycle transportation.
Staff has incorporated most of the PTC recommended changes into the final plan presented
to Council:
Park paths have been included in the Recommended Bikeway Network (Figure 6).
The bikeway on E1 Camino Real has been reclassified from bike route to bike lane in the
Recommended Bikeway Network (Figure 6).
Language has been incorporated into the Bike Plan Introduction (Page 1-1) to indicate
the plan is subject to periodic update and modification, as stipulated in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Additional text and emphasis on bicycle safety education, encouragement and promotion
have been incorporated into the Implementation Plan action elements (Chapter 6).
In the Implementation Plan, a new Action Step (Step 3.7) has been added to address
enhanced cross-departmental coordination on construction activities that impact bicycle
safety. (Chapter 6).
In the Implementation Plan, a new Section 8 has been related to environmental
protections. (Chapter 6)
Alma!Meadow and Alma Charleston Intersections
Commissioner Burt recommended that Figure 6 identify the need for spot improvements at
these two intersections which are key school commute routes. Staff has not incorporated
these into the plan at this time. Currently, two studies, the South Palo Alto School Commute
Safe~y Study and the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Study, are underway and will address
conditions and potential improvements at these locations. Staff recommends deferring
adding these locations to the plan pending the completion of these two studies. The specific
recommended improvements at these intersections, if any, would be incorporated into the
next update of the Bicycle Plan.
Sidewalk Bike Paths
In the Implementation Plan (Chapter 6), Action Step 2.4 states: "Eliminate sidewalk bike
paths from the City’s bikeway network and remove existing signs where they exist."
Commissioners recommended that the wording be amended to state: "Phase out sidewalk
bike paths where safe alternatives are provided." Staff recommends maintaining the existing
text and has not modified the text in the final plan.
CMR:281:03 Page 4 of 8
The elimination of sidewalk bike path signs and this classification of bikeway from the
bikeway system would not prohibit or preclude bike riding on sidewalks on arterial streets
like Alma, Embarcadero and Middlefield by young riders or adults. Bicycle riding would
still be legal and cyclists would be able to chose where they want to ride, on the street or on
the sidewalk. By removing the sidewalk bike path signs, however, City policy would
support the position that sidewalks are not appropriate "designated" bicycle facilities. State
bikeway design guidelines, as well as the consensus professional transportation engineering
practice, discourage the designation of sidewalks as bike facilities because they are
intrinsically pedestrian facilities, and sidewalk bike riding can increase the potential for
conflicts between bicycles and motor vehicles at driveways and intersections as well as with
pedestrians and fixed objects. This subject was thoroughly evaluated in an article entitled
Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions at Intersections in the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Journal in September 1994, and based on actual bicycle
collision records in Palo Alto. The authors’ analysis concluded that bicyclists riding on
sidewalks are at 1.8 times greater risk of crashes with motor vehicles that bicyclists riding in
the roadway.
Funding has been included in the Capital Improvement krogram budget under existing CIP
Project 19524, Bikeway System Improvements, for the removal of sidewalk bike path signs
on all streets with sidewalk bike paths: Embarcadero and Middlefield Roads, Alma Street,
and segments of San Antonio and Charleston Roads. The wording of Action Step 2.4
reflects this existing policy direction from the City Council.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
As described in the June 5 report to the Planning and Transportation Commission, the plan
is consistent with a number of Comprehensive Plan policies and programs in support of
Goal T-3: development of facilities, programs and services that encourage and promote
walking and bicycling.
Specifically, Program T-18 calls for the development and periodic update of a
comprehensive bicycle plan, and Program T-19 calls for the development and
implementation of a bicycle facilities improvement program that prioritizes critical
pedestrian and bicycle links to parks, schools, retail centers, and civic facilities.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The cost to build out the entire recommended bike network has been estimated in the plan to
be up to $37 million (based only on unit construction cost assumptions). The total estimated
cost to implement the High Priority projects listed on Table 6-3 of the plan is approximately
$23 million. The four proposed grade separations at the Caltrain tracks account for
approximately $20 million of this total, and three of those projects ($15 million) will be
funded largely from regional, federal and state sources. The Homer Undercrossing (CIP
10121) has committed funding of $5.1 million, mainly from state and federal grants. The
project is out to bid and staff will return to Council in June with the award of contract and
CMR:281:03 Page 5 of 8
final accounting of the funding. The Everett Avenue Caltrain Undercrossing will be
implemented in conjunction with the Intermodal Transit Center and/or Caltrain service
upgrades. The California Avenue Undercrossing will likely be funded with substantial
commitment of funding from Caltrain and the VTA Bicycle Expenditure Program. Funding
sources for new grade separations in South Palo Alto have not yet been identified, but staff
will vigorously pursue grant opportunities for such a future project.
It is very important to note any transportation master plan, whether region-wide or
community-specific, requires many years and multiple funding sources; not all of which
may be available in any given year. Palo Alto has been successful in securing outside grant
funding for bicycle projects to reduce or eliminate cost to the General Fund or Street
Improvement Fund. Over the past 20 years, Palo Alto has received over $8 million in grant
funds for bicycle projects from outside agencies (See Appendix B of the plan), matched by
approximately $1.0 million in City funds.
Appendix M in the plan identifies variety of funding strategies and opportunities to fund
these and other high priority projects:
Grant Funding from other Public Agencies--Adoption of the Bicycle Transportation
Plan will enable Palo Alto to qualify for additional State Bicycle Transportation Fund
funding grants that the City has not been able to access previously.
Private Foundation Grants--The City could partner with local non-profit groups to fund
capital projects or single programs or event promotions.
Traffic Calming Projects--The City’s neighborhood traffic calming program for local
and collector streets, currently funded at $100,000 per year, could incorporate many of
the recommended bicycle improvements. Many of the recommended bicycle boulevards
are on local and collector streets where traffic calming projects could create safe
conditions for bicycling. Similarly, some of the recommended bike lanes on arterial
streets could be developed in conjunction with future residential arterial traffic calming
projects.
Traffic Safety and Safe Routes to School Grants--The State of California offers grants
for bicycle and pedestrian traffic safety projects through the Office Of Traffic Safety and
Safe Routes to Schools through Caltrans. Many of the recommended bicycle boulevards
and arterial street bikeways are on direct routes to school and should be eligible for these
funds.
Citywide Traffic Impact Fee--The nexus study for the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee will
consider and incorporate recommended bicycle network improvements in the
development of the proposed traffic impact fee.
Private Developer Fees and Mitigations--Through the development review process,
private developers may be required to make or fund off-site improvements as conditions
of approval.
CMR:281:03 Page 6 of 8
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the 1998-2010 Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan discussed the impacts related to the development of bicycle
improvements and adopted a statement of overriding considerations, finding that the
unavoidable environmental impacts of the project were acceptable when balanced against
the benefits, even after giving greater weight to the City’s duty to avoid the environmental
impacts and to protect the environment to the maximum extent feasible. One of the factors
and public benefits identified in the Final EIR for the project was: "that the implementation
of the Comprehensive Plan update will reduce the reliance on the automobile by
encouraging the development of more housing near transit, reducing the emphasis on traffic
improvements in favor of pedestrian and bicycle improvements, choosing limitations so
continuous roadway system capacity increases, and providing a land use pattern less
dependent on the automobile."
Staff has reviewed the potential impacts of the Bicycle Transportation Plan and compared it
to the environmental analysis completed in the Comprehensive Plan EIR and has concluded
that the changes are considered minor under CEQA, and that the plan is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan EIR findings. Staff proposes to prepare an addendum to the Final EIR
prepared for the Comprehensive Plan and return to Council with a resolution with the
adoption of the final Bicycle Transportation Plan.
ATTACHMENTS
A. 2003 Bicycle Transportation Plan (Limited Distribution. Plan may be viewed on the
City’s website at www.citvofpaloalto.orgibike or in the Transportation Division Office)
B. Relevant Sections of Resolution 7780 Adopting the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan
C. PTC Report dated June 5, 2002
D. PTC Report dated July 17, 2002
E. Minutes of the PTC meeting of June 5, 2002
F. Minutes of the PTC meeting of August 14, 2002
CMR:281:03 Page 7 of 8
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
¯GArgLE LIKENb
,]Transportation Projects Manager
./<jl //STiV~ EMSLIE
.... "~~ Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CC:
Assistant City Manager
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
City/School Traffic Safety Committee
PTA Safety Representatives
Mary Frances Callan, Superintendent of Schools
People who submitted correspondence to Planning and Transportation Commission
CMR:281:03 Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENT A
Attachment A, the Bicycle Transportation Plan, was distributed to Council
Members, Libraries and Newspapers. The Plan can be viewed on line at
www.cityofpaloalto.org!bike or you may view a copy in the Transportation
Division office at 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor, Palo Alto, CA.
ATTACHMENT B
Excerpts from City Council Resolution No. 7780 Approving the
Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report
Circulation Impacts:
SECTION 4. Significant Impacts That Cannot Be Fully Mitigated. The City
Council finds that the Final EIR identifies significant environmental effects of the Project
with respect to Transportation, Circulation and Parking; Hydrology; and Public Services
and Utilities. The City Council finds that, in response to each such significant effects
identified in this Section 4, while all identified feasible changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the Project that lessen to the extent feasible, the
significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, these effects cannot be
totally avoided or reduced to levels of insignificance if the Project is implemented.
Accordingly, the impacts summarized below remain unavoidable adverse impacts of the
Project.
No Transportation. Circulation and Parking
Impact CIRC-1 concerns the potential for increased congestion that would occur by using
available right-of-way to create outside travel lanes with adequate width for shared use
by motorists and bicyclist when constructing or modifying roadways, rather than using
the rig)ht of way for additional automobile travel lanes. No feasible mitigation or
alternative exists to reduce this impact to a less-than significant level because, as a matter
of policy, to encourage alternate modes of transportation, the City chooses to provide for
bicyclists before motorists, and has determined not to condemn and purchase the private
property that may be necessary to accommodate both.
Impact CIRC-2 concerns the potential for increased congestion that would occur by the
allocation of limited right-of-way space for use by bicyclists and pedestrians, rather than
for additional automobile travel lanes. No feasible mitigation or alternative exists to
reduce this impact to a less-than significant level because as a matter of policy, to
encourage alternative transportation modes, the City chooses to provide for bicylists and
pedestrians before motorists, and has determined not to condemn and purchase additional
private property which may be necessary to accommodate both.
Impact CIRC-3 concerns the potential increases in congestion that would occur by
implementing the City policy to avoid creating new roadway segment capacity, i.e., no
road wRtenings. No feasible mitigation or alternative exists to reduce this impact to a
less-than significant level because the impact is an intentional result of the policy. While
the City does not desire congestion, it recognizes that constantly increasing roadway
capacity will not reduce congestion over the long term.
ATTACHMENT B
Impact CIRC-4 concerns the potential degradation in operation of intersections that could
occur through implementation of the City policy to forgo intersection improvements in
favor of pedestrian and bicycle safety concerns. No feasible mitigation or alternative
exists to reduce this impact to a less than significant level because the impact is an
intentional result of the policy. While the City does not desire traffic congestion, it
chooses to try to reduce congestion throug~h encouraging alternative transportation
modes. The City prefers this approach over constantly providing additional roadway
capacity that will not reduce congestion over the long term.
Impact CIRC-18 concerns the overall degradation of level of service to bicyclists created
by increased congestion in the City at several intersections. Because traffic impacts at six
of the nine significantly impacted intersections would remain significant even after
mitigation, the delays to bicycles would also remain significant. Therefore the City finds
that there is no feasible mitigation or alternative to reduce the impact to bicycle travel to
tess-than-significant levels.
SECTION 6. Statement of Overridin~ Considerations. The City Council
finds that unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project, described in Section 4 of
this Resolution, are acceptable when balanced against the benefits of the Project, even
after giving greater weight to the City’s duty to avoid the environmental impacts, and to
protect the environment to the maximum extent feasible. This determination is made
based upon the following factors and public benefits which are identified in the Final EI2R
and record of proceedings on the Project:
C. Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan update will reduce the reliance on the
automobile by encouraging the development of more housing near transit, reducing the
emphasis on traffic improvements in favor of pedestrian and bicycle improvements,
choosing limitations on continuous roadway system capacity increases, and providing a
land use pattern less dependent on the automobile.
ATTACHMENT C
TRANSP OR TA TION DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Gayle Likens, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning
AGENDA DATE: June 5, 2002
SUBJECT:Draft Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Plan
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests that the Planning and Transportation Commission review and comment on the
Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan. The coinments and recommendations will be forwarded
to the City Council along with comments from the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
and City/School Traffic Safety Committee for consideration prior to final action.
BACKGROUND
In the early 1970s, Palo Alto was one of the first cities to develop and implement a
comprehensive network of on-street bicycle lanes and bicycle routes. Over the years, the
bikeway network has been expanded and upgraded to include over 30 miles of bike lanes and
routes, 9 bicycle bridges, 8 miles of off-road trails, including the Bay Trail, a seasonal
undercrossing of Highway 101 and one bicycle boulevard. In 1999, funding was included
in the operating budget for preparation of a comprehe.nsive bicycle transportation plan study
pursuant to the policies and programs in the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan.
At that time, the firm of Wilbur Smith Associates, a national transportation planning and
engineering firm with offices in San Francisco, was selected to work with City staff and the
Pato Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) to develop a plan that would addressed the
following broad objectives:
H:ICMRS~P-TC~Draft Bicycle Plan Review 6-5-02.doc Page 1
to serve bicyclists of all levels and abilities
to improve safety
to improve connectivity and eliminate gaps
to improve intermodal connectivity
create the opportunity to reduce auto dependency
The Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan is the culmination of over two years of work by staff
and the consultant, in cooperation with PABAC and members of the community. The study
process included extensive community input from stakeholder groups including the Chamber
of Commerce, PAUSD, the PTA, as well as meetings with other loca! agency representatives,
direct input from cyclists at local bike shops, and a community workshop. The draft plan has
been reviewed by PABAC and City/School Traffic Safety Committee, and has been posted
on the city website and distributed to libraries for public review.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Goal T-3 of the Transportation Element of the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
calls for the development of facilities, programs and services that encourage and promote
walking and bicycling. Specifically, Program T-18 calls for the development and periodic
update of a comprehensive bicycle plan, and Program T-19 calls for the development and
implementation of a bicycle facilities improvement program that prioritizes critical pedestrian
and bicycle links to parks, schools, retail centers, and civic facilities.
Goal T-6 of the Transportation Element also states that the City should strive for a high level
of safety for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Policy T-39 calls for the City to make
safety the first priority of citywide transportation planning and to prioritize pedestrian,
bicycle and automobile safety over vehicle level of service at intersections.
The draft plan is also consistent with the Conceptual Plan for Palo Alto Intermodal Transit
Cente{, the South of Forest Area (SOFA) I Plan, and the Embarcadero Road Traffic Calming
Plan, as regards bicycle facilities.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
The draft plan includes six chapters: Introduction, Existing Conditions, Needs Assessment
and Analysis, Recommended Bikeway Network, Bicycle Support Facilities and Programs and
Implementation Plan. The Commission is invited to review and comment on al! aspects of
the document, but staff would specifically request that the Commission comment on the
content and conclusions in the Recommended Bikeway Network, Bicycle Support Facilities
and Programs and the Implementation Plan sections of the study report. The Implementation
H:\CMRS~P-TC~Draft Bicycle Plan Review 6-5-02.doc Page 2
Plan includes the recommended bikeway network, a bicycle facilities improvement priority
list, and documentation of the existing and recommended policies, procedures, programs, and
best practices to support bicycle transportation.
Recommended Bikeway Network
The proposed expanded bikeway network (Attachment 1) includes a range of facilities to
serve the needs of cyclists of all ages and abilities, including commuters, students,
recreational riders, and casual cyclists. The plan builds upon the existing core of on-street
and off-street bikeways. As stated in the Plan "bicyclists vary in skill and in their willingness
to ride in traffic, ranging from experienced adult cyclists who will ride on any street, to
casual adults cyclists or novice cyclists who are intimidated by high traffic volumes and/or
high speeds, to child cyclists." Consequently, the proposed network includes bicycle
facilities on the hierarchy of streets in Palo Alto, including local neighborhood streets,
collector streets, arterials and expressways, as well as off-road bike paths.
This network responds to community priorities as identified during the study process, which
included expansion of the bike boulevard network, improved safe bike routes to schools,
removing obstacles to travel with new bridges and undercrossings, and spot improvements
at problematic intersections.
The existing bikeway network is largely oriented in a north/south configuration, with far
fewer east/west facilities, a deficiency in the system, which was identified early during the
study. The proposed network creates new east/west cross-town routes in both north and
south Palo Alto (Everett, Homer, Matadero/Margarita, and Maybell/Donald), and new grade-
separated crossings of Highway 101 and the Caltrain right-of-way.
Network of Bike Boulevards
Since 1976, the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan has advocated for the development of "a
network of bicycle boulevards," but to date only the 3-mile long Bryant Street Bicycle
Boulevard has been implemented. The plan recommends quadrupling the number of miles
of bicycle boulevards to 12 miles, on up to 8 new bicycle boulevards on local and collector
streets: Homer Avenue, Matadero Avenue, Greer Road, Park Boulevard, Everett Street, Ross
Road, Maybell Avenue and the Melville/Guinda route. These bicycle boulevards were largely
designed to improve bike safety for students commuting to Palo Alto elementary, middle and
high schools.
It is envisioned that these projects could be accomplished either independently or in
conjunction with the local and collector street traffic calming projects. The traffic calming
plan for Everett Street in Downtown North, for example, includes street closures to reduce
traffic volumes and speeds, while still permitting through bicycle movements. To make the
H:\CMRS~P-TC~Draft Bicycle Plan Review 6-5-02.doc Page 3
route completely functional, only further spot safety improvements would be needed at the
intersections of Everett Street with Middlefield Road and Alma Street.
Bike Lanes and Bike Routes on Arterial Streets
The plan recognizes that skilled cyclists use arterial streets despite heavier traffic volumes
because they otten are the most direct, time-efficient routes for both intra- and inter-city trips.
Such streets need to have bike lanes or wider curb lanes for bicycles to share with vehicles,
and need to have traffic signals that are responsive to bicycles. The plan recognizes the need
to ensure that bicyclists’ needs and safety are considered in all engineering, operational and
maintenance efforts.
Four of the City’s five residential arterials (University, Middlefield, Charleston and
Arastradero) currently include segments of bike lanes. The Embarcadero Road Traffic
Calming project envisions bike lanes on the other residential arterial. The Bicycle Plan
recommends completing the bike lane network on Middlefield Road, from Loma Verde to
the north city limit, and is consistent with the proposed redesigT~ of Middlefield Road in
Midtown and the previous recommendations of the School Commute Safety Study for north
Palo Alto. Middlefield is not only a through bicycle commute route linking to bike lanes in
Menlo Park and Mountain View, but a direct route to Palo Alto schools.
The plan also recommends bikeway improvements on the city’s major arterial streets. Some
of these improvements would be considered long-term goals, and would require the
cooperation of other agencies, including Santa Clara County and Caltrans, for the arterials
under their respective jurisdictions.
El Ca~ino Real--Improving bike safety is one of the objectives of the E1 Camino Real
Design Study funded by Caltrans, which is currently underway.
Alma Street--The plan recommends installing bike lanes between Central Expressway to
Charleston or East Meadow to link with bike lanes on Central Expressway in Mountain
View. From Charleston bicyclists could connect to the Park Boulevard or Bryant Street bike
boulevards for travel further north.
Oregon Expressway--The plan recommends bike lanes on Oregon to complete the bike lane
network on the county expressways in Palo Alto. The section between West Bayshore and
Bryant is recommended, but the section form Bryant to E1 Camino is considered a long-term
project with serious implementation issues that would need to be studied further.
San Antonio Road--In recent years, serious bike accidents have occurred in this corridor, and
improving bike safety by installing bike lanes is recommended. The plan further
H:\CMRS~P-TC~Draft Bicycle Plan Review 6-5-02.doc Page 4
recommends improvements at the .intersections at Charleston and San Antonio to facilitate
safer bicycle crossings of San Antonio.
New Crossings of the Railroad Tracks
The railroad tracks are a significant barrier to bicycle travel. New bicycle undercrossings at
Everett (consistent with the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center Plan), Homer Avenue
(currently in design) and in the vicinity of Matadero Creek between California Avenue and
East Meadow Drive are proposed. The Plan does not include exclusive pedestrian/bicycle
undercrossings at East Meadow or Charleston Road. Both of these crossings have bike lanes
and signalized intersections at Alma Street, which accommodate bike traffic. In view of the
plans to greatly increase the number of trains and initiate Baby Bullet express service along
the Caltrain line, further study and consideration of full vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian
grade separations may need to be explored. In this regard, staff is aware that Caltrain is
embarking upon a study of the need for future grade separations along the entire line, in
anticipation of the planned service expansion.
Implementation Plan
Proiect Priority List
In the past, the priority list has proven to be a roadmap for pursuing grant funding and capital
improvement projects. The last priority from the 1980-1995 Comprehensive Plan included
the Adobe Creek Undercrossing of Highway 101, the Embarcadero Bike Path, the Alma
Street Bike Bridge. Having an adopted implementation priority list is a valuable tool and
resource when seeking grant funding from outside agencies, designing neighborhood and
arterial road traffic calming projects, reviewing major development projects and their traffic
impacts and mitigation measures, and in the nexus study for the proposed traffic impact fee.
The recommended bikeway improvements were rated using criteria based on safety,
connectivity and special significance. Using a numerical scoring system each project was
ranked either high medium or low priority. All ofthe high priority projects were included.
in unranked order, in Table 6-3 (Attachment 2). This list is subject to modification based
on input from the public hearing, the Commission, and Council.
Recommended Policies and Programs
The Implementation Plan includes a detailed list of action steps to implement existing bicycle
programs and policies already designated in the Comprehensive Plan. These action steps both
codify existing and proposed practices for bikeway facilities design and maintenance,
education, enforcement and outreach promotion.
H:ICMRS~P-TC~Draft Bicycle Plan Review 5-5-02.doc Page 5
Projected Bicycle Travel Demand
This plan was drafted to meet all of the requirements of the California Bicycle Transportation
Account (BTA) Program, which is a source of grant funding for bicycle facilities projects in
California. One of the requirements is that the plan estimate the number of existing bicycle
commuters as we!! as the expected increase in the number of bicycle commuters resulting
from implementation of the plan. Appendix B of the plan includes a detailed analysis of the
estimated future bicycle demand based on the 1990 census journey to work data, the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission !990 Travel Survey, and the 1995 National
Persona Transportation Survey. As a result of the adoption and implementation of the
recommendations of the plan, the bicycling mode share of commuter trips and all trips within
Palo Alto is projected to double, from 4.4 percent to 8.6 percent as indicated in the following
table.
Trip Purpose
Table 1-4
.projected Daily Bicycle Trips Mode Share in Palo Alto
Percent of Total Existing bicycle Future bicycle mode
mode split
5.7%
2.6%
4.7%
9.3%
3.1%
,,Split
10.7%
5.2%
9.4%
18.4% ......
6.1%
8.6%
Trips
Work 26.0%
...... Shopping .........24.9%
Social, Recreation 11.2%
School 9.5%
Non-home based 27.6%
Total Daily Trips
Source." MTC Travel forecasting model
4.4%
Review by the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
The Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee formally reviewed the draft plan on May 21,
2002 and strongly endorsed it (Attachment 3). PABAC has recommended that the list of
high priority projects (Table 6-3 in the draft plan) be modified as follows:
Add Project #66 (a new bicycle/pedestrian undercrossing of the Caltrain tracks in south
Palo Alto) in the vicinity of Matadero Creek or other suitable location, to the list.
Add Project #28 (the Matadero/Margarita bicycle boulevard route) to the list. Both of
these projects would improve safety for students commuting to school in south Palo Alto.
Remove Project #13 (University Avenue in Downtown Palo Alto), which the Committee
felt was not a high priority since Lytton Avenue has bicycle lanes and is a suitable
alternative.
Remove Projects #34 and #59 (new route to Los Altos via Miranda Avenue) from the list,
as the Committee did not see these projects as priorities for Pa!o Alto.
H:\CMRS~P-TC~Z)raft Bicycle Plan Review 6-5-02.doc Page 6
Staff concurs with these recommendations and would endorse modifying the draft plan
accordingly.
Review by the City/School Traffic Safety Committee
On May 23, 2002 the City/School Traffic Safety Committee (CSTSC) reviewed the draft
plan. The Committee, by consensus, commented as follows:
Safety spot improvement should be shown at the Arastradero/E1 Camino Real intersection
which will become a very direct schoo! commute route to Gunn High School and Terman
Middle Schoo!.
The signalized intersections along Oregon Expressway, which are school crossings,
should be identified for spot safety improvements.
A safe bike route from Stanford faculty housing (along Stanford Avenue) to Gunn High
School should be included in the plan. This is a goal of the Gunn High Go Fast Traffic
Safety Committee and a study of such a route has been funded through the County Safe
Communities Project.
The plan should identify opportunities to work with Stanford University to develop safer
bicycle routes from the College Terrace neighborhood west of E1 Camino Rea! to Pa!o
Alto High School.
Staff concurs with the first two comments and agrees in principle with the latter two.
Presently, there is a grant-funded study underway to determine an appropriate safe bike route
from Stanford housing to Gurm High School, but the alignment has not yet been determined.
Staff recommends that these two Stanford-related recommendations be incorporated into the
text of the plan and once specific routes have been identified they could be included in the
next update of the plan.
General Comments
It should be noted that the plan is still in draft form. Staff has received editorial comments
from PABAC and members of the public on the text, formatting and some of the graphics,
which staff has noted and will address. These and other corrections, clarifications, and
modifications to the plan will be made after the Planning and Transportation Commission
reviews and comments on the document. They will then be incorporated into the draft
submitted to the City Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An environmental assessment will be prepared prior to the City Council consideration of the
draft plan.
H:\CMRS\P-TC~Draft Bicycle Plan Review 6-5-02. doc Page 7
NEXT STEPS
The City Council will consider the Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan on July 22, 2002.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
The Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan was previously distributed to the Planning and
Transportation Commission in the packet of May 10, 2002. Copies are available for review
in the Transportation Division office, at the libraries and on the City’s website
www. cit-v.palo-alto.ca.us/bicvcle
A.Figure 6: Recommended Bicycle Network
B.Table 6-3: High Priority Projects
C.Memo from Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee commenting on Bike Plan
D.Correspondence from Angela Dellaporta dated 5/28/02
E.Correspondence from Richard Swent dated 5/30/02
F.Correspondence from Douglas Moran dated 5/31/02
COURTESY COPIES:
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
City School Traffic Safety Committee
Mary Frances Callan, Superintendent of Schools
City Libraries
Bicycle Plan Community Meeting attendees
Brodie Hamilton, Stanford University Office of Parking and Transportation
Charles Carter, Stanford University Office of Campus Planning
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Gayle Likens, Senior Planner
Steve Emslie, Director of Planning and Community Environment
Division Head Approval~~efi/~ortation Official
H:\CMRS~P-TC~Draft Bicycle Plan Review 6-5-02.doc Page 8
ATTACHMENT B
Table 6-3
I-IIGFI PRIORITY PROJECTS - TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
ProjectNumber
1
2
3
4
6
12
13
14
!6
18
19
24
27
30
31
33
34
59
6O
6!
62
Project Name
El Camino Real
Park Blvd/ Wilkie Way
Alma Street
Bryant ! Redwood Cir / Carlson / Duncan Creekside / Nelson /
MacKay / San Antonio
Middlefield Road
Everett / Palo Alto Ave
University Avenue
Homer Avenue
Chaucer / Boyce / Melville
]Embarcadero Road
California Avenue
Charleston Road, / Ai’astradero Road
Hanover Street / Porter Drive
Los Robles Avenue
Maybell Avenue/Donald Oeorgia Avenue
West Aras~rader0 Road
Miranda Avenue
Miranda Road E×tension Bike Path
California Avenue Caltraln Undercrossing
Everett Caltraln Undercroasing
Homer Avenue Caltrain Overcrossing
* Total estimamd costs include 30% for contingency, desig~a and adnfinis~,-atmn.
Wilbur Sraith Associams Page 1 of I
Total Cost
Project Estimated Cost*
$512,121
$66,256
$836,727
$29,757
$208,59!
$22,824
$101,932
$2t,494
$28,674
$!90,568
$245,473
$68,939
$671,76~
$81,545
$!4,034
$88,636
$2,068
$t30,000
$3,900,000
$6,500,000
$6,500,000
$20,221,406
Tuesday, Masch 26, 2002
PABAC
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
ATTACHMENT C
May 28, 2002
To~
From:
Subject:
Honorable Members of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission
Paul Goldstein, Chair Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC)
Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan
At a special meeting on May 21, 2002, PABAC reviewed the Draft Bicycle Transportation
Plan and wishes to communicate the following points:
1)We strongly support the proposition within the plan that it is important to develop routes
for cyclists of all abilities. The needs of a child riding to schoo! will be different from that
of an adult commuter bicycling to work, or a cyclist using his or her bike for an errand.
The plan recognizes this issue and proposes a balanced approach: one that addresses
routes to schools and the need to improve the safety and comfort of bicyclists on arterials
and residential arterials. These goals are spelled out at the beginning of Chapter 4 and
deserve your consideration and support.
In particular, there are several projects that seek improvements along arterials and
residential arterials. Arterials are useful for cyclists for the same reasons that they are
attractive to motorists: they are often the fastest, most direct routes between two points.
Nonetheless, the importance of improving conditions for cyclists on arterials is not
apparent to many members of the public, and we would like to comment on these projects
specifically.
E1 Camino Real is used by many commuter cyclists, especially those travelling to and
from our neighboring communities. Improving the safety along this corridor is
important and is currently being studied by the Caltrans sponsored project for context-
sensitive design. Improvements along E1 Camino should be consistent with and linked
to the other initiatives being considered along this route.
Alma Street, between San Antonio and Charleston is an important connector to the
Central Expressway corridor in Mountain View. From Charleston a northbound cyclist
can divert to the excellent route downtown via Bryant Street. This is an important
north-south gap that needs to be closed.
~, Middlefield Road is a bicycle route both in Mountain View and Menlo Park. It is also
an important route to schools. Currently many students bicycle along the sidewalks of
Middlefield Road, a very dangerous practice. Adding bike lanes to this route would be
a significant addition to our bicycle network.
Embarcadero Road is the subject of a traffic calming study. Bicycle improvements
along this route should be integated in the overall redesign of the street.
PABAC Comments on Draft
Bicycle Transportation .Plan
May 28, 2002
3)Another important focus of the plan is its emphasis on routes to schools. Bicycling is an
ideal way for children to reach their schools. Traditionally it has been a major
transportation mode for school-age children. Not only does it promote independence and
provide exercise, it also reduces traffic congestion around our schools, a problem that is of
major concern to our community. Palo Alto is a very bicycle-friendly community, but we
need to do more by improving our physical infrastructure, encouraging students and
parents to use their bikes, and educating cyclists and drivers about safe practices on the
road.
4)There are several concepts in the ’~Best Practices" appendix that we would like to
emphasize. Bicycling in Palo Alto is attractive largely because of our local street system
with relatively slow traffic. Automobile-oriented °~improvements" can significantly impair
an otherwise excellent bicycle route. Conversely, roadway projects sometimes provide
excellent opportunities to incorporate bicycle improvements. Palo Alto has policies in
place to provide for bicycles when modifying roadways. It is important that we be vigilant
in protecting and enhancing our bicycle amenities when modifying roadways.
5)PABAC has reviewed the entire list of high priority projects and believes that the
following changes are appropriate at this time:
We suggest removing #13, the University Avenue project, from the list of high-
priority projects. University Avenue is a major attractor, and is heavily used by
bicyclists, we definitely believe that bicycles belong on University and that safety
enhancements should be made when opportunities present themselves. However, we
are not convinced that the suggested improvements would make much of a difference
and we would rather resources and energy be directed to other projects. The
availability of an alternative route (Lytton Avenue) also influenced our decision.
PABAC also wishes to remove projects #34 (Miranda Avenue) and #59 (Miranda
Road Extension Bike Path) from the high-priority list. At this time, we do not see the
importance of.these projects, although they may become more important in the future.
~ We would like to add project #66 (Matadero Creek Over/~Jndercrossing of Caltrain).
There is currently no crossing of the Caltrain tracks between California Avenue and
Meadow Drive. Whether the actual crossing is at Matadero Creek, and connects with a
proposed bike path, or at some other nearby !ocation, we feel that an east-west link in
this nei~hborhood is important. The proposed bike path along Matadero Creek should
be examined along with any flood control work proposed by the Water District.
We also feel that project #28 (Matadero/Margarita Avenues) deserves to be a high-
priority project. This is an important route to school and is currently under study.
Whether a bicycle boulevard treatment or adding bike lanes is more appropriate is an
open question, but the project is important and should be designated as high-priority.
PABAC has been deeply involved in the development of this plan. Several members attended
the Community Workshop, and a subcommittee reviewed the administrative draft of this
document. We feet that this is an excellent plan that represents a good understanding of the
issues involved in bicycling in Palo Alto, and that its recommendations are thoughtful and
appropriate. We urge the approval of the plan and look forward to the benefits of an even
more bicycle-friendly Palo Alto.
Subject: City of Pa[o ALto Genera[ Contact Form ATTAC~-~ME~TT D
The fot[o~ng is a message from the City of Pa[o ALto Gatekeeper
This message was generated on: Tue May 28 10:43:26 2002.
01Name_r = Angeta De[Laporta
submit_by = ade[taporta®pausd, pa[o-a[to, ca. us
04Subject_r = For PLanning Commission re: BicycLe Tran
05Comments_r =
May 28, 2002
Dear PLanning Commission:
l Love the proposed BicycLe Transportation PLan for Pa[o ALto. If the proposed
changes are made, Pa[o Atto wiLL become a much safer and more enjoyable place to
bike.
As the mother of a middte school student (and the current Terman PTA bicycle
safety rep) I am particuLarLy pteased to see the Bike BouLevard proposals involving
traffic calming measures. The Park, Wi[kie, EL Camino Way, Matadero and Maybe[[
Bike BouLevard -- with the concomitant traffic calming measures -- wit[ provide much
safer bike routes for-Terman MiddLe School students to use in the fat[ of 2003, and
thus reduce the automobile traffic cono=estion along Arastradero. Encouraging
automobile drivers to use certain thoroughfares and bicyclists to use others is, in my
opinion, the best way to keep bicyclists safe.
Safety for young bicyclists wiLL have to be carefuLLy considered when specific
plans are made for the bike routes and boulevards in the Terman area. CurrentLy, EL
Camino Way is of concern to parents because of the cars parked along the side of the
road, with a high turnover rate. The intersection of EL Camino Way with EL Camino
Real is also quite unfriendly and unsafe for bicyclists. Traffic calming measures along
Maybe[[ and Matadero may be difficult to instaLL, but are necessary to make bicycling
these streets safe for children. The placement of a Bike Route along Laguna, Barton,
Los Rob[es and Amaranta is a good idea, especiaLLy for Idds who wiLL be coming to
Terman, although 1 know that safer methods for kids to cross Los Rob[es and travel
along (very narrow) Amaranta alongside cars are necessary.
1 also hope that intersections along Bike Lanes, Bike Routes and Bike BouLevards
wiLL be given dose attention. The intersection of Bryant and Embarcadero is a
wonderful example of a bike-friendLy intersection, and so is the intersection at Park
and EL Camino, but there are too few of these in the city currently. A few
intersections that are used by young bicyclists and need much improvement are: Louis
and Oregon, WaverLey and East Meadow, Stanford and EL Camino,
Arastradero/Char[eston and EL Camino, in addition to the intersections already noted
on the plan. BicycLists negotiating the move from Hanover to the bike Lane Leading to
Gunn H.S. have a particu[arty difficult and dangerous time.
I am so pleased that the city is taking steps that will aLLow more bicyclists to
safely use our streets and thus reduce traffic congestion and air poLLution for us
Thank you,
Ange[a De[[aporta
ATTACHMENT E
From:
Sent::
To;
Cc:Subject:;
Richard Swent [Richard.Swent@stanford.edu]
Thursday, May 30, 2002 2:51 PM
planning_commission@city.palo-alto.ca.us
Gayle Likens; Ellen Fletcher; Richard Swent
Bike Lanes on El Camino Real
Dear members of the Planning and Transportation Commission:
I have heard thatthere is some opposition from members of
the public, and some concern from members of the Commission
regarding the Bike Plan’s recommendation for installing bike
lanes on El Camino Real. I would like to make an argument in
favor of the bike lanes. At the policy and planning level we
should not be excluding choices or declaring areas to be
off-limits to bicyclists. We should strive to make ALL streets
as bike-friendly as possible. We should present cyclists with
a variety of routes and let them choose the one they prefer,
rather than making decisions for them.
Palo Alto presently has no North-South cross-town route that
is suitable for commuters or as part of a regional network. El
Camino Real is a candidate for such a route, although it certainly
is not bike-friendly at present. One goal of the network of
bike routes proposed in the plan is "to serve bicyclists of all
levels and abilities". This means that experienced and skilled
cyclists should be offered quick and direct routes as well as
more circuitous routes suitable for less-experienced cyclists. A
narrow, meandering path shared with pedestrians is completely
unacceptable for a speedy bike commuter, and even an El Camino Real
with bike lanes will likely never be appropriate as a bike route
for young children. This is not an argument against building either
facility. Ski resorts do not refuse to build challenging slopes;
they build them and mark them as advanced routes. Similarly, Palo
Alto should not back away from routes because they should only be
used by skilled cyclists. Routes should be classified and their
ratings marked on the map. Cyclists can then make their own decisions
on which routes to take, based on their skills and preferences.
It is sometimes argued that there are parallel routes just a few
blocks away, and that cyclists should use those routes instead of
major streets. This argument seriously misrepresents the additional
delay associated with these routes. Assuming that one can find and
follow these parallel routes, there can be delays waiting for a green
light on a cross-street in order to leave El Camino and return to it.
The parallel route.will certainly have more stop signs than El Camino,
and may have substantial delays associated with crossing collector
streets or minor arterials which have priority. All together, the
parallel route may add as much as 5 minutes to a trip. If the trip is
less than 30 minutes in the first place, this is a substantial added
percentage. Most motorists would never tolerate being told to take another
route that would add 5 minutes to their trip, but they don’t mind
telling cyclists to do that. For some bicyclists the added time might
be an acceptable trade-off for a route they find more comfortable. For
others it would not. We should not make that decision for them; we
should provide them with both alternatives and let them make the choice.
To summarize, Palo Alto needs direct cross-town bike routes, and bike
routes that directly serve commercial destinations along El Camino. Real
Although El Camino Real presently has many problems as a bike route, to be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan we must attempt to address and
resolve these problems rather than surrender to them. If we in Palo Alto
do not try to make El Camino more bike-friendly it will certainly only get
worse. At the policy and planning level we should not preclude route
decisions for cyclists: we should plan a network of bike facilities that
provides a range of choices and let the cyclists use the ones they prefer.
Sincerely,
Richard Swent
2950 Clara Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 493-7979
ATTACHMENT F
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Douglas Moran [dmoran@dougmoran.com]
Friday, May 31, 2002 12:58 AM
planning_commission@city.palo-alto.ca.us
gayle_likens@city.palo-alto.ca.us
Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan: El Camino Bike Route:opposed
Planning and Transportation Commission:
As an experienced bicyclist, I oppose the provision in the Draft Bicycle
Transportation Plan that would designate El Camino Real as a Bicycle Route.
While I understand the advantages of improved maintenance for the few
bicyclists that use this route, t believe that the negatives are far
greater.
Many bicyclists do NOT understand the difference between a Bike Path,
Bike Lane, Bike Boulevard and Bike Route. Hence, people will try to
use El Camino without realizing what they are getting into.
For much of the day, El Camino is so unsuitable for the typical bicyclist
that I would judge labeling it a "bike route" to be potentially negligent.
Few bicyclists carry bikeway maps (I try to carry an extra with me so
that I can give it away). Not knowing what the alternatives are, they
are likely to stay on El Camino even if they decide it was a bad choice.
1 also worry that the designation as a Bike Route will encourage some
bicyclists to take a more aggressive stance towards autos, and who has
what rights, leading to accidents.
1 commuted to work in Menlo Park from Barron Park for 9 years and I
would NEVER use El Camino on a bike. I wouldn’t use it even if there were
bike lanes - the mix of parked cars, active driveways, traffic volume
and traffic speed is just too risky and potentially deadly.
Douglas B. Moran
790 Matadero Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2734
650-856-3302
ATTACHMENT D
TRANSPOR TA TION DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANN~G & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Gayle Likens, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT:Planning
AGENDA DATE: July 17, 2002
SUB3ECT:Draft Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Plan
RECOMMENDATION
This report provides supplemental information regarding proposed revisions to the Draft
Bicycle Transportation Plan recommended by staff in response to public input received to
date. Staff requests that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and
comment on the draft plan, including the proposed revisions recommended in this report. The
plan will then be revised based on all the comments received and forwarded to the City
Council for its consideration.
Further Public Input
The Commission accepted public testimony on the draft plan at its meeting of June 5, 2002
and continued the matter to July 17, to Nve the public and PTA groups more time to review
and comment on the plan. Since the June 5 meeting, the draft plan was agendized for
discussion at meetings of the City/School Traffic Safety Committee and Palo Alto Bicycle
Advisory Committee, and additional correspondence was received from members of the
public (Attachment 5).
City/School Traffic SafeO, Committee
The City/School Traffic Safety Committee met on June 20 and provided further comments
on the draft plan. In general, the Committee recommended that the draft plan be re-written
to clarify how the recommended implementation priorities serve different levels of cyclists,
especially school-aged cyclists traveling along school commute routes.
City of Palo Alto
H:\CMRs\P-TC’,Draft Bicyde Plan Review 7-17-02
Page 1
The Committee felt there needed to be more emphasis on intersection safety, specifically at
difficult intersections along school commute routes; including the five signalized crossings
of Oregon Expressway (at Greer, Louis, and Middle field Roads, and Cowper and Bryant
Streets), Newell Road/Embarcadero Road and E1 Camino Real/Arastradero Road. These
locations were specifically identified as locations that are complex and difficult for
inexperienced bicyclists to traverse due to constricted lane widths, a lack of through bike
lanes, alignment issues, etc. The Committee discussed how these intersection are a major
impediment to bicycling along routes that in other respects provide convenient access to
schools.
With regard to specific routes identified in the draft plan’s Recommended Network, the
Committee requested that the plan add E1 Camino Way to the Maybell/Donald route (No. 31)
and that Castilleja be included in the Park/Wilkie route (No. 2).
The Committee further requested that the draft plan reference the recommendations in the
Phase 1 School Commute Corridor Study, in particular, the recommendation to: "develop a
special school commute corridor signage program for one school commute corridor as a test
installation, evaluate the community’s response, success of the program, and report back to
Council before extending it to other corridors."
Comments from Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC)
On July 2, 2002 PABAC reviewed comments submitted to the Commission on the draft plan
and discussed proposed additions to the recommended bike network and priority list, as
outlined in this report. The Committee supported these changes. PABAC recommended that
the Implementation chapter be reorganized in the final draft to incorporate much more of the
recommended education and promotion action steps described in Chapter 4.
In addition, PABAC directed the Chair to submit more detailed comments on the
Committee’s perspective on provisions in the plan that relate to the reduction of stop signs
on bicycle boulevards, the elimination of sidewalk bike paths, and the restriction of certain
streets to bicyclists. Please refer to the PABAC memo, Attachment 4.
Summary of Recommended Changes to Plan
Staff has modified the proposed bicycle network (Revised Figure 6, Attachment 1) in
response to input received during the past month from the above-referenced committees, the
Commission and members of the public. With these revisions, staff believes that the draft
plan responds more accurately to community priorities, as well as the goals of improving
bicycle safety for bicyclists of all ages and abilities and creating the opportunity to increase
the bicycle mode share.
City of Palo Alto
H:\CMRs\P-TC\Draft Bicyde Plan Review 7-17-02
Page 2
The revised plan includes eight new spot improvements at major intersections along
Embarcadero (at Newell), Oregon Expressway (at the five signalized intersections), and E1
Camino Real (at Stanford Avenue, Embarcadero, and Arastradero). The attached revised
implementation priorities list (Revised Table 6-3, Attachment 2) balances the two broad
categories of enhancements to cycling facilities: "strategic" and "spot" improvements. The
revised list includes 20 strategic and 8 spot improvements. The strategic improvements
include bicycle boulevards and grade separations, which give bicyclists advantage over
vehicular traffic by providing preference or exclusive right-of-way to bicycles (with
pedestrians) and improvements to linear arterial routes that bicyclists share with motor
vehicles. Bicycle boulevards and grade separations serve cyclists of all abilities while the
arterial route improvements are targeted to serve commuters and more skilled bicyclists. Spot
improvements at intersections are designed to improve safety at particularly difficult and
complex crossings along existing bicycle routes where better design would enhance safety
and access for skilled cyclists as well as students and others.
In addition staffhas made some initial changes to the Implementation Chapter (Revised Draft
Chapter 6, Attachment 3) of the report based on public input. Staff will work with the
consultant to revise, expand and re-organize the chapter to include a more complete set of
action steps related to education and promotion as discussed in Chapter 5.
Relationship to other Studies and Projects
Questions have arisen regarding the relationship of the this plan to two other transportation
planning projects currently underway, the Safe Routes to School project along Maybell and
Donald Drives and the E1 Camino Real Master Schematic Design Plan project. Both routes
are designated on the Recommended Bicycle Network.
The draft Bicycle Transportation Plan calls for a bicycle boulevard treatment along Maybell
Avenue and Donald Drive, leading toward Terman Middle School. This designation was
developed for the bike plan prior to completion of the Safe Routes through Safe
Communities planning study of this corridor, which involved a working group composed of
neighborhood, school, PTA and City representatives. The latter study recommended
upgrading the route to one with striped bike lanes and a Safe Routes to School grant
application was submitted to Caltrans in May for funding of the bike lane project. If the
funding is received, staff will move forward to complete the detailed design and submit it for
review by PABAC, the City/School Traffic Safety Committee, and the surrounding
neighborhood groups for further public review before proceeding to implementation. The
draft plan calls for E1 Camino Real to be designated as a bike route, in recognition of the fact
that the route is an efficient travel route as well as a destination for bicyclists and motorists.
By designating this street as a bike route in the bikeway master plan, the City would be able
to work more constructively with Caltrans to ensure that Caltrans maintains adequate outside
lane widths for bicyclists and motorists to share, designs signals that are responsive to
City of Palo Alto Page 3
H:\CMRs\P-TC\Draft Bicycle Plan Review 7-17-02
bicycles, and addresses bicyclists’ needs and safety in all engineering, operational, and
maintenance efforts. Staff views this as a longer-term goal andvision for E1 Camino Real,
rather than a project that would immediately result in the installation of bike route signs
along the corridor.
The consultants preparing a Master Schematic Design Study for E1 Camino Real are currently
investigating ~°context sensitive", safe, and convenient multi-modal street designs that include
space for bicycles (either sufficiently-wide, shared outside travel lanes or striped bike lanes)
along the corridor. This study is scheduled to be completed in December of this year, after
the Bicycle Transportation Plan is adopted.
The Comprehensive Plan calls for the development and periodic update of a comprehensive
bicycle plan. It is not intended to be a static plan that does not evolve over time, as facilities
are built or further feasibility studies determine the viability of specific projects the plan
should be updated. Once adopted, staff anticipates that the Bike Plan would be reviewed and
updated every one to two years. Thus, the ultimate decisions reached for the two projects
discussed above could lead to revised route designations in :he Bike Plan at the next update.
Next Steps
Commission comments on this draft, editorial comments received from PABAC and the
City/School Traffic Safety Committee, as well as other comments from members of the
public on the text, formatting and some of the ~aphics, will be incorporated into a revised
plan submitted to the City Council in the Fall.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
1. Revised Figure 6: Recommended Bicycle Network
2. Revised Table 6-3: High Priority Projects
3. Revised Chapter 6: Implementation Plan
4. Correspondence.
e E-mail from Commissioner Bonnie Packer, June 18, 2002
e Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee Memo, July 9, 2002
~George Browning/Jean Wilcox, May 30, 2002
~Kathy Durham, May 31, 2002
~Jeff Brown, May 31, 2002
*Joan Marx, May 31, 2002
e Grace Liu, May 31, 2002
~Suzanne Attenborough, June 3, 2002
~Kathy Durham, June 4, 2002
,Ken Poulton, June 6, 2002
~Jerome Coonen, June 7, 2002
e Linda Sanford, June 7, 2002
City of Palo Alto
H:\CMRs\P-TC\Draft Bicycle Plan Review 7-17-02
Page 4
Sue Lutmer, June 7, 2002
Bob Moss, June 11, 2002
Kirsten Flynn, June 13, 2002
Markus Fromherz, June 14, 2002
Joan Marx, June 24, 2002
Rosemary Stevens, June 26, 2002
Edie Keating, July 3, 2002
The Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan was previously distributed to the Planning and
Transportation Commission in the packet of May 10, 2002. Copies are available for review
in the Transportation Division office, at the libraries and on the City’s website
wavw.city.palo-alto.ca.us/bike.
COURTESY COPIES:
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
City/School Traffic Safety Committee
Mary Frances Callan, Superintendent of Schools
Members of the public who sent correspondence
Prepared by: Gayte Likens, Senior Planner
Department Head Approval:
Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official
City of Palo Alto
H:\CMRskP-TC\Draft Bicycle Plan Review 7-17-02
Page 5
PALO ALTO BICYCLE PLAN
EXISTING PROPOSED
Bike Path
Bike Lane
Bike Route
Bike Boulevard
~Existing Bike/Ped Bridges or Tunnels
~improve Existing Bike/Peal Bridges or
Tunnels
O Proposed Bike/Ped Bridge~ or Tunnels
~ Potential Long-Range Proie~’s with
Serious Implementation Issues
[] Spot Improvement Needed
Employment Centers
Shopping Centers/A~ec~s
Transportation Facilities
Medical Centers
Community Centers, Libraries and Museums
Elementary Schools
Middle/High Schools
Parks
Wi]bur Smith
Figure 6
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE NETWORK
ATTACHMENT 2
Table 6-3
HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS
Project #
STRATEGIC IMPROVEMENTS
A. Bicycle Boulevards - Serves All Cyclists, School Commute
2
31
12
14
16
4
CastillejafPark Boulevard/Wilkie Way
Mat~dero Avenue/Margarita Avenue
aybelt Avenue/Donaid Drive
Everett Avenue/Palo Alto Avenue
Homer Avenue
Chaucer!Boyce/Melville
Extension of Bryant Street Bike Boulevard
Revised Draft
July 2002
Estimated
Cost
$66,256
$20,000
$14,034
$22,824
$21,924
$28,674
$29,757
B. Undercrossings - Serves All Cyclists, School Commute, Pedestrians
.16: ::, i S~uthPa]O ~tO CaltrainUn.dercrosSing : ~.
6!I Everett Avenue Caltrain Undercrossing60[ California Avenue Caltrain Undercrossing
62 ~ Homer Avenue Caltrain Undercrossing
$5,ooo;ooo
$5,000,000
$5,000,000
$5,000,000
Co Major Streets Routes
1. Collectors & Residential Arterials - Serves Skilled Cyclists, School Commute
30 Los Robles Avenue Bike Lanes
24 Charleston Avenue/Arastradero Road Bike Lanes
6 Middlefield Road Bike Lanes
18 Embarcadero Road Bike Lanes
$81,545
$68,939
$208,591
$190,568
o
19
3
27
1
33
Major Arterial Streets - Serves Skilled Cyclists and Commuters
California Avenue (Business District)
Alma Street
Hanover Street/Porter Drive Bike Lanes
E1 Camino Real Bike Route
West Arastradero Road (Alpine to Page Mill)
LOCAL OR SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
Intersections - Serves Skilled Cyclists and/or School Comtnute Routes
Arastradero/E1 Camino Real
Five Signalized Oregon Expressway Crossings
Stanford Avenue/El Camino Real
Churchill/El Camino Real
San Antonio/Charleston
San Antonio/Middlefield
NewelgErnbarcadero
E1 Camino/Embarcadero
Notes:
1.
2.
Shading indicates additions to list
Projects deleted from list: University Avenue (#13) and Miranda Avenue (#34 & #59)
$245,473
$836,727
$671,765
$512,121
$88,636
$68,939
TBD
TBD
$100,000
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Chapter 6
MPLEMENTATION PLAN
ATTACHMENT 3
Revised Draft
July 2002
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the implementation plan for the bikeway network for the City of Palo Alto.
It first describes the many ways that projects can be implemented. The action steps necessary to
implement and maintain a bicycle-friendly street network are then presented. The prioritization
criteria are presented followed by the hig_ah priority projects. Finally the cost estimate for
conslx’ucting the bicycle network is presented.
The actual implementation of this plan wil! occur incrementally in a variety of ways. Many
projects can be incorporated into the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process and will be
implemented as the CIP projects get funded. Others will happen as part of regular maintenance
and operations practices and road resurfacing projects. Redevelopment in some areas of the City
will present the oppommity to implement some of the recommendations of this plan. Finally,
outside funding can be obtained to finance the design and construction of other projects,
improvements and programs. The most likely funding sources are discussed in Appendix M.
Implementation Action Steps
Maintain a local capital improvement program that provides regular funding for the bicycle
program to construct new facilities, retrofit inadequate facilities, and refurbish older
facilities.
On arterials and collectors, re-evaluate lane widths to fit bike lanes wherever possible, by
restriping for narrower inside travel lanes or reducing the number of travel lanes. If bike
lanes are not possible, provide wider curb lanes.
Include funding for regular facility evaluation, maintenance, and repair, as well as funding
to review development and zoning proposals for effect on bicycle mobility, in the annual
staff, operations, and maintenance budgets.
Assign staff the responsibility and authority to carry out bicycle-related policies, and to
coordinate the city’s plarming, ~2~~_r.~_s., capital improvement
programming, budgeting, and maintenance.
Establish a spot improvement program for low-cost, small-scale improvements, such as
pavement maintenance, hazard removal, or bike rack installation.
343700
PALO ALTO BICYCLE PLAN
Page 6 - 1
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Policies and Action Steps
The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan includes a number of policies and programs dealing with
bicycle and pedestrian traffic. This section suggests specific actions for carrying out those
policies and programs. Also see Best Practices in Appendix N.
1. Maintenance:
Comprehensive Plan Policy T-20 is to "Improve maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure." Program T-28 under this policy is to "Adjust the street evaluation criteria of the
City’s Pavement Management Program to ensure that areas of the road used by bicyclists are
maintained at the same standards as, or at standards higher than, areas used by motor vehicles."
The following action steps are recommended:
1.1 Special attention should be paid to the right-hand portion of the roadway, where bicyclists
normally fide.
1.2 Establish a dedicated 5% of Street Maintenance budget for bicycle route street resurfacing in
the resurfacing CIP (it is now 2.5% of the CIP).
Program T-29 is to "Provide regular maintenance of off-road bicycle and pedestrian paths,
including sweeping, weed abatement, and pavement maintenance." The following action steps
are recommended:
1.3 Establish a field review program to survey all off road bikeways once a year for deficiencies
and obstacles such as potholes, shrubbery encroachment, the condition of bikeway
signing, striping and other markings, signal detection, etc.
1.4 Sweep streets regularly, with priority Oven to those with higher bicycle traffic.
1.5 Trim overhanging and encroaching vegetation.
1.6 Repair surface defects such as potholes and ruts, giving priority to the right-hand portion
of the outside lane.
1.7 Establish standards for new and replacement pavement quality. Inspect work done by
contractors, and have it replaced if defective.
1.7.1 Asphalt pavement overlays should be flush with the concrete g~tter.
1.7.2 Utility covers should be flush with the pavement.
1.8 Establish a spot improvement program for low-cost, small-scale improvements, such as
pavement maintenance, hazard removal, or bike rack insta!lation.
1.8.1 Provide a postcard, phone, or e-mail program for the public to report
hazards and suggest spot improvements.
1.9 Where existing curb and gutter is being replaced, redesign the drainage such that a 12 inch
gntter pan can accommodate the storm water runoff. This will increase the usable surface of
the roadway by 2 feet.
1.10 Establish a resurfacing, reconstruction, preventative maintenance, scheduling and budget for
a!l offroad paths, trails, bridges etc.
2. Operations:
2,1 Limit the~e of stop signs on.bike routes where there are impediments to through vehicle
traffic
2. ! .2 Uae one way :tops at T inter:ections.
343700
PALO ALTO BICYCLE PLAN WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
Page 6 - 2
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
2.1.i. Consider the effect on bicycles when evaluating new stop sign requests.
2.2 Adjust traffic signals to accommodate bicyclists.
2.2.1 Provide Adequate Minimum Green Time for side streets at actuated signals.
2.2.2 Provide adequate clearance time for bicyclists who enter intersection at end
of green phase.
2.2.3 Ensure that traffic-actuated signals detect cyclists in a lawful position on the
road. Identify sensitive points with a standard marking (See Standard Plans
A 24C).
2.2.4 Develop guidelines for when to provide markings/signage and video
detection locations
2.3 Modify Do Not Enter signs to add Except Bicycles, where appropriate.
2.4 Eliminate sidewalk bike paths from the City’s bikeway networkand remove ~xisfing signs .
where they exist. -. ~ ~ - . .:.-. ; -. :, ¯-. -. ., _. ~
3. Construction!Renovation:
Policy T-14 is to "Improve bicycle and pedestrian access to and between local destinations,
including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, emplovment districts, shopping centers,
and multi-modal transit stations." This is a broad goal that encompasses the provision of access
in new corridors and the addition or improvement of access by modifying existing corridors.
Since Palo Alto is a built-up city with little opporttmity for new roads or developments, the
emphasis must be on existing corridors.
Program T-24 under this policy is to "Provide adequate outside through-lane widths for shared
use by motorists and bicyclists when constructing or modifying roadways, if feasible." Roadway
modification might include restriping (most conveniently performed after resurfacing), repair,
rehabilitation, or reconstruction, maintenance, and occasionally widening. A!l these activities
provide opportunities to improve bicycle access.
3.1 Use gutters with a maximum width of 12 inches on all new or renovated construction
projects.
3.2 Evaluate all streets during the pavement resurfacing to determine if bike lanes or wider
curb lanes can be provided when the striping is reapplied.
3.3 Construct or retrofit arterials and collectors with wide curb lanes. To obtain the
necessary width within a limited right of way, consider the following options:
3.3.1 Remove parking from one side of the street, or restrict it to nighttime hours.
3.3.2 Convert diagonal parking to parallel parking.
3.3.3 Reduce four-lane roads to two lanes plus a two-way left turn lane.
3.3.4 Consider the use of modem roundabouts in place of traffic signals.
(Roundabouts reduce the storage room needed at intersections, enabling
fewer lanes to can’y the same volume of traffic.)
3.4 The City should adopt design guidelines that provide for shared use of all roadways by
bicycles and vehicles, such as the VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines.
3.5 The City should add its own adopted policies, such as the intersection design guidelines
dated August 1990, which provide for lane widths at intersections and signal detection
and timing.
343700
PALO ALTO BICYCLE PLAN
Page 6 - 3
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
3.6 Consolidate the City policies for signal timing at state highways and county roads,
backfill smoothness, wedge cuts at gutter pans into a single readily available document.
The consolidated guidelines should be disseminated to the Public Works and Utilities
Departments, contractors, County Roads, Caltrans, and other relevant agencies, and
policies established to ensure that they are followed regardless of who designs or carries
out the roadwork.
4. Planning:
Objectives/Action Steps:
4.1 Conduct yearly counts of bicycle traffic.
4.2 Collect and analyze comprehensive information about police- and hospital-reported bicycle
accidents to identify causes and remedies.
4.3 Establish procedures for cooperating with adjacent cities on proj ects which benefit cycling to
or through Palo Alto.
4.4 Review existing city ordinances for appropriateness and for consistency with the
California Vehicle Code and updated as needed.
5. Education/Safety
Program T-46 "encourages extensive educational programs for safer use of bicycles, mopeds an
motorcycles, including City-sponsored bicycle education programs in the public schools and the
bicycle traffic schoo! program for juveniles.
5.1 Consider City-sponsored bicycle driver education classes for residents and workers.
5.2 Expand bicycle education programs (e.g. Street Skills for Cyclists) for middle and high
school students
5.3 Continue development of the bicycling pages on the City of Palo Alto website.
Program T-47 call for engineering, enforcement and education tools to improve traffic safety on
City roadways.
5.6 Provide targeted enforcement of traffic laws against both bicyclists and motorists who
commit offenses most likely to cause injury, such as running red lights, wrong-way riding,
riding at night without lights, and endangering pedestrians.
5.7 Expand patrols by police on bikes.
5.8 Provide training for police officers through the International Police Mountain Bicycling
Association.
5.9 Reduce fines for bicycle related infractions as permitted by CVC.
343700
PALO ALTO BICYCLE PLAN
Page 6 - 4
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
6o Promotion
Obiectlves/Action Steps:
6.1 Continue to reimburse city employees for travel by bicycle on official business.
6.2 Work with employers to promote programs encouraging emp!oyees to bicycle to work.
6.3 Improve the city bike map to include suitability information about city streets, to serve as
an educational tool for safe bicycling practices, and to provide information about bicycle
clubs and stores.
6.4 Work with Stanford University and surrounding cities to develop a multi-jurisdictional mid-
peninsula bicycle route map.
6.5 Work with Stanford to inform students and University commuters.
6.6 Continue to provide funding support for the Bicycle Station at the Pato Alto Caltrain Station
7. Funding/implementation
Objectives/Action Steps:
7.1 Maintain a local capital improvement program that provides regular funding for the bicycle
program to acquire right of way, construct new facilities, retrofit inadequate facilities, and
refurbish older facilities.
7.2 Include funding for regular facility evaluation, maintenance, and repair, as well as funding
to review development and zoning proposals for effect on bicycle mobility, in the annual
staff, operations, and maintenance budgets.
7.3 Pursue outside funding sources, such as TDA, BTA, TFCA and TEA-21 programs such as
CMAQ and TEA.
7.4 Assign staff the responsibility and authority to carry out bicycle-related policies, and to
coordinate the city’s planning, capital improvement programming, budgeting, and
maintenance.
RECOMMENDED BIKEWAY NETWORK
The draft Bicycle Transp6rtation Plan proposes a strategic network of through, continuous
bicycle facilities - on and off-street- designed to encourage bicycling. The core of this network
includes the bicycle boulevards and the grade separated bicycle (and pedestrian) crossings for
cyclists of all abilities, including the school aged cyclists; and bicycle accommodation on the
major street network for more experienced cyclists. This strategic network is connected to the
rest ofPalo Alto’s network of local and collector streets to form a highly interwoven pattern of
cycling routes serving cyclists: of all skill and experience levels and connecting to al! destinations
cyclists wish to reach.
The plan also identifies important spot improvements at intersections along existing bicycle
routes that need to be improved to make them more bicycle friendly and less of an obstacle to
bicycling by all cyclists, but particularly school students, and thereby encourage cycling on
otherwise convenient and accessible routes. Most of these spot improvements are located on the
major street system, including the county expressway and state route 101.
Table 6-! on the following page presents a summary of the bikeway network.
343700
PALO ALTO BICYCLE PLAN
Page 6 - 5
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
City of Palo Alto Prioritization Criteria
Three main categories were used in prioritizing the bikeway projects: Safety, Connectivity and
Special. The Safety and Connectivity categories each have four issues on which the routes are
rated. Each issue is scored on a three-part scale of High, Medium and Low. There are a total of
nine subcategories and a maximum of three points per subcategory for maximum total of 27
points per project. The criteria used to prioritize the projects are listed below in Table 6-2.
The projects that comprise the Palo Alto Bicycle network were then rated using these criteria.
The projects scoring in the top 25 to 30 percent are Considered the High Priority projects with an
approximately equal number of projects assigned to the in the low and medium tiers. The ratings
of each project are presented in Appendix K.
It is envisioned that in response to changing conditions, including the implementation of some of
the projects, PABAC will re-assess these priorities annually or bi-armually and
~ ~ ~ as needed.
The projects within the High priority category have not been rated relative to each other at this
time. Depending on the success of grant applications, there may be enough funds to implement
all the high priority projects within five to ten years. The decision of which project to proceed
with first will depend on the specifics of the funding availability, available grants and project
readiness. If an objective basis is needed to determine which project within the high priority tier
to proceed with first, then the high priority projects can be rated with a more quantitative
methodology such as that presented in Appendix L.
High Priority Projects
343700
PALO ALTO BICYCLE PLAN
Page 6 - 6
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Table 6- 2
PROPOSED PRIORIT!ZATION CR!TER!A FOR BICYCLE PROJECTS
FOR THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
Maximum possible score = 27
Safety
Remedies obstacles
Obstacles interpreted to also include inconsistent width shoulder, sight distance problems, etc.
High
Medium
Low
Accidents
Medium
Low
Narrow lanes or
Medium
Low
Road has two or more obstacles per mile
Road has average of one per mile
Road has no safety obstacles
Road with three or more reported accidents m last three years
Road with 1 to 2 accidents in last three years
Road with no reported accidents in last three years
shoulders
Road has <12 foot outside through curb lanes
Road has > 12 but < 14 foot curb lanes
Road has >_14 foot curb lanes
Connectivity
4)Serves bicycle trips to schools
High Directly serves elementary, middle or high school
Medium Elementary, middle or high school is within one block
Low Does not directly serve elementary, middle or high school
Gap Closure
Gap also interpreted to mean last unimproved link(s) of a long stretch of bikeway
High Project a closes a gap that otherwise requires circulation travel
Medium Project closes a gap that otherwise has a close alternative
Low Project does not close a gap
Bicycle traffic volume
High Route connects directly to major attractors and!or has more bike traffic than others (In
general, routes used by all levels of cychsts will have more bicycle traffic than routes used
by only experienced cyclists)
Medium Serves only moderate number of bicyclists or only one type ofbicychst
Low Relative to other routes, low bike volumes are predicted
Provide access to adiacent iurisdictions
High Connects to adjacent city with a designated bikeway
Medium Connects to adjacent city but adjacent city does not have designated bikeway
Low Does not connect to adjacent jurisdiction
Serves bicycle commuters/utilitarian trips
High Directly serves major employment centers or schools
Special
9_3.Speci,al Significance
High Funds have already been generated, ROW has already been donated, or other group is
taking lead on implementation
Low-No group has expressed interest and/or no money had been generated to fund the project
Route also could receive points if of special significance as determined by the BAC
343700
PALO ALTO BICYCLE PLAN
Page 6 - 7
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Cost Estimates
The costs to implement the bikeway projects presented in Chapter 4 were developed using unit
construction costs assumptions c; ained from the City Public Works Department and other
sources. The costs to implement each bikeway type are presented in Table 6-1. It should be
recognized that unit costs vary considerably depending on the size of the job and the location.
For example, the unit cost of striping only 1000 linear feet can easily cost two to three times that
of a 15,000 foot project. Pavement widening costs also vary considerably depending on the
terrain and other variables, such as presence of utility poles, drainage ditches and culverts. These
costs are the straight construction costs in Year 2001 dollars, and do not include any
contingencies. Typically, 15 percent is added for contingencies, and another 10 to 20 percent is
added for design and administration (D/A). We have assumed an additional 30 percent to cover
these costs. The tota! cost of constructing the entire network is about $29 million. With the
contingency and D/A costs, the total cost of implementing the entire network would be
$37 million.
Class 2 Bike Lanes
o
e
Table 6-4
Unit Construction Cost Assumptions
For Bikeway Improvements
Capital Project [ Unit
Bike lane treatment only -stripe bike lanes, add signs and
pavement legends
Restripe travel lanes and add bike lane signs!markings
Remove lane and bike lane signs/markings
(for cost estirnating purposes we have assumed that there
would be a two-way left turn lane)
o Widen roadway to provide bike lanes
Class 1 - Construct bike path- ~m’ading and some cut and fill
Class 1 - Repave/widen existing bike path
Class 3 - Arterial - Bike route with wide curb lanes
Class 3 - Widen shoulder- construct four foot shoulders
Class 3 - Bicycle Boulevard
Class 3 - Bike Route - local street
New Traffic Signal
Construct Ped!Bike bridge/overcrossing
Reconstruct Ped/Bike bridge/overcrossing
Improve freeway interchange to accommodate bicycles
Mile
Mile
Mile
Mile
Mile
Mile
Mile
Mile
Mile
Mile
Each
Each
Each
Each
(can vary)
Cost*
$25,000
$40,000
$75,000
$180,000
$250,000**
$100,000
$100,000
$180,000
$20,000
$6,000
$155,000
$5,000,000
$3,000,000
$300,000
Note: These costs are straight construction costs and do not include contingencies, design and administrative costs, right-of-way
acquisition, or inflation factors.
** Cost can vary tremendously depending on terrain, right-of-way and design of the facility.
Wilbur Smith Associates May 2001.
~43700
PALO ALTO BICYCLE PLAN
Page 6 - 8
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
Comments on the Bike Plan
Likens, Gayle
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 1 of 34 pages
Page 1 of 2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Bonnie Packer [bbpacker@macol.net]
Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:57 AM
gayle_likens@city.palo-alto.ca.us; joseph_kott@city.palo-alto.ca.us
zariah_betten@city.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Comments on the Bike Plan
Zariah: Can you forward this to the other commissioners? Thanks.
Dear Oayle and Joe,
As I have said during the Planning Commission study and review sessions, the draft Palo Alto
Bicycle Transportation Plan is an excellent and thoughtful document. Below are some of my concerns
and comments.
I applaud the emphasis in the Plan on education for both cyclists and motorists. Use of multiple media
and creative and continuous approaches to this is critical to raise the levels of awareness of all of us.
The recommendations should reference the processes for evaluating the impact of the proposed
change on the safety conditions for motorists and pedestrians. The Bike Plan should make it clear that
each of these proposals would be evaluated during the design process with the appropriate public input
and necessary traffic and safety studies. In that regard, I recommend that the last goal on page 4-1
should state "to improve safety for cyclists, motorists and pedestrians alike."
While the plan does address the issue of the differing skil! levels of our existing and potential
bicycle population, I do not believe that all of the recommendations consider those who are less skilled
and experienced. The plan seems to favor the serious bicyclist by accommodating their need to speed.
I do not think this is appropriate. Serious bicyclists need to stop at stop signs too, to avoid running into
cars, people, kids on skateboards, etc. I do not think there should be an emphasis on eliminating stop
signs, especially near schools, parks and public and private community centers (which is almost
everywhere in Palo Alto).
Of particular concern is the recommendation to eliminate sidewalk bike paths. While I understand
the professional concerns about the safety of sidewalk bike riding, often the alternative is less safe. No
existing sidewalk bike path, such as the one on Embarcadero, should be removed until a very clearly
marked street bike path is installed with sufficient public fanfare and notice. Also, bike and pedestrian
undercrossings can only be accessed and exited by riding on the sidewalk for a short time. So these
would need to be maintained and enhanced.
A particularly unsafe and difficult access is the one to the 10!/Adobe Creek underpass. If you are
coming from Fabian, rather than cross East Bayshore twice, you may chose to ride on the narrow
sidewalk weaving between street lamps (located in the middle of the sidewalk) or go wrong way in the
bike lane, which is often occupied by illegally parked cars. Dilemmas such as this exist all over town
and need to be addressed.
All bicyclists should share the roads safely with, and should not create unsafe conditions for,
motorized vehicles. There are certain places where bicyclists should NOT be allowed. One is the
Oregon Expressway underpass under Alma and the Caltrain tracks. There is a California Avenue
bike/ped m~derpass for this crossing. Bicyclists who use the roadway instead create vev unsafe
conditions for the motorists who must slow down suddenly or swerve into the next lane to avoid hitting
the cyclist. This is also true of those who use Alma in the downtown area. There is barely room for
Comments on the Bike Plan Page 2 of 2
two car lanes there, let alone bikers. (I hope this situation is redesigned in connection with the proposed
Homer Avenue undercrossing.) "No Bike" areas should be identified with clear and unambiguous
signage and enforcement. This should be included in the Plan.
I wish to reinforce Ms. Cassei’s comment about showing the bike routes which go through our
many city parks.
Regarding the proposal for a Ross Road Bike Boulevard, please note the existence of the Palo Alto
Family YMCA on Ross Road. The Y encourages the use of alternate transport via its TDM program, so
clearly marked bike lanes or a bike boulevard on Ross would be a boost for that program. However, do
not elirninate stop signs at Ames and Loma Verde as Ross Road is used by many school age children.
(Palo Verde School is on Louis and Ames). Many streets such as Ross are used by children to get to
schools, parks and public and private community centers, even if that destination is not on that street.
If you have any questions about my comments, do not hesitate to call or e-mail me.
Bonnie Packer
Planning and Transportation Commissioner
PABAC
Date:
From:
To:
Subject:
July 9, 2002
Paul Goldstein, Chair, Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission
Comments on the Bicycle Transportation Plan
In an email to Joseph Kott and Gayle Likens dated June 18, 2002, Commissioner Packer
raises several issues regarding the Bicycle Transportation Plan. PABAC discussed these
issues during its meeting on July 2, and asked me to respond.
First, let me thank Commissioner Packer for raising these issues in writing. Although
PABAC disagees strongly with several of her comments, it is helpful and instructive to
have a direct and open exchange of opinions.
]. Closing some streets to bicyclists
Commissioner Packer states that "There are certain places where bicyclists should NOT
be allowed." California law guarantees a bicyclist’s right to the road and explicitly states
that bicyclists cannot be banned from public roads (there is an exception for freeways and
toll bridges). The relevant section of the California Vehicle Code is:
21200. (a) Every person riding a bicycle upon a [street or] highway
has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the
driver of a vehicle...
PABAC feels that as a matter of law and good public policy, the City should be working
towards making ALL Palo Alto streets safe for bicycle travel. The Streets and Highways
Code actually codifies this concept:
891. All city, county, regional, and other local agencies responsible for the
development or operation of bikeways or roadways where bicycle travel is
permitted shall utilize all minimum safety design criteria...
Clearly, some streets will be more attractive to bicyclists, but working towards a
multimodal transportation system should be the goal, and the safety of all users should be
paramount.
2. Stop signs
The Committee does not feel that the recommendations to limit the use of stop signs
especially along bicycle boulevards to be "favoring the serious bicyclist by
accommodating their need to speed." The concept of the bicycle boulevard is to provide a
safe, pleasant and efficient route for bicycles, while keeping automobile speed and
volume low. In order to encourage people to use their bikes for errands, commuting, etc.
we need to make it easy and attractive for them to bike where they are going. Stop signs
Comments on Bicycle Transportation Plan
July 9, 2002
Page 2
significantly add to the duration and exertion of a bike trip. Given the extra energy
required to accelerate from stop signs, they are probably even more of an impediment to
the casual rider who may have a heavier bike and less fitness than the serious cyclist.
Removal of stop signs is a fimdamental component of the bicycle boulevard concept, and
needs to be done in conjunction with other traffic control measures to reduce vehicular
speeds and volume.
That said, PABAC is not suggesting eliminating Palo Alto’s long-standing "guard and
go" system. On bicycle boulevards, the treatment has been to orient stop signs to the
cross streets, and give the boulevard the fight of way.
PABAC also wishes to make clear that it recognizes that many bicyclists do not obey
stop signs and that this is a safety hazard. The Committee supports stronger enforcement
of all traffic laws for bicyclists. In general, the police are reluctant to cite bicyclists for
violations, because the fines are so large. To this end, the Committee has been working
with the Police Department to reduce the fines associated with bicycle violations of
traffic laws, in order to encourage more active enforcement.
3. Sidewalk bike paths
The bike plan proposes the elimination of sidewalk bike paths for good reason: they are
unsafe. Numerous studies have reached the same conclusion. A good reference is
available on the web at http://www.bikexprt.corn/bikepol/facil/side!~ath/sidecrash.htm
Using the sidewalk for bicycling becomes increasingly unsafe as one exceeds the speed
of a pedestrian. Wrong-way riding is an additional factor. PABAC does not propose
banning bicycle riding on the sidewalk (except for the downtown area, where it is already
banned), but eliminating the signage suggesting practices known to be dangerous seems
only prudent.
I, and other members of PABAC, look forward to continuing our discussion of the bike
plan at our upcoming meeting.
planning and trans, 07:49 PM 5/30/200, Draft Bicycle Transportation P
To: planning and trans commission
From: George Browning <georgb@concentric.net>
Subject: Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan
Cc:
Bcc:
Attached:
Dear P & T Commission:
I received a copy of the draft bicycle plan which in general I support.
However, as the contact person for the Charleston Gardens
neighborhood, this is the first time I was aware that such plans were under
consideration, so ! have a couple of comments to make.
The plans calls for a proposed bicycle lane on Charleston between
Middlefield and San Antonio. This is quite welcomed in my neighborhood
if it means that Charleston will not be narrowed down to accommodate the
bicycle lanes. There is quite enough room to put a bicycle lane in and
retain four lanes of traffic, just like other sections of Charleston between
Alma and Middlefield. Narrowing down Charleston to tw~ lanes here is not
welcome in my neighborhood because it would increase our cut through
traffic.
I also hope that the proposed bicycle lanes for San Antonio Road will not
mean that road will be narrowed down to accommodate them. The traffic
on San Antonio backs up regularly at Middlefield, and when this happens
we get cut through traffic on both Montrose and Sutherland, so we hope a
bicycle lane here will not mean fewer lanes for San Antonio.
Thank you for your attention to these two matters.
Sincerely,
Jean Wilcox
Printed for George Browning <georgb@concentric.net>1
Page i of i
Likens, Gayle
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Kathy Durham [kfdurham @ earthlink.net].
Friday, May 31, 2002 1:13 PM
planning_commission @ city.palo-alto.ca.us
gayle_likens @ city.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Encouraging cycling in Palo Alto
Members of r.he Planning and Transportation Commission:
The Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan before you deserves praise for outlining many of the actions
needed to update Palo Alto’s reputation as a bicycle-friendly city. As someone who regularly bikes on a
wide range of local, collector and arterial streets in our fair city, I can attest that this is sorely needed. I
found myself reading the implementation plan in Chapter 6 and agreeing with virtually every
recommendation under the Policies and Action Steps section.
However, it doesn’t take a crystal ball to see that funding for any new city programs is going to be
scarce. I don’t see how many of the proposed objectives/action steps under maintenance, operations,
construction/renovation and planning could be funded from existing revenue sources, and even an
aggressive pursuit of the outside funding sources listed in the repo:’t is unlikely to generatemore than a
fraction of the $20.2 million estimated cost of the "high priority" projects that would improve the city’s
bicycle network.
My major concern is that decision makers do not realize the consequences of continuing the status quo.
Unless things change dramatically, in 2010 data on biking as a way to get around in this city will show
nor the increased weekday bicycle mode split discussed in Appendix B, but a continuation of the sharp
decline in biking documented in Table 2-3 and Figure 3.
As the chair of the PTA Council Traffic Safety Committee, I’d like to reinforce this point by sharing
data on the percentage of students bicycling to PAUSD secondary schools in 1985 compared to last fall:
1985 2001
Jordan 74%22%
JLS 46%23%
Paly 33 %11%
Gunn 20%14%
If we are serious about our stated priorities in the Comprehensive Plan to reduce dependence on the
single-occupant vehicle, we need to stop this slide in bicycling, and hopefully reverse it in the next few
years. How to do this is what we ought to be focusing on in the discussion of this plan.
I wit1 provide some suggestions along these lines in further comments to you.
-- Kathy Durham
2039 Dartmouth Street
Page 1 of 3
Likens, Gayle
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 14:07:28 -0700
To: planning_commission@city.palo-alto.ca.us
From: Jeff Brown <jbrow~3 @mail.arc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan
Cc: Kathy Durham <kfdurham@earthlink.net>,
Rich Swent <Richard.Swent@stanford.edu>,
Claudia Bloom <claudiabloom@hotmail.com>
Dear Planning and Transportation Commissioners:
Before offering my comments on the Draft Plan, tet me say that I’ve lived in Palo Alto since early 1984,
and have always used, and advocated the use of a bicycle as a primary means of transportation.
Furthermore, since first becoming a parent in 1992, and eagerly awaiting and plarming for the day when
my children would be able to enjoy riding their own bicycles (proud parent comment: my kindergartner
.just conquered her two-wheeler o’~er the Memorial Day weekend!), I’ve also become much more attuned
to the obstacles which stand in the way of more wide-spread bicycle use.
While those obstacle are many, and I’ll discuss some others of them below, I believe the biggest one, by
far, is the perceived physical threat posed by motor vehicles. I say "perceived," because, while statistics
would surely show that the vast majority of cyclists are not involved in accidents with automobiles, it is
the individual’s sense that he/she or, worse, his/her child could be the one, and knowledge of the
catastrophic consequences that could result, which provide the largest barrier.
The biggest auto-related threats to bicyclists, who are otherwise riding properly and safely, come from
drivers who are distracted, confused, or frustrated (often in combination) and from situations where
visibility is impaired (e.g., by large vehicles, encroaching vegetation, sun glare, etc.). Of course, poor
visibility can contribute markedly to driver distraction, etc. Certainly, higher traffic volumes do. They
also lead to more dangerous driver behavior, such as rushing through intersections to beat a red lights.
Additionally, by shear numerical probability, higher auto traffic volumes increase the likelihood of
bicycle-auto mishap.
Given how large an obstacle to bicycle use increasing traffic volumes are, I was distressed to see
that this Draft Plan barely paid lip service (on page 6-4, under "6. Promotion") to finding ways to
significantly reversing that trend.
Furthermore, I find it very hard to take seriously a March 2002 report for Palo Alto which bases its
assessment of "Existing Conditions" (Chapter 2) and "Estimated Future Demand" (Appendix B) for
bicycling on the 1990 Census, a 1990 MTC Bay Area-wide survey, and an annual RIDES telephone
survey which provides no data specific to our city,.
Then, in Appendix B, in an attempt to explain away the folly of using 12 year old data (of questionable
value to begin with), the assertion is made thai longer commute distances and the change in
Page 2 of 3
demographics (i.e., increased wealth), which might lower the prospects for.greater bicycle use, are offset
by increased traffic congestion and a younger resident population, which should raise prospects!
I don’t know about you all, but it’s not the graying crowd that I see driving their SUVs to Starbucks,
Whole Foods, and all over the rest of town. And, as I indicated above, I dofft believe at all that bicycle
use increases with traffic congestion. Even the Draft Plan’s own data, questionable as they are, seem to
argue the opposite in Table 2-1.
In further promoting its view of furore demand, Appendix B categorizes 6 miles as "an easv bike
commute distance" and says that it should require about 30 minutes to cover that distance. As someone
who has long ridden almost exactly that distance to work in just that amount of time, and is in very good
physical condition, I can tell you that it is not easz! Particularly not when you account for things like
traffic lights, traffic volumes, hills, head winds, flat tires, weather, daylight hours, the need to carry
items to/from work, the need for transportation once at work, the need to take/pick up kids to/from
school and other activities... All factors the Draft Plan chose to ignore.
Regarding the specific proposed improvements, I have a number of questions/comments,
including:
o ;VVhy should it cost anywhere near $6.5 million to institute a safe raikoad crossing, anywhere!?
Why can’t we just have gated, grade-level crossings where the gates will only open on demand,
and then only ifa train is not in the vicinity? I’m no contractor, but I’d guess well below $500,000
for something like that. And, with night-time lighting, it could be a lot more safe and attractive to
prospective riders than an under or overpass.
o And, why would one propose spending $13 M to put RR crossings at both Homer and at
Everett, when there are already crossings a few blocks away at University and at Alma/El
Camino, respectively, before putting at least one between California and East Meadown?
o Regarding the latter, while I like the notion of a Matadero Creek bicycle path with a crossover
to the west side of Alma, I’d much rather see the crossover accomplished via a traffic signal at
Alma and Loma Verde (this could achieve other distinct benefits regarding auto traffic on,
entering, and leaving Alma) and grade-level, gated pathway (see fJ_rst bullet) connecting directly
to the proposedMatadero Ave Bike Boulevard.
° And, why should it cost anything clos____~e to $4 million to improve the California Ave underpass?!
¯ And, finally, with both the Bryant Street and Park Blvd/Witkie Way Bike Boulevards so near
(literally a "stone’s throw" for the latter), and running parallel, why would anyone seek to bring
bicyclists onto Alma Street?! The proposed changes (including removing the center left-turn lane
in an area where cars often approach each other at a relative speed of over 100 MPH: 50 MPH
each way) and resources allotted, not to mention the priority given to this element, seem grossly
irresponsible.
As a technical d~cument, the Draft Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Plan leaves muchto be desired. It
makes numerous specious claims and projections based on, or in some cases to justify the use of highly
questionable, if not downright irrelevant data. Meanwhile, it fails to deal with, or even account for many
of the significant obstacles people face in contemplating more frequent bicycle use. Furthermore, some
of the specific proposals regarding enhancing the city’s bicycle transportation network are flawed and
even irresponsible in my view.
Page 3 of 3
However, the biggest flaw to the Draft Plan in my view is its failure to deal directly with the single
most significant barrier to attaining real bicycle (and pedestrian) friendliness in Palo Alto:
namely, the preponderance of automobiles and the distractions caused to their drivers. Instead, it
seems to operate on the assumption that some superficial changes to our roads, far fewer structural ones,
and some token efforts at education and promotion are going to lead to some kind of sea change in
people’s transportation mode choices.
I think that I am among the most adamant of city residents when it comes to promoting the desirability,
and downright importance of getting people out of their cars and onto bicycles and other alternative
~’ansportation modes. I support, and even am excited by some of the proposals in this Draft Plan.
However, as a comprehensive, multi-year policy directive by which to allocate significant city resources,
for the reasons I’ve stated above, I feel it’s inadequate.
I hope the Commission will consider these comments, and request substantive modification to the Plan
by its authors, before sending it on to the City Council. Ptease contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Jeff Brown
(660 Lincoln Ave)
Jeff Brown
Senior Research Scientist, ELOKET
Mail Stop 230-2
NASA!Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA 94035
Phone: 650-604-6192
Fax: 650-604-0350
E-mail: jbrown3 @mail.arc.nasa.gov
827 La Para Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94306
May 31, 2002
Planning Commisssion
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton
Palo Alto, California 94301
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I am writing in hearty support of the Bicycle Transportation Plan and
asking in particular that you endorse the bike boulevards recommended in that
plan for Barton Park: Maybell, Georgia and Donald, and that you consider adding
the upper section of Los Robles and Amaranta to that group.
I am a Barron Park resident, a seasoned, seven-year PTA Traffic Safety
Representative, co-chair of Gurm’s Go-Fast organization which supports
alternative transportation, and an experienced cyclist, familiar with uban,
mountain, and suburban biking.
The four schools of Barron Park, Juana Briones, Barron Park, Gunn, and,
in eighteen months, Terman would particularly benefit from the boulevards which
slow car traffic and have no striping. Because such boulevards have no striping,
approaching cars will swing wide of cyclists and pedestrians, giving them a wide
berth and providing a margin for error.
The boulevards are in conflict, however, with the current trend, as
evidenced by the Safe Routes for Schools project submitted this past week by the
City, a project which proposes bicycle lanes and centerstripes for Maybell and
Donald. Such lanes are marketable because they make the road appear safer for
cyclists: the cyclists’ presence is recognized by the stripe and legend and cyclists
are assigned a portion of the road. But such lanes make roads like those of Barron
Park, which do not have heavy volume at rapid speeds, less safe.
American drivers do not like to cross a centerline, even a broken one, and
will often ride close to the bike lane stripe and a cyclist’s body. Drivers tend to
treat both the centerstripe and the bike lane stripe as walls rather than painted
lines. Drivers also do not expect cyclists to leave the bike lane, yet obstructions
in the lane (gravel, glass) often require the cyclist to pull out. Bike lanes in Barron
Park, instead of bike boulevards, would be less appropriate for schoolchildren and
other cyclists as well.
Bike boulevards would reinforce in the best way the present character of
Barron Park streets, rather narrow, unstriped roads, well suited to cyclists of all
ages. (Only a two-block section of Los Robles from E1 Camino and a half-block of
Georgia have a center stripe.) Even collector streets such as Maybelt in Barron
Park are suitable for bike boulevards because they "collect" only neighborhood
traffic. Barron Park is bounded on the north by Matadero Creek and on the west
by Bol Park and Gurm, so it has no through traffic.
In sum, the bike boulevards proposed in the Bicycle Plan would be
valuable and welcome; they could be augmented in number but should not be
superseded by installing bike lanes and centerstripes.
Sincerely
Joan C. Marx
~Like~s, ~Ga_~
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 11:39:06-0700
From: grace liu<grace.liu@earthlink.net>
To: plan ning_commission@city, palo-alto.ca, us
Subject: Comments on Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan
Dear Commission,
I am a parent of children who attend both Escondido Elementary School and
Jordan Middle School, and currently serve as the PTA Traffic Safety Rep for
Escondido School.
I have been involved in ensuring the safety of the routes and promoting
bicycling to Escondido school particularly for our students who reside in
the Evergreen and College Terrace neighborhoods. In doing so, many parents
from the Evergreen neighborhood located east of El Camino have voiced their
concerns for the Stanford AvenuelEI Camino intersection as there have been
many ’near misses’ between pedestrians/bicyclist and cars in that
intersection. Currently, most kids residing in that neighborhood come to
school in their parent’s cars or carpools, except for special events such
as Walk your Kids to School Day.
I applaud your plan which recommends that the stretch of Stanford Avenue
between El Camino and Park Blvd be newly designated as a bike lane, but 1
would urge you to work with Caltrans and others to improve the most
critical obstacle (El Camino/Stanford intersection) to increasing bicycle
safety and reducing the current state of auto dependency of many Palo Alto
school children.
On a similar note, many former Escondido students now ride their bikes from
the West side of El Camino (mainly College Terrace residents) to Jordan
Middle School. The route that many of these bicyclists take is not listed
in your recommended bicycle network. They cross El Camino at Cambridge,
proceed down to Park BIvd then to the California Avenue Underpass. The
route was recommended by parents as the lesser of 3 evils, even though it’s
got its drawbacks in the afternoons when Cambridge becomes quite a busy
street with cars going from/to businesses on both sides of the street.
California Avenue is just too busy of a street, the intersection at El
Camino leaves little room for bicyclists, and the current design of the
business district doesn’t provide a clear bike path for these kids to use.
Stanford Avenue, which was once the recommended route because it’s located
within residential areas on both sides of El Camino, is no longer viable
since Starbucks moved into the corner of Stanford and El Camino and its
customers’ driving behavior have made that corner very unsafe. So now this
same intersection that promotes auto dependency for elementary students
from the Evergreen neighborhood, is also keeping middle school children
from having a safer route to school.
Lastly, I noticed On your Recommended Bicycle Network that the business
district of California Avenue required further study in order to enhance
bicycle safety. I would like to bring the following relevant situation to
your attention. In the mornings, the southbound bike lanes on Park Blvd
approaching the California Avenue Underpass is frequently unavailable for
use due to the number of vans parked on the street that are unloading
merchandise for Mollie Stone’s grocery store. Kids do various sorts of
things to get around the vans, all riding on the wrong side of the road and
most likely on the sidewalk. This situation should be remedied immediately
as numerous Jordan students and commuter bycyclists currently use this
route and 1 would appreciate your help in this matter.
Thank you, Grace Liu
From: AttenBerg@aol.com
Date: lVion, 3 Jun 2002 01:38:47 EDT
Subject: Comments
To: planning_commission @cityopalo-altooca.us
I am the PTA Traffic .Safety Rep for Ohlone and I live in the Fairmeadow
neighborhood near JL~, Fairmeadow and Hoover.
The suggestion to place a median at the intersection of Bryant and E
Meadow makes sense for serious bike commuters (ie adults) but does not
make sense for adolescents and younger children. It is just too scary, or
requires too much judgement, to cross one lane of traffic and then
another unaided.
Strongly consider a light that only is triggered when a crossing button is
pressed = it only impacts traffic when someone, or, a bike or on foot,
needs to cross the street. At most times of day, Meadow is easily crossed
at Bryant, but from 7:45-8:30am and from 2:30-3:15pm it can be very
difficult, even for an adult.
Suzanne Attenborough 3732 Carlson Circle, Palo Alto
June 4, 2002
To:Planning and Transportation Commission, City of Palo Alto
From:Kathy Durham, 2039 Dartmouth Street
Subject:Draft City Bike Plan: How can we reverse the decline in cycling?
I’m here tonight as someone who has been involved with traffic safety issues in my
neighborhood and in our schools since 1991, but I’m speaking as an individual and not on
behalf of the PTA Council or the College Terrace Residents’ Association.
First, i’d like to express my strong support for the proposed policies and action steps in
the implementation Plan outlined on the first 3 pages of Chapter 6 in the Draft Bicycle
Transportation Plan before you. So whatever else you do tonight, i urge you to speed
these recommendations on their way.
For decades, this city has claimed to be a bicycle-friendly city but has treated its cyclists as
second class citizens, asking those of us who bike to put up with poor maintenance of existing
bikeways as well as facilities that don’t meet recommended standards. I’m one of the people
who keeps badgering Gayle Likens about all-too-frequent hazards like:
~ bike lanes where tree branches hang down in the cyclists’ faces;
o signs warning drivers about important bike crossings being obscured by shrubs; or
o road construction projects where the contractors - and sometimes the city supervisors of
those projects - are oblivious to Palo Alto’s requirements to provide safe passage for
cyclists, especially in the vicinity of schools.
I’m sure that we’ll both be happier when the steps outlined under the sections on Maintenance,
Operations and Construction/Renovation are all incorporated into the standard priorities and
procedures used by Public Works, Utilities, and all the other work crews that impinge upon the
public right of way.
Second, I want to comment about the proposed action steps for Planning, Education/
Safety, Promotion and Funding/Implementation on page 6-4 and the top of 6-5. Taken
one by one, each is commendable. But they are not enough to reverse the decline in
biking to work and biking to school that has occurred since the early 1980s. And they
certainly are not enough to get us to the increased mode share for cyclists dreamed
about in Appendix B.
For example, conducting yearly counts of bicycle traffic and analyzing bicycle accident reports
to identify causes and remedies is something I have been begging for since 1995. Both the
police department and transportation staff have told me that current staffing levels do not
permit this task to be done. But if we don’t understand the causes of bike accidents, how can
we take effective action to reduce the risk of injury to cyclists? And shouldn’t we be alarmed
that despite strong decline in the numbers of adults and children cycling in this town~, there is
no comparable decline in the number of accidents reported? 2
What 1 can report is on behalf of both parents across the school district and a broad range of
residents in my neighborhood is that since the early 1990’s there has been a strong
increase in the perceived lack of safety on local and collector streets, and that arterials
are increasingly seen as barriers to be crossed only in motor vehicles, not on foot or
bike. Here’s some evidence:
in 1994, we asked a random sample of district parents who regularly drove their children
to school why they made that choice. The top two answers were convenience and
distance from school, with traffic safety concerns clearly in third place. In 1999, a survey
done at JLS asked parent drivers a similar question, but "risks of auto traffic" and the
heavy backpack issue were tied for first place, and "enjoy driving my child" was third.
In 1993, my older son and his classmates started 6t" gradeat Jordan Middle School, and
almost all of them biked from College Terrace. In 1997, when my younger son started at
Jordan, the increased volume of cars on El Camino and on Stanford Avenue meant that
more parents were driving their kids. Last summer, I helped lead a demonstration ride
for the current 6t~ graders, but only a minority of their parents felt comfortable with their
11 year olds crossing El Camino, negotiating the area behind Mollie Stone’s and dealing
with the congestion near the school. So now the majority of College Terrace kids are
driven to Jordan. This means that in the last eight years, there’s been a strong trend in
the opposite direction from the goal of the Bike Plan and our Comprehensive Plan.
Of course, I don’t have any magic solution that will reverse this trend. But 1 think a few main
elements of a solution are clear.
o A plan that is focused mainly on improvements desired by serious commuter cyclists, will
probably fail to produce the hoped for increase in the percentage of trips made by bike.
Commute trips to work only account for one fifth of all trips.
o Instead, we need to look at what people need to feel comfortable biking for a higher
share of other kinds of trips. Unless we persuade more people to get out of their cars
more often for those dashes to the store for a gallon of milk or trip to the fitness center,
Palo Alto in 2010 is not going to look anything like the vision in our Comprehensive Plan.
o Kids who stop biking in middle school aren’t likely to start again in high school.
We PTA volunteers can’t turn this around without the city and the school district making it
a much higher priority combine to improve safety on school commute corridors and
reduce congestion near our schools.
o More attention needs to be paid to the data and conclusions of the School
Commute Safety Study done in 1995-96. We never implemented the proposal for trial
improvements and signage to a particular street used by students, to evaluate the
improved safety and increased willingness of families to let their children walk or bike to
school.
~We need to think of this Bicycle Plan as integrated with our Neighborhood Traffic
Calming Program. On page C-3, we’re told that after traffic calming reduced speeds on
Milvia Street in Berkely, cycling increased by 49% and 117% on different street
segments. But here in Palo Alto, we have the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
proposing special red poles on stop signs, while the Bicycle Plan advocates removing
unwarranted stop signs without a strong education program to counter residents’
misperceptions about signs.
Finally, i want to express concern both about the list of "high priority" projects given in
Table 6-3 and the criteria used to rank them, listed in Table 6-2. Of course, pushing one’s
favorite project or dissing one that seems over-valued is what most people commenting on this
plan Will tej3d to do. Certainly that’s what most of the comments made by the City/School
Traffic Safety Committee focused on. But we only had a week to study this tome, and having
the information about the projects scattered between Chapter 6, Appendix G and Appendix K
didn’t help.
These criteria and the projects simply need more discussion: Just to take one example,
see # 8 - Newell. In Appendix K, this project is given 11 points (low priority) but when !
scored it using the same criteria I got 16 points (high priority):
+ 1: Remedies obstacles (narrow bike lanes and intersection at Embarcadero are
obstacles for student cyclists - bike lane disappears, right turning cars)
+ 1: Should be H for route to school - ends at Newell/California, immediately
adjacent to school’s bike racks
+ 1 Bicycle traffic volume - definitely a Medium (in 1980’s, would have been "High")
+ 1 Access to adjacent jurisdictions - link to EPA via bridge
+ 1 Seems to me this fits the Medium criteria
My point here is not to argue for funding the Newell project, but to say that these priority
rankings seem heavily weighted toward the problems perceived by "serious" adult
cyclists, rather than the folks we need to get onto bikes if we want to reach our goal.
1 hope these comments are helpful to you in your deliberations. Thank you.
~ Bike counts at PAUSD secondary schools compared to the size of the student body show a uniform
trend, comparing the percentage of students bicycling to in 1985 to last fall:
1985 2001
Jordan 74%22%
JLS 46%23%
Paly 33%11%
Gunn 20%14%
2 I was also exceedingly disappointed that the so-called "collision analysis" in chapter 2 of this draft plan
just gives yearly totals and the intersections where 4 or more collisions between bikes and motor
vehicles occurred between 1993-98. A few questions:
o Why weren’t we given a breakdown of collisions involving cyclists under 16 versus those 16 and
over? We undertook a major strengthening of the bicycle education program in the schools
beginning in 1994 - has it reduced the share of collisions involving younger cyclists?
Also, how many of the collisions involved cyclists crossing major arterials as opposed to biking on
the arterials themselves. Were the cars turning or going straight? What about the cyclists? Do
the different age groups have different accident patterns or locations?
We’re now halfway through 2002, Why does the data provided e~d in 1998?
Betten, Zariah
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ken Poulton [poulton@zonker.labs.agilent.c0m]
Thursday, June 06, 2002 9:13 PM
plandiv_info@city.palo-alto.ca, us
Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan - comment
! understand that the Draft Bike Plan calls for the official bike
lane on Los Robles to be extended from La Donna to Laguna. As a
resident on that part of Los Robles, ! ~trongly support this plan.
~Je have a lot of school-related bike traffic on Los Robles (for Juana
Briones, Gunn, and kids headed to JLS). Most residents avoid parking in
the marked, but unofficial bike lane. However, a few people habitually
(and unecessarily) park cars in the bike lane, forcing bikes to swerve
into the traffic lanes.
Making this portion of Los Robles an official bike lane will allow
us to clear the bike lanes and make this safer.
Most of this portion of Los P, obles can fit the new 4+9.5+9.5+4
bike lane profile just with restriping. There may be a width issue in
the short section from Orme street to Laguna. ! would advocate doing
what we can in that section, but compromising if necessary to avoid
impacting yards on the south side of the street or trees on the north
side.
I’m sure these details will be worked out at the right time.
strongly support the plan.
Ken Poulton
poulton @labs.agilent.com
884 Los Robles Ave
Betten, Zariah
From:Jerome Coonen [jcoonen@.xetus.com]
Sent:Friday, June 07, 2002 8:59 AM
To:plandiv_info@city, palo-alto.ca, us
Subject:FW: Official bike lane for Los Robles
Sirs and Mesdames,
Please don’t abandon this aspect of the draft bike plan:
>> On Los Robles between La Donna and Laguna, the shoulders will be
>> converted into official bike lanes (they currently are not
>> quite wide
>> enough to be official bike lanes).
I live just off Los Robles on Orme St. and my family of four bikes up
and down Los Robles probably more than any full household in Barton Pk.
Right now, the street is mildly safe, at best. There is minimal room
for bikes outside the auto lane stripe, and neighbors consistently
park large vehicles over what little bike path there is.
Los Robles is an important school corridor:
# connecting K-5 students to Juana Briones at 4100 Orme
# carrying many biking and walking students to Gunn, essentially
at the end of Los Robles
# serving as bike corridor for 6-8 graders to JI.S
In the last case, Terman is the new site of choice, but there are
still JLS students from this neighborhood and ultimately Barton
Park students attending the "real" Terman site will need Los
Robles to get across Barton Park.
Los Robles is also an important social corridor for young people:
# connecting Barton Park folks to the popular spots --
Blockbuster Video, Jamba Juice, and Baja Fresh -- down
in the historical All American Market site
Los Robles is a surprisingly fast neighborhood street, the 25mph
recommendation notwithstanding. Traffic to and from El (:amino
provides the obvious excitement, but there is also significant
feeder traffic to Arastradero via the Amaranta/Maybell/(:oulombe
corridor. Amaranta intersects Los Robles at a TEE at about the
midpoint of Los Robles, providing many exciting turns to and
from Amaranta. Amaranta has a Stop, but Los Robles has no
control.
Thanks for your attention.
Betten, Zariah
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Linda J. Sanford [linda@hybridge.com]
Friday, June 07, 2002 2:43 PM
plandiv_info@city.palo-alto.ca.us
bike paths to Jordan
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 14:57:33 -0700
To: plannin~_commission@city.paio-alto.ca.us
From: Kathy Durham <kfdurham@earthlink.net>
Subject: City bike plan and encouraging cycling to Jordan
Cc: Linda Sanford <linda@hybridge.com>
Members of the Planning Commission:
Linda Sanford, PTA traffic safety representative for Jordan Middle
School, has asked me to forward the message below for your consideration
on xPdednesday
night.
-- Kathy Durham, chair, Traffic Safety Committee, Paio Alto Council of
PTA~
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 09:44:47 -0700
From: "Linda J. Sanford" <linda@hybridge.com>
To: Kathy Durham <kfdurham@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: P.A. Bike Plan
As a traffic safety representative for Jordan Middle School, ! would
like to comment on the proposed improvements to city bikeways as they
relate to middle
schoolers’ routes to Jordan. Middle school is the time when the time
when the greatest number of students are capable of getting to school
independently without
using cars. XX/e should do everything we can to support students who
choose to get to school by bike (or scooters, or skateboards) by
providing them with safe and
efficient routes.
! su~;gest that a bike path be developed from Harriet and Hopkins through
Rinconada Park to Embarcadero and Neweli. Many of the Jordan students
who live in
the area north of Rinconada/Lucie Stern are currently driven to school
because of concerns about traffic on Middlefield or on Newell. Those who
do bike are
tempted to ride on Middlefield, traveling south on the sidewalks. Most
of these ride on the east side of the road (facing traffic, like a
pedestrian), and although this is
allowed, it is quite unsafe at intersections, if they ride on the
correct side, they have to cross Middlefield twice, includin~ at the
uncontrolled intersection at the front
of the school.
Currently, there are significant gaps in the existing sidewalks in
Rinconada Park which effectively prevent this route from being used by
cyclists commuting to Jordan.
Filling in these ~aps with a bikeable l~ath could make a big difference.
It would allow for. all bicyclists from this area to ride on a safe route
and arrive at the front bike
cage via the Newell/California intersection which now has an adult
crossing guard. Please consider implementing this option for our Jordan
students. This would add
one more safe route for bicyclists, and encourage a reduction in car
trips to and from schools, one of our primary goals.
Thank you,
Linda Sanford
Jordan Traffic Safety Representative
2231 South Court
Likens, Gayle
From:
Sent:
To:
SubJect:
Betten, Zariah
Friday, June 07, 2002 10:44 AM
Likens, Gayle; Elimisha, Olubayo
FW: Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan
Gayle/Olu: I did not manage to get this into the PTC packet on Friday. The ones that I left on your .chair Gayle, I did place
them into the packets. 1 will put this one at places next Wednesday night.
--Original Message~
From: Susan Luttner [mailto:suelu@ix.netcomcom]
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 2:40 AM
To: plandiv_info@city.pa!o-alto.ca.us
Subject: Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan
Dear Planning Commission,
Thanks so much for soliciting community input on the Bicycle Plan.
I think a bicycle path on Maybell and Donald is a *great* idea. Maybell is-
already a well-known hazard for children walking and biking to and from
school. The new high-density housing along El Camino has increased traffic
levels, which will surely rise again when the Terman Middle School opens. At
the minimum, signage and striping would help keep cars and children on
separate parts of the road. In the long run, we will need to make the
shoulders more consistent to really make Maybell safe for students.
But the path is logical with or without the school. The Terman site abuts
the bicycle-pedestrian bridge to Los Altos. That path now heads toward the
high school. Connecting it to the neighborhood through Terman, using the
existing signal at Donald, would complete a valuable arter~ to the denser
housing and businesses along El Camino.
Thank you for your attention.
Sue Luttner
4035 Orme Street
Palo Alto CA 94306
650-424-0824
Betten, Zariah
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Bobgmoss@aol.com
Tuesday, June 11, 2002 4:20 PM
plandiv_info@city.palo-alto.ca.us
moran@ai.sri.com; poulton@zonker.labs.agilent.com; gayle_likens@city.palo-alto.ca.us
Bike Lanes in Barton Park
This was sent originally 2 weeks ago and apparently never arrived. Here is a
revised version with additional information about the proposed bike lanes in
Barron Park.
The proposed bike lanes on Los Robles need to be tailored for varying
conditions along the street. Some sections have enough room to accommodate a
4 foot lane now, others do not.
i measured the width of the existing bike lanes at 35 places between Laguna
and La Donna. The existing bike lane is 5 to 6 feet wide in almost all
places on the South side of the street and needs no paving in the shoulders.
It could use some minor paving on the edges to fill in holes and straighten
out the edges, but that will be a very minor encroachment into the shoulder
and should not raise right-of=way issues. The narrowest sections are by
Arbol and in front of 709 Los Robles. There are bushes at the edge of the
property at 709, and an SUV often parks between the bushes and street. At
times it partly covers the bike lane, narrowing it to less than 4’.
On the North side between La Donna and Orme the bike lane is narrower,
between 36" and 50" wide. There are a few places where the paving may need
to be extended 6 to 12 ", but not 2 feet. The narrowest paved bike lane
section is at 792 Los Robles where the lane is 3’ wide. Widening the
existing bike lane will come within about 18" of one or 2 trees and utility
poles in various places. Most of the shoulder area can remain about as is
and won’t need paving.
The narrow street section is from Orme to Laguna. The North side bike path
needs to be widened by about 18", which will bring the pavement to within a
foot of a tree and utility pole. This small gap between the path, tree and
utility pole is undesirable but probably is acceptable.
The South side bike path between Orme and Laguna is a bit over 2’ wide from
the line on the street to the edge of the valley gutter. The only ways that
a 4’ wide bike
lane can be installed
on the South side are to widen the bike lane and take 2’ from the street
width~ or put the bike path between the inside edge of the valley gutter and
the property. This requires easements and would cause cyclists to cross the
valley gutter at Orme. This is an inferior choice.
It probably would be simplest to leave the existing markings on the South
side of Los Robles from Orme to Laguna and not try to widen the bike lane.
The bike path can be Widened to 4’ on the North side by encroaching about I’
into the shoulder. It is not clear whether the city has an adequate easement
on the North side of Los Robles to widen the paved area for bikes. There
certainly is no easement on the South side.
How does the City plan to locate 4’ wide bike lanes on the block between Orme
and Laguna? ~XJha~ easements and paving will be required? Are the existing
bike lanes adequate or must they be widened? ~X/e need more details on the
design and extent of encroachments to properly evaluate this plan.
It would be helpful to refresh the center stripe when bike lanes are painted
on Los Robles. ~YJe noticed that when there are new, visible edge and center
lines on the street, drivers slow down. The same would be true of La Donna,
Barton, Laguna and Matadero.
As for bike routes elsewhere, such as on El Centro or Barren, putting up
signs won’t have much effect. People ride on almost all the streets already
with little conflict between bikes and cars. Almost everyone who lives in
Barton Park is familiar with the streets and is comfortable riding bikes
anyplace. Outsiders will probably stick to major streets that have
stoplights at El Camino like ~.os Robles and Matadero. The signs won’t hurt
anything, but i question if they will make much difference°
Bob Moss
4010 Orme
Pal Alto, Ca 94306
,Bike Plan Page 1 of 2
Betten, Zariah
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Kirsten Flynn [kir@declan.com]
Thursday, June 13, 2002 5:59 PM
plandiv_info@city, palo-alto.ca.us
gayle_likens@city.palo-alto.ca.us
Bike Plan
Dear Planning and Transportation Commission,
I would like to comment on the cities Draft bike plan. I will be unable to attend the City/School
Traffic Safety Committee Action next Thursday. I will be out of town.
Firstly I would like to say that I support many aspects of the Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan, I
am happy that this issue is being addressed, and commend the work that has already been
done
I wanted to support the idea that any solution that you consider should not focus exclusively on
the "serious bicyclist". Any solution that will truly affect the number of automobile commute
trips we experience in Palo Alto must replace errand-running, kid hauling trips. We must try
harder to not just reverse the trend away from commuting to school by bike, but to increase
bicycle use for other short trips.
I am very committed to cycling, my two children commute to Barron Park School across El
Camino Real, and I have a third child who will be starting Kindergarten this fall. My husband
commutes to work in Mountain View 3-5 times a week by bike, and I run errands and take my
youngest to daycare by bike. I am sure I do not need to tell you that getting across town at the
time that school gets out is difficult. Additionally, at the time of the morning school commute
there are people commuting to work it their cars. I feel very unsafe riding with my children and
am afraid whenever they bike by themselves. If the commute fills the heart of a committed
cyclist with such trepidation, it is easy to see how it would send the rest of the population out to
their car. We need to make the commutes safer and easier.
Some of my key general concerns are:
* Bicycle lanes should be clearly marked, kept free of parked cars and debris and
should lead to safe and well marked street crossings. Markings should include
both street paint, and signage in all cases. There should be bike lanes in primary
bike routes to all schools, especially all Middle schools.
* Lights should be timed so that there is adequate time to cross, even for a young
child. Often my 8 year old barely makes it across El Camino, because the high
hump makes it hard to get up speed.
* El Camino cross traffic waits so long to enter the street at a light that the drivers
often run the end of a yellow rather than wait for another long light. This should be
patrolled and there should be a delay on the green. I often have seen a right
turning car heading towards my children as they cross with a pedestrian walk
signal.
06/14/2002
Bike Plan Page 2 of 2
* Matadero in Barron Park between El Camino and Whitsell is difficult to negotiate,
although it is much safer than Barron as a route to Barron School.
I am sure you know the most targeted actions to take, and will get plenty of input from the
community. I do not want to bother you with too many specifics.
In closing, bicycle traffic must be considered on a par with. auto traffic, if it is to be encouraged,
not secondary users of the road. I know that the benefits of increasing cycling traffic would be
great for all Palo AItans. Lets make every effort to make it happen. I am eager to see how
these priorities are addressed.
Thank you for your time in reading this!
Kirsten Flynn
471 Matadero Ave.
06/14/2002
Betten, Zariah
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Markus Fromherz [rnarkus_fromherz@yahoo.com]
Friday, June 14, 2002 3:10 PM
plandiv_info@city.palo-alto.ca.us
gayle_likens@city, palo-alto.ca, us; kfdurham@earthlink.net
Dear Planning and Transportation Committee,
Here are some comments on the Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Plan
(March 2002). I am writing as a bicycle commuter, as the parent of two
children that | hope will bike to school for a long time, and as the
traffic safety representative at Paio Verde Elementary School.
Overall, i’m very impressed by the detail and comprehension of the
plan. Some of the suggestions that resonated strongly with me:
- There are too many stop signs, in particular four-way stops. Many
intersections could be improved, both for cars and for bicycles (and
for pedestrians), by replacing four-way stops with either two-way stops
or roundabouts.
- Good East-~Jest connections are not as plenty as North-South
connections. The plan makes some good proposals to fix this, in
particular building and improving underpasses to cross the train
tracks.
- Parking spaces should be reduced where possible, without taking away
spaces if there are no alternatives. (An example ! happen to know of is
Addison, where many residents don’t have garages.)
- Pavement is pretty bad in some places, even new pavement. ~’m riding
on streets that were repaved beautifully four years ago, crossing
streets that were done badly last year. ! don’t understand why.
- Palo Alto should be less cautious in introducing traffic circles.
They improve the flow while keeping speeds low.
- ! like some of the campaign ideas, in particular the one about a
regular bike day or bike night.
! don’t know where Palo Alto’s decision makers are in adopting such a
comprehensive plan. This plan looks at many different, relevant facets,
from improving streets to encouraging employers. ! hope Paio Alto
doesn’t just pick a few of these aspects and neglects the others. The
decline of bicycling in Paio Alto over the last decade is deplorable,
and it seems that only bold measures will reverse this trend and
improve traffic (safety) in Palo Alto.
The plan doesn’t make some radical proposai~ that in my view should be
considered. Making for example downtown more bike-friendly means
limiting car access on University. One city ~ know that was successful
in making the inner city more friendly to shoppers, tourists and
residents did it by drastically removing parking. ~ believe University
Ave. would be a much bigger attraction if all car parking on University
would be removed and replaced by bike lanes. Drivers would instead park
their cars on the periphery of downtown. This is just one example of
how one could! fundamentally change the emphasis and tone of a place
and, in my view, make it both more attractive and viable for the long
term°
Sincerely,
Markus Fromherz
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo] - Official partner of 2002 FIFA ~X/orld Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
Lio kens,, Ga,~
From:
Sent:
To:
C¢:
Subject:
Joan Marx [joan_marx@arczip.com]
Monday, June 24, 2002 6:22 PM
gayle_likens@city.palo-alto.ca.us
donand@pacbell.net; kvam@pacbell.ne; marmot@stanford.edu
bike plan notes
Hi, Gayle. Here are the best routes to Gunn at present with notes about
what is needed to make them safer.
Route Suggestions:
1.East of El Camino and north of Charleston: Bryant or Wilkie to E.
Meadow and Los Robles.
*At meeting after meeting non-experienced cyclists complain about
car
parking on El Camino Way as it approaches El Camino and Maybell; cyclists
are
also not sure about what to do at the intersection proper. More Gunn
cyclists coming from Midtown would use Maybell if this section were
straightened out. It should be looked at.
2East of El Camino and south of Charleston: Nelson through Mitchell Park
or Carlson back to JLS path to (1) E. Meadow, El Camino Way, Maybell,
Georgia to gate or (2) E. Meadow, El Camino Way, Los Robles to gate.
*The El Camino-Charleston-Arastradero intersection is difficult,
with narrow
lanes and cars turning across a cyclist’s straight-ahead movement. Gunn
has a whole neighborhood, the Greenmeadow section, which would naturally
come up Arastradero but is faced with this wicked crossing. Terman has a
whole group of students from the Hyatt-Rickey neighborhood who would also
use this intersection as the most convenient.
Improvements to this intersection would mean a great deal to the student
biking community.
*1 recommend the use of the JLS path in the morning for Gunn
cyclists who come from Greenmeadow near Carlson only because the
Meadow-Waverley intersection has a signal light, and it’s possible to
cross Meadow. That JLS path is still dangerous because it’s on one side
of the driveway and comes into an intersection.
3. West of El Camino and south of Arastradero: Cross at El Camino,
Terman,
or Gunn light, then the new bike lanes on Arastradero to Gunn. This
involves
backtracking for students at, say, Suzanne, but they need a way to cross
Arastradero to bike west.
4.West of El Camino and north of Arastradero: Maybell and Georgia gate or
Los Robles to gate.
* Maybelt needs bike boulevard treatment rather than bike lanes as I
have suggested elsewhere.
5.Stanford: Hanover to Bol Park Path (just after Hanover turns west) to
Bol
Park or Raimundo and Foothill.
*Hanover has badly cracked pavement right on the turn (after Page
Mill and heading towards Hillview); there is also cracking just before
and after the turn. Avoiding these cracks makes sharing the lane with a
car much more problematic, especially on a turn. A short-term
improvement in the paving would be great before the longer-term project,
adding in bike lanes on a widened street, happens.
*The Hanover widening project would definitely help Gunn students
who come from across Stanford, e.g., Oak Creek and Stanford West as well
as the many Barron Park commuters, all of whom use the Varian-Bol Park
path. What is needed is not so much bike lanes as a way to cross the
westbound
car lane, when traveling from Page Mill and needing to reach the
Varian path right after
a turn, when the cars can’t see you well.
As you know, the Go-Fast group has a grant to look at a more westerly
route from
Stanford to Gunn.
1 hope this is helpful.
Joan
Likens, Gayle
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Stevens [rws@publicizeit.com]
Wednesday, June 26, 2002 1:02 PM
gayle_likens@city.palo-alto, ca.us
kfdurham@earthlink.net
Safely travelling to elementary school
Dear Gayle,
It was a pleasure to attend and participate in the School Traffic Safety
Meeting on 20 June at the PAUSD office.
Although our neighborhood school is Duveneck, located 1 block from
home, we attend Ohlone which is 1 mile from home.
We have tried riding bikes to Ohlone but have found traveling on Greer
and Louis difficult because traffic laws are typically not enforced. We
have also found crossing Oregon Expressway tobe a very scary experience
with drivers cutting off bicyclists and pedestrians and drivers passing
on the right. (Of course this behavior virtually stops when a uniformed
police officer is present).
Because the biking experience was so unsafe we decided to try walking to
school. Ohtone is approximately one mile from our home. We leave at
about 7:40 AM and arrive at Ohlone at about 8 AM. We walked almost
every morning (approx. 165 days) during the 2001 - 2002 school year.
Palo Alto is a community with wonderful climate and terrain for biking,
but the traffic laws are not enforced so bicyclists are being chased off
the streets by aggressive drivers.
Although walking is safer than biking, the crossing of Oregon Expressway
at Louis Road is dangerous. We routinely see many near accidents with
cars traveling northbound on Louis Road try to pass on the right while
cars traveling southbound on Louis try to turn left onto Oregon
Expressway. Louis and Oregon is a very busy intersection. It needs
frequent but random presence of uniformed officers during peak commute
times (at least from 7:50 - 8:20 AM). The few days last year that the
PAPD were present at this intersection really helped manage traffic. The
drivers of this road are habitual. They need to be trained that it is
not OK to cut-off pedestrians and bicyclist - and that when pedestrians
are in the crosswalk, the pedestrians have the right-of-way.
We need to start with the enforcement of existing traffic laws before we
encourage children to take their bikes to the streets. Most streets are
currently unsafe. Bryant Street is the exception rather than the rule.
There needs to be enforced consequences for unsafe driver behaviour. We
need more enforcement - and let’s start at key intersections in order
to make it safe for folks to consider getting out of their cars and
biking or walking to school. I think the police officers should "adopt
an intersection" - and Louis and Oregon should be one of the first up
for adoption.
I like the idea of making Louis Road and Middlefield Road like Bryant
Street for bicycles. By managing the traffic on both of these streets
this would help meet your goal of encouraging more folks bike to
school. Along Louis Road, you have Palo Verde Elementary School, Qhlone
Elementary School, Terman Middle School and Jordan Middle School.
Along Middlefield Road you have Challenger School, Hoover Elementary
School, Keys, Jordan Middle School, Walter Hays and Addison Elementary
Schools.
Rosemary W. Stevens
Ohlone Elementary School Parent
+1 650 494 2800
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Edie Keating [e_keating@sbcglobal.net]
Wednesday, July 03, 2002 4:39 PM
gayte_likens@city.palo-alto.ca.us; planning_commission@city.palo-alto..ca.us
kfdurham@earthlink.net
Bicycle Transportation Plan Comments
Hello - If my timing is not too late, I would like to offer some comments
on the draft Bicycle Master Plan. I have been active around traffic safety
issues at both Fairmeadow Elementary School (on E.Meadow) and at JLS Middle
School.
On page 1-8, I was especially happy to see the proposal to keep the Adobe
Creek undercrossing open all year. (Among others, this will certainly be a
benefit to those who work in the Peninsula Conservation Center on E.
Bayshore - with its high concentration of environmentalists / alternative
transportation advocates.)
I will not list all the other items I saw that jumped out as wonderful
proposals, but there were many.
I wonder if the presence of a police officer on bike roaming the super
block edges and interior during the morning and afternoon school commute
times might make some parents more open to allowing children to bike to
school. While biking through the interior of the block gets children out
of the path of cars, some parents feel it puts children into more isolated
parts of the block, raising personal security issues - especially the bike
path from Nelson and Charleston, leading into the park behind the tenis
courts. Many children linger in Mitchell Park in the afternoon. An
approachable policeman on a bicycle might fill a valuable rote.
Another issue on E. Meadow is east bound cars turning left from E.Meadow
onto Cowper. Since there is not a turn lane, cars pass on the right in the
bike lane.
Also, cars that are west bound on E. Meadow turn left into.the Fairmeadow
driveway, and into the parking spaces at Fairmeadow. Again, cars pass
these stopped cars by using the bike lane.
It is very tempting to use bike lanes to get around left turning cars. If
ending this practice is a rule the city wants to promote, I think there is
much education needed. A comment on this might be added in the Motorist
section on page 5-8.
Also, please check Waverley - 1 think better "no right on red when childen
present" signage is needed. The four way red, pedestrian only feature at
this intersection is great. If anything, it might need to have a longer
time period in the morning when the traffic signal follows this
pattern. The crossing guard would be the one to ask.
On page 3-3, removal of the sidewalk bike path designation is recommended
for a number of streets, including Alma and Embarcadero. Indeed, removal
of the category sidewalk bike path is recommended. I have no problem with
these suggestions. However, especially on the narrowest parts of Alma and
Embarcadero, seeing bikes mixed with much faster auto traffic is
scary. When I need to use these routes, I use the sidewalk and feel much
safer. Certainly on Alma, this works fairly well, since there is not too
much pedestrian traffic. Middlefield through the midtown shopping area has
a similar problem with narrow lanes. My reason for noting these areas is
to voice my wish that while I agree sidewalk riding should not be promoted,
neither should it be prohibited. There are places where sidewalk riding is
the best option. -_
I think a few signs on Alma are called for that say
Bryant Street
Bicycle Blvd
Two Blocks
might serve to open the eyes of new cyclists who haven’t learned about this
alternative.
Also on El Camino, I could imagine a couple signs saying
Alternate Bike Route
Park Avenue
four blocks
One block near JLS stands out as a place where sidewalk riding seems to be
the best option. East bound Children approaching JLS on Charleston will
want to cross at the light at Carlson. Then, to get to the bikepath along
the JLS driveway, they should proceed on the sidewalk (yes, going the wrong
way on the sidewalk) for one block. Again, here is a time where the normal
safety rules don’t apply. I think children and grownups naturally sense
this as the safest route in this small section. Again, I hope that safe
and sensible exceptions to normal flow are not made illegal.
A similar situation is noted by the bike plan on page 3-9 where E. Meadow
Drive and Fabian way is noted as a problem spot. Cyclists on E. Meadow
Drive tend to turn left onto the sidewalk of Fabian Drive for a short
stretch to get to the 101 underpass. Crossing Fabian to use the bike lane
for this short stretch does not appeal to most cyclists, myself
included. This creates a fair volume of two way bike traffic on Fabian’s
very narrow sidewalk between E.Meadow Drive and the undercrossing. Help!!
If the levee route to the tunnel could happen soon, great! If not, I would
hope widening this sidewalk is considered as an interim improvement. At
the least, it needs some weed trimming. Also, a utility pole or two in the
middle of the sidewalk create some real tight spots.
On E. Meadow, the mix of cars dropping off JLS students while general
public and Fairmeadow bike riders are proceeding along E. Meadow is
non-ideal. Any good ideas to improve this?
Finally, I would like to see longer summer hours at the downtown bike
station. When I last checked if I could use the bike station parking while
I went to dinner downtown, it closed way too early. Even one night a week
of longer summer hours would be a treat, if it was promoted so people could
know to use it.
Thank you for your consideration.
Edie Keating
3553 Alma St. #5
Palo Alto CA 94306
650 493-3118
ATTACHMENT E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26 ........
June 5, 2002
SPECIAL MEETING -7:O0 PM
City Council Conference Room
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL: 7:05 PM
Commissioners:
Patrick Burt, Chair
Bonnie Packer, Vice-Chair
Karen Holman
Kathy Schmidt
Michael Griffin
Phyllis Cassel
Annette Bialson
Staff"
Steve Emslie, Planning Director
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
Wynne Furth, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official
Gayle Likens, Senior Planner
Alison Kendall, Consultant
Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary
Chair Burt: I’d like call to order the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting for June
5, 2002. Will the Secretary please call the roll? Thank you.
At this time we have an opportunity for the public to speak on any items that are not on the
agenda.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda
with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a
speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and
Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to ! 5
minutes. None.
Chair Burt: We do not have any speaker cards for this item.
CONSENT CALENDAR. Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the
calendar by a Commission Member. None.
City of Palo Alto Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
!2
!3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional
items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. None.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
Public Hearings: None.
Other Items: None.
Chair Burt: So we would like to proceed to our first agendized item, which is the Palo Alto
Bicycle Transportation Management Plan.
NEW BUSINESS.
Public Hearings:
Palo Alto Bicycle Facilities Master Plan: The Commission will review and comment
on the Master Plan and formulate recommendations to forward to the City Council.
Chair Burt: Maybe we want to connote that in the agenda it refers to a Bicycle Facilities and it
was intended to be Bicycle Transportation Master Plan. I see Joe Kott is preparing to bring a
presentation. Joe, would you like to take the floor?
Mr. Joe Kott, Chief Transportation Official: Thank you Chair Burt, and good evening members
of the Commission.
I am here this evening to present to you the Draft Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Plan, which
has been in development in a draft form for some time now. We have this evening, members of
the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Group with us. We are very fortunate to have as members of
this Bicycle Advisory Committee dedicated and quite informed group of people. I, sometimes,
liken them to a graduate seminar group in Bicycle Transportation Facilities Engineering and
Planning.
Bicycling is a tenqfic mode. It’s very efficient and I just did a little bit of research on this stuff,
so I’m very interested in sharing some of my findings, if you don’t mind. Cycling, consumes 25
calories per mile, compared to 100 for walking and 1860 for single occupant car driving. A
bicycle can, or rather a car parking space cost 15 times as much on a qualitative equal basis as a
bike parking space. A parked car occupies 12 times as much space as a parked bike. Bikes are
quiet. They’re sustainable in terms of the environment and in terms of as we mentioned energy.
They provide eyes on the street, it’s called social safety. And they’re also just wonderful for
personal and public health and fitness.
Well, some places are very successful in integrating bicycling into communities transportation
system. Palo Alto does much better than most in the United States. Our share of cycling trips is
about 5%, just under 5%. We hope to about double it with the implementation of this Draft
Transportation Plan. I should say probably at the upper end of success in cycling mode share is
in Netherlands which contains almost 30% share of all trips. And I’ve always pointed that
because Netherlands is undoubtedly, first of all, a country, a highly motorized country. And yet
many, many people bicycle in the Netherlands, rain or shine.
City ofPalo Alto Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Davies has attained a 20% bicycle in share, even in California. So there’s a lot of promise in
bicycling, a lot of potential, and a lot of opportunity. The U.S. Mode share total around the
country is pitiful, 0.7%. So Palo Alto has achieved a lot through a lot of hard work and
dedication. Our Bicycling Committee in our leadership over the years has really put a great deal
of emphasis into cycling. Some of these I mentioned. But what does a cyclist need to achieve
this potential? Well, they need a network to [inaudible] drivers, a network has to be continuous,
no gaps. It has to be complete or comprehensive covering a lot of origins across the nations.
Certainly, it has to be set. It has to serve a range of cycling abilities and interest from the young
to the expert. Lead cyclists, they are, indeed, dedicated and very, very good. There are a lot of
other cyclists who cycle occasionally and would cycle more if it was more convenient and were
perceived to be safer. Cyclists need, of course, a place to park there. The Bicycle [inaudible]
has done very well over the years in providing bicycle parking but there’s some room for
improvement. Cyclists need encouragement. For example, like the "Bike to Work Day," and
"Bike to School Day." In education, like the educational efforts we’ve undertaken with adults as
well as with children in Palo Alto schools.
Now, in terms of our Bicycle Plan, the Draft plan, to achieve all the promise bicycling has to
build on the successes Palo Alto has had, this Bicycle Plan presents a tremendous vision. It’s
quite a detailed vision, too, as all of you know from having looked it over. But it does have
some issues. And one that is very important for this community, including how and where to
over and undercross barriers to cycle, to bring barriers to transportation, the cross community
transportation in the form of Caltrain in particular. Where should those facilities go?
Bicycle Boulevard. We’ve had wonderful success with our first in the nation Bicycle Boulevard.
They plan in proposals of others, proposes East/West Bicycle Boulevards, we’ve seen that as we
now have. The client talks about providing cycling facilities on street arterials, busy arterials.
Certainly, a difficult issue in a way. There are many cyclists who argue that the road where that
particular arterial network serves everything. If that’s what arterial roads do, it provides access to
most activities. So why shut cyclists out? And actually to emulate or duplicate an arterial
system with off-road bicycle facilities would be impossible. And cyclists don’t like to divert.
They don’t like any kind of route deviations. Truth is, car drivers don’t either. So, arterials have
the virtue of being direct. The arterials also have the reality of a lot of vehicular traffic. So, how
to integrate bicycles with vehicles is all this very important. And the Bicycle Plan has some
thoughts about that.
And, of course, the Plan talks about a future network and we’ve achieved a lot in Palo Alto
toward providing comprehensive and safe cycling oppommities. There’s much to be done. And
the Plan lays out pretty much a roadmap and the Bicycle Transportation Plan roadmap to achieve
that [inaudible] and to bring to life all these opportunities that cycling provides for all of us for
better [inaudible] community and reach in the nation. Now, Gayle Likens [inaudible phrase] in
Palo Alto cycling will now take over the microphone and talk in some detail about the Bicycle
Plan recommendations. Gayle?
Ms. Ga¥1e Likens, Senior Planner: Thank you, Joe. First I’d like to recognize members of the
Bicycle Advisory Committee who are in the audience. Richard Swent, Allen Wachtel, Cedric
Delabeaujadier, Doug Kosbarie and a past member of the Committee, Steven Rock. And I
would like to introduce Michelle DeRobertus from Wilbur Smith Associates, who is our
c0nsultant and is here as a resource to answer any questions you might have.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2!
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Burt: And Ellen?
Ellen Fletcher: Ellen Fletcher.
Ms. Likens: That’s right, I’m sorry, Ellen.
Ellen Fletcher: That’s okay.
Ms. Likens: One person we cannot overlook in bicycling in Palo Alto for sure.
Some of my presentation is going to recap what you have already heard at the Study Sessions so
I guess we will have to refer to the document in hand which I think most people in the audience
have either seen or reviewed online or have a hard copy of. I think what we will do is end up
focusing mostly on the map which is the bikeway network.
Just by way of background, I want everyone to realize that the Comprehensive Plan calls the
framework for conducting this study as derived from bullet T-3, which is facilities, services and
programs that promote walking and bicycling. Specifically Program T-18 states that we should
develop and periodically update a comprehensive bicycle plan. Program T-! 9 also states that we
develop and periodically update a bicycle facilities improvement program, which means that a
plan and the improvement program are not static documents. They will be developed and
periodically updated and can change over time. This is rea!ly the first plan that we are adopting
in a changed format since the Comprehensive Plan included a bikeway master plan beginning in
1976. Over the years we have had at least a map in the Comprehensive Plan that have never
produced a complete bicycle transportation plan that is much more comprehensive. Also
Program T-22 directs Staff to implement a network of bicycle boulevards. As we go through the
plan, you will see that this plan relies heavily on a bicycle boulevard network throughout the
City.
The objectives of this plan from the outset were five-fold: to serve bicyclists of all levels and all
abilities as Joe mentioned from the novice bicyclist to the expert cyclist, from. students to teens to
adults, recreational riders and commuter cyclist or people that just like to ride a bike for
utilitarian trips; to improve bicycle safety through implementation of the plan policies and
programs and the bikeway network; to improve connectivity and eliminate gaps in the network;
to create better access to transit centers and intermodal centers; ultimately to reduce auto
dependency and increase the mode share of bicycling in our community, which right now I think
Joe alluded to as about 4%. Through implementation of this plan, we hope to achieve doubling
of that and when we compare ourselves to Davies where the mode share is about 20% to 25% we
have an even further way to go and we !ooked to that.
In terms of the types of facilities that this plan identifies, there are really three different
categories. One is an off-road path or a shared path. Typically, these are off-road facilities,
they’re shared with pedestrians, roller bladders, all kinds of dogs, strollers, kinds of things. In
our current plan, out in the streets now, we have also designated sidewalks on certain arterial
roads where there are no on-street bikeways as sidewalk bike paths. Typically one direction, you
ride with traffic. Current state standards frown upon designating sidewalks as bicycle facilities
because they are primarily pedestrian facilities. They are narrow and when you ride on a
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
sidewalk, you are traveling at a higher rate of speed than pedestrian traffic and potential conflict.
You also enter intersections at a higher rate of speed. Generally, for many reasons, they are not
recommended. So this plan recommends that we remove sidewalk bike paths from our network
and our planning, which it does.
The second category is Class II which are bikeways on-street, marked, striped lanes, always
going in the direction of travel or typically going in the direction to have the riding on the right
with traffic. And are typically curbside adjacent either to the curb or to parking except when you
approach an intersection with a right-turn pocket and sometimes the bikeway goes out to the left
of the right turn pocket. The third category are bike routes and these are typically streets that are
shared with motor vehicle traffic. On the basic leve! there is just a sign that says it is route, it
could be a connector route connecting bikeways, it could be a street on which you can’t put
bikeways because of [wit] considerations. The next step up would be a bicycle boulevard, which
is a shared road. What we’ve done, taken special steps to make that facility primarily a bicycle
thoroughfare and secondarily, a vehicle thoroughfare. That’s the higher class of its kind. And
then shared arterials. Shared roads can be arterials, collectors or !ocal neighborhood streets.
During the public input process, we solicited input from bicycling groups from bicyclists at bike
shops, from neighborhood associations, from the business community, the~school community,
the PTA, our Bicycle Advisory Committee. Certain priorities were identified. One was to
increase our network on bicycle boulevards. All ranges of cyclists like the bike boulevard.
Convenience of travel, relatively quickly because there are fewer stop signs. If you are a novice
cyclist, you are dealing with slower moving vehicular traffic and less volume of traffic. That
was one priority. Bridging gaps in the system. Typically, the need for over-crossings or under-
crossings of barriers like Highway 101, the railroad tracks, other facilities or creeks. Improved
maintenance of our bike facilities. So this plan addresses the maintenance needs that we can
build facilities but we need to maintain them, not let them deteriorate to the point where we have
to spend a lot of money to improve them. Improvements to school, I think we’ll probably talk
about that today. The network does specifically address district schools, to middle and high
schools and elementary schools. To improve education of motorists and generally to do a better
job of outreach in terms of education and safety education.
I just want to take a chance to give you the definition of the bicycle boulevard from our own
Comprehensive Plan and it’s repeated in the document. A bicycle boulevard is a low volume
through street where bicycles have priority over automobiles. Conflicts between bicycles and
automobiles are minimized and bicycle travel time is reduced by the removal of stop signs or
other impediments to bicycle travel. On the master plan map which you have before you, we
have identified additions to our network, which right now includes the Bryant Street boulevard,
the one and only boulevard in town. They include as east/west bike boulevards, Homer Avenue,
which would connect to the new Homer Undercrossing of the railroad tracks, Everett Avenue in
Downtown North, which is already going to include features street closures and other features to
calm traffic in that neighborhood. As part of the Intermodal Transit Center, there will be an
under-crossing at the railroad tracks in the genera! vicinity of the extension of Homer under the
tracks. The Chaucer/Boyce/Guinda route and then down Melville to Bryant was identified as
another potential bicycle boulevard route which would link with the Chaucer Street bridge and
access into Menlo Park all the way down to Bryant. In terms of east/west bike connect bike
boulevards in the southern area of the City, the Matadero/Marguerita route was identified as a
good connector across E1 Camino, it would link to Park Boulevard, provide access from the
City of Palo Alto Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
!5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Ventura neighborhood across E1 Camino for students heading to Barron Park School, Gunn
High School or just to the rest of our bikeway network, or to the Stanford Research Park for that
matter. Maybell and Donald further south, were identified as a bike boulevard route that would
facilitate access to Terman Middle School and Gunn High School. They are basically the same
neighborhoods, the Charleston and the Ventura neighborhoods. So, we tried to extend the bike
boulevard network to make it as comprehensive as possible with the understanding that that
could be achieved in a variety of ways which I will talk about.
In terms of the crossings and bridging gaps, there were four main routes identified. One was the
Everett Avenue crossing the railroad tracks. We’re doing the Homer under-crossing right now.
A crossing of the tracks somewhere south of California Avenue, California Avenue is perhaps
the most heavily used pedestrian and bicycle facility. But the next closest one south is the grade
crossing at Meadow, and that is a very long distance to get out to bridge if you have some
destination in between the two. So somewhere in the vicinity of the Matadero Creek Channel,
Loma Verde area would be a good location to look to. Then an all-year round crossing of
Highway !01 in the vicinity of San Antonio Road. That is a project that is in the second tier of
the countywide bicycle priority list. So that is certainly something that we have heard from ever
since the facility was opened on a seasonal basis that there is a need for a year round crossing in
that area. ~
Another element of the plan, which we talked about is the need to improve bicycle conditions on
our arterial streets. And the Plan identifies several of these streets now have sidewalk bike paths,
Embarcadero, Middlefield, San Antonio Road, one segment of Alma Street. The plan identifies
the need to upgrade those facilities and where possible install bike lanes. So Middlefield,
Embarcadero, Oregon, to the extent we can work with the County to make use of the wide
outside lane areas on Oregon and facilitate bike travel. The southern end of Alma Street coming
from Central Expressway is a problem for cyclists who enter Palo Alto with basically nowhere to
go except on the one sidewalk, on the east side of the street. Some of these are considered long-
term projects, certainly working on Oregon Expressway or Alma Street even San Antonio Road
might be something that is not the top priority but a !ong range vision for those streets to make
them more bicycle friendly.
I wanted to briefly talk about the recent feedback we have gotten from the school community,
from the bicycle community in terms of the network and the implementation priorities because
the Plan does include a listing of the top priority projects, I think there are 21 or 22 of them. The
Pa!o Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee reviewed that list and felt that there were two projects
that they would like to see added to the list as high priorities. One was the under-crossing at the
Caltrain tracks somewhere between California Avenue and Meadow and we’ve identified it as at
Matadero Creek in the plan. They felt that that should be listed as a high priority project because
of the gap that it would fill. Also the Matadero Marguerite Bike Boulevard Route, I believe was
a medium priority and they felt that because of the nature of that route and access to the schools
that it should be a higher priority. We certainly concur with both of those recommendations at a
Staffleve!. They felt though that there were two projects on the list that perhaps didn’t need to
be on the high priority list. That list is unranked. It is just a listing of those highest priority
projects. One was the University Avenue in the Downtown area. There is a bike lane, there are
bike lanes on Lincoln Avenue and even though there are bike lanes on University Avenue, east
of Downtown. And ultimately, there will be bike facilities west of downtown when the
Intermodal Transit Center is built. The Committee felt that it wasn’t that high a priority to
City of Pa!o Alto Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
implement improvements on University Avenue since there was a viable alternate route a block
away. They felt that although it should stay in the plan that it shouldn’t be considered a high
priority. They felt similarly that the plan shows a route to Los Altos, a new route a!ong Miranda
Avenue by Alta Mesa Cemetery. And then, I think the City of Los Altos and perhaps Michele
DeRobertus can speak to that because she did some work for Los Altos as well. Their bicycling
community would like to see a better crossing of Adobe Creek in that vicinity. But from Palo
Alto’s perspective, the Committee didn’t feel that was a high a priority as many other projects.
So perhaps that one, I think Staff concurs that it could be lowered given the other needs.
We also spoke to the City School Traffic Safety Committee and got input from that Committee
and the PTA. Of course, they are looking to the opening of Terman and they would like us to
focus on the Charleston-E1 Camino intersection. That is a very dif~cult intersection for
bicyclists. We need to make basically a spot improvement there. They also felt that along
Oregon some of the school crossings of Oregon, Greer, Louis, Bryant, Middlefield were difficult
and that we should work with the County to improve those intersections for bicycle and
pedestrian crossings.
I think at the last meeting, we talked about the fact that this plan doesn’t just include a bicycle
facility master plan. It also includes a number of programs and policies to improve the education
programs, bicycle safety education at the school levels. We have done a pretty good job at the
elementary level. We’re working more to improve the middle school bicycle safety and the high
school programs. We would like to make sure to improve our general programs for residents in
the community in terms of bicycle safety. We have begun to do that with our cycling classes but
the bicycling on-road classes and our enforcement. And as I alluded to earlier, making sure that
the City’s programs for maintenance and construction recognizing the needs of cyclists when we
design facilities when we upgrade and do remedial work, and in terms of our resurfacing and
maintenance program.
I think that’s what I would like to cover at this point and would be happy to answer any questions
you have. I’m sorry we don’t have slides for this.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Would Commissioners like to ask any questions at this time prior to
hearing from the public? Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: I noticed that there is no note of the bicycle/pedestrian path bridge that
goes through Mitchell Park. Is there a reason for that? There is a bicycle/pedestrian path that it
runs along the east side of the park, it goes across there and goes between the new schools,
Challenger School and the Unitarian Church there. There is an exit down that comes right down
on Nelson Road where there is a light for good crossing. And that light is set to help seniors
cross so it is a good bicycling crossing.
Ms. Likens: I think we overlooked that. We know that there are paths in our City parks that are
accegs to the City facilities and to schools. Rinconada Park also has some paths that are used for
school commute and for bicycling. We certainly can take that into consideration and include a
route because there is a path there.
Commissioner Cassel: Well, it’s a very accessible path there and it is heavily used.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1!
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Ms. Likens: That you for that comment.
Chair Burt: Yes, Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I have a question. The figures we have here with regard to the number
of existing bicycle commuters and bicycle mode commuters. What was the methodology in
getting that number?
Ms. Likens: I will let our consultant answer that. We had data that we collected in 1997, much
of which I think was used in the report. I’ll have to ask Michelle if she could comment on any
further information.
Ms. Michelle DeRobertus. Wilbur Smith Associates: Just to clarify your question. Is it the
existing?
Commissioner Bialson: I just want to know how we come up with these percentages that we
now have in the number of, you’re talking about existing bicycle modes split that we have at this
point in time and they’re projected on Page 6 of the Staff Report. We are relying on these figures
and I want to know the methodology for getting those.
Ms. DeRoberms,: Right. A lot of that we relied on MTC data which originally came from the
1990 Census and the delay just any longer, we will have the 2000 Census data but it’s still quite
not available. So, starting with 1990 Census data on the Journey to Work, and MTC gathers
other data in their travel forecasting model. In their model, they not only have work but they
also put in schoo! trips and all the transportation trips. So we obtained the existing data from the
MTC Bay Area Model.
Chair Burt: The mike is for the record but we don’t have amplification here. IfI could ask
everyone who speaks, for the minutes, to repeat your name and affiliation just for the record.
Thanks.
Ms. DeRobertus: I am not sure if that answered your question but I’ll try to speak up. It is
primarily from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s database. They get it from the
Census data on the Journey to Work surveys, and they supplement it in terms of obtaining trips
by trip purpose, which is work trips, school trips, shopping trips, and anything that puts a car on
the road. They have mode split data from that.
Commissioner Bialson: So from what you are saying the information is not objectively gathered
by counting bicyclists on the street and asking them where they are going or doing any on the
street work. Rather it is answering questions in the Census of 1990 and extrapolating from that.
Is that correct?
Ms. DeRoberms: That’s correct. That is for the existing data. In terms of projecting future data,
I again !ooked at the MTC data, which also tells you how people commute depending on how far
away they live from their work. So that is how I tailored it to Palo Alto, looking at how many
people actually live within five miles of their job versus 30 miles from their job. The people that
actually live within five miles of their workplace have a higher chance of actually bicycling to
work.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Bialson: So again, it is all based on conjecture?
Ms. DeRobertus: Right, no survey data.
Commissioner Bialson: Thank you.
Chair Burt: A follow up question on that because I am still trying to understand it as we1!. So
MTC has data that is regionally based, and to what extent is the data that we use here data that
was specific to Palo Alto? I am still struggling with how we take what is obviously the best
available data and then try to turn it into meaningful data.
Ms. DeRobertus: It is specific to Palo Alto in terms of they have this data city by city and so
they have a Census track by Census track. So for the City of Palo Alto, they know from the
Census, from the long form, where that every sixth Census forms are long forms, so it is just a
sampling but Census is a pretty good sample. They get detailed Journey to Work mode splits
from that.
Chair Burt: So the Census actually ask those questions?
Ms. DeRoberms: Yes, so they get the actual mode split from the Census. Then the MTC will
extrapolate that in terms of calibrating their model into the other trip purposes. So the Journey to
Work number is actually say it’s the most accurate number in there because it’s actually from a
survey from Census data. Every household in Palo Alto was surveyed and you get the numbers
from that. It’s the other trip purposes are more MTC building or modeled from those data.
Chair Burt: The percent of total trips is the percent of total bike trips, right? I just want to make
sure I am following it correctly. I was surprised by how low the school bike trip percentage was.
Ms. DeRobertus: Percent of total trips that are bike trips. I have to think about that for a minute.
Chair Burt: Percentage of the total bike trips that are attributable to each trip purpose, correct?
Ms. DeRoberms: In other words, of all the trips that are out there on the road 26% of them are
work trips. Those aren’t bike trips, those are all trips. Then the mode split of the work trips is
5.7% of work trips are bicycle trips. Then 24.9% of every person trips is a shopping trip and
then only 2.6% of the shopping trips are bicycle trips.
Chair Burt: So it is all modes combined in that first column "Percent of Total Trips," vehicular,
bikes and pedestrians?
Ms. DeRoberms: Yes. Transit, everything.
Chair Burt: Okay. Then in the second column, out of all total work trips 5.7%, for instance, are
bicycle?
Ms. DeRoberms: Correct.
City ofPalo Alto Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Chair Burt: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I have a question on another topic, it’s on the priorities. The
prioritizations, there was one under connectivity "serves bicycle trips to schools." And it directly
says the kind of schoo! that was [fine]. Then under eight, it was also directly serves
[employment] centers or schools which is good. You had two opportunities for schools to get
plugged in at a high level and I thought that was very good.
Chair Burt: I’m sorry, where is that you’re looking at?
Commissioner Packer: I am on Page 6-6 of the Plan. It was criteria in order to rate the project.
Then I went to Appendix K and just for the sake of focusing because I have a school age child. I
was looking at all the ones that had the high priority for route to school and I wanted to see if in
the serving bicycle commuters if it matched up and also had the H for there and it didn’t all the
time, which have affected the prioritization of some projects. For example, Ross Road has the H
for the route to school but it has a low first-serve bicycle commuters yet you can argue that it’s a
direct route to school. So that’s why there is a conflict there. I would recommend that you go
back over that list and make sure wherever there isn’t a high rating under the route to school that
that’s repeated in the serves bicycle commuters as a high rating. Does that make sense?
Ms. DeRoberms: I think that makes sense. Thank you for that.
Chair Burt: Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: Gayle, as I understand it, this Table 6-3 of High Priority Projects is
unranked. Is that correct?
Ms. Likens: That is correct.
Commissioner Griffin: When does the ranking begin?
Ms. Likens: We have elected at this point not to rank these projects from 1 to 20 but to list them
all because as you can see from the list, they vary in nature in terms of cost considerably. And
many of the projects are bike boulevard projects that could be implemented in conjunction with
other projects such as traffic calming projects and could be largely dependent upon the
availability of funding and the level of funding to implement projects. Some of the projects, the
most costly ones, are going to be implemented with funding from outside from the VTA for the
under-crossings of the Caltrain tracks and for the over-crossing of Highway 101, which is a Tier
Two project in the County-wide plan. So at this point, we have elected not to list them from ! to
20. Depending upon your preferences if you would like us to do that exercise, the plan does
have a priority and a criteria setting proposal at the back of the plan should the Commission or
the Council want that to be done. So in the past, we have had a list of projects in the Comp Plan
that were projects like this and they were not ranked from 1 to !0.
Commissioner Griffin: Well, then how do you decide where to start from there? I guess that’s
what I am getting at.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
!6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ms. Likens: I think we can recommend based on funding levels or we can look to implement
projects through other means such as the neighborhood traffic-calming program. It will largely
be dependent upon our ability to find funding for these projects because there is no funding
identified in the 10-year infrastructure plan to do these projects. It may be dependent upon grant
funding, outside funding for which there may be other criteria that we have to meet and some of
these projects may fall higher on the priority scale in those grant application processes than
others. We would definitely be interested if the Commission has an interest in us setting some
priorities on some of these projects.
Chair Burt: If I understood what you were just saying, there is an interplay between the priorities
we may set and the criteria that are set by the prospective suppliers of grants. So basically, one
of the factors in priority setting would be availability of funds which may be criteria that are
different from the ones we might independently choose but nevertheless, in reality they are going
to drive this if that’s a principle means of implementation.
Ms. Likens: For example, some outside funding source, and this is predominantly for those
outside funding sources, we’ll look to projects that have intermodal connectivity, that are intra-
city and regiona! in nature and other priorities. It may not just be our local City priorities. So we
tend to try to tailor our grant applications to meet those funding criteria.
Mr. Kott: So that’s not to say that project might serve both regional and community needs. I’m
thinking, for example, of the Everett under-crossing which is being recommended by VTA Staff
for [inaudible] those out of the current .Transportation sales tax of 1996 County-wide
Transportation sales tax. And likewise, the Homer Undercrossing, which is now being designed
is largely funded through outside sources. But in both cases, of course,-they also will serve Palo
Alto neighborhoods. We can see some other opportunities on this list to do both at the same time
if we can.
Chair Burt: So ideally, we are going to have a confluence between our priorities and theirs but
not necessarily so. One of the things that this funding issue as it affects our prioritization, should
we on Table 6-2 list funding availability as a category for prioritization? It sounds like that is the
reality that we’re facing.
Mr. Kott: In fact, City Staff does that on the Infrastructure Management Plan. That’s one of the,
you might say, break in criteria..
Chair Burt: Maybe we should go ahead and fold that into Table 6-2 as one of the other major
categories. And I just noticed that the Homer Avenue under-crossing on Table 6-3, one is listed
as over-crossing, there’s a tyro there, okay. And then it has a price tag of $6.5 million. The last
number I heard was $4.0 million. Hopefully, it hasn’t ramped up?
Mr. Kott: Chair Burt, I don’t think it has. Let’s keep our fingers crossed.
Chair Burt: Okay, because those bottom three items, even with that corrected amount, account
for two-thirds of the total dollars in the Plan.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Kott: It isn’t. I think it is important to point out that most of those dollars will be regional
dollars because those projects are seen as being regional projects [due to] their connection to the
Caltrain system.
Chair Burt: Also the under-crossing that is proposed for South Palo Alto between Oregon and
East Meadow isn’t listed under the high priority projects.
Ms. Likens: That was the recom_mendation of the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee to add
that.
Chair Burt: So that is going to be, nevertheless, a big ticket item just like all the other under-
crossings. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Again, about priorities because some of these are going to be totally
locally funded. Right? So, I don’t know if it is a big deal or not but how do you really prioritize
because we are in control of our own destiny to the extent that we can be, that subject to when
outside funding would come in. So can we really prioritize?
Mr. Kott: I will speak personally, I think it is probably a good idea to do that. I am thinking
about our Intermodal Transit Center project which is near and dear to some of our hearts. The
VTA actually asked Palo Alto if this a major priority for you. And Palo Alto Council responded
yes, it is. So, therefore, we are on the list for quite a bit of money now for that project. But
clearly, stating the importance of a given project by ranking it highly is a big signal all the way
around including the funding agencies that the community is behind it or that the community
leadership is behind it.
Commissioner Holman: One other question. Everett is slated for an under-crossing, Homer is
an under-crossing, when we were looking at Homer during the SOFA I Working Group, we
talked about over-crossing and under-crossing. At that point in time, we were told that under-
crossings were less expensive. Is that still the case?
Mr. Kott: That under-crossings are less expensive?
Commissioner Holman: Yes, that under-crossings are less expensive than over-crossings.
Mr. Kott: I don’t think that is so, at least that’s not been our recent experience. It is quite
expensive to tunnel. I think one of the reasons for the interest in the under-crossings is that it is
less visually intrusive. And in Palo Alto, that accounts for quite a bit.
Chair Burt: If I recall correctly under the Homer Avenue, the anticipation of the electrification
would elevate the height of an over-crossing even more, is that correct?
Mr. Kott: That certainly is an important issue because Cattrain will be [electrified]. They are
likely to delay or defer the project for awhile is of fiscal constraints for now, but there is no
doubt that they electrify that line.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
!4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Ms. Likens: Just another comment. Even without the electrification, you have to go much
higher for an over-crossing than an under-crossing typically. And the ramping, in terms of the
bicyclists’ interests typically those are slower.
Chair Burr: You’d have to go higher versus how deep you would have to go on an under-
crossing?
Ms. Likens: Yes. There’s more ramping associated with an over-crossing and that is
problematic in terms of how you design the landings on either side. It is slower if you don’t have
an elevator. If you have an elevator, that is another mechanical feature that needs to be
maintained.
Chair Burt: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I have a question on something that may be difficult politically. The
under-crossing at Everett has its own history evolving from the Intermodal center and the Homer
under-crossing that has a separate history from the SOFA project. Those two under-crossings to
me seem relatively close together. Now we are talking and seeing more and more the need for
under-crossings in South Palo Alto. Are we going to have a process where we look at all of
these and face a certain amount of reality and say how many under-crossings can we have so
close together and which part of town needs these more than others? Because it seems that each
of these, the Everett and Homer, I am struck with why do we need two expensive under-
crossings so close together and there’s none in South Palo Alto.
Mr. Kott: I think that’s a quite valid concern. Just in terms of those two under-crossings, as you
know, they are part of other planning efforts, you might say. They’re almost part, I would
eventually say, of an attempt to create a kind of non-motorized or at least less motorized
precinct, which really is around Downtown Palo Alto and going into Stanford and so forth.
There’s certainly is critical mass of people who would be inclined to use bikes and walk for
various trip purposes basically across the [country] in terms of it but [out of the country]. But in
South Palo Alto, there is certainly a great need to provide some alternative, I suppose that run
under or over the areas that exist in that part of our community. I guess the difficulty is there
isn’t a readily directly available course to jump on for, let’s say, the regional funding or sort of
regional caches. It’s somewhat more difficult as you move further away from the Caltrain station
to find the resources to do it.
Chair Burt: Was our availability of funds for the Homer Undercrossing related to its proximity
to the Caltrain station?
Mr. Kott: Yes, in fact, of course it will be connected via that lane path right to the University
Avenue Station. So it is a key part of the argument for funding in each time we file the
application that’s helped.
Chair Burt: We can talk about this more in our discussion but it certainly seems one item that we
will want to discuss is how we address prioritization. Should we do it independently first of
funding availability and then later try to mesh that as best possible with the funding availability?
I will defer that question to the discussion time.
City of Palo Alto Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
!7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
So far, we have three speakers who have filled out cards. The first is Betty Meltzer to be
followed by Steve Rock to be followed by Richard Swent.
Ms. Betty_ Meltzer, 1241 Dalia, Palo Alto: First of all, thank you very much for the opportunity
to talk. I’m Betty Meltzer and I am here on behalf of Tony Carasco, Susan Rosenberg and
myself. I am Co-Chairing the Trees for E1 Camino Project. In January 1999, a group of
volunteers developed a vision that Palo Alto’s 4.3 miles of El Camino Real could be significantly
improved if large overarching shade trees were planted along the medians and sidewalks,
ultimately creating an arbor green. The group, now known as The Trees for E1 Camino Project,
brought their concept to the public and through the Council process. In June of 2001, the
Council consistent with the Y2K Comprehensive Plan priority for trees along our urban
highways, approved money for improving the E1 Camino median so large shade trees could be
planted. We are now going out and asking the community to contribute $ t .0 million towards the
purchase and planting of trees along E1 Camino. That is the sole purpose of the money collected.
Planting more shade trees a!ong the sidewalks of E1 Camino is assured because they are under
the jurisdiction of the City of Pa!o Alto.
The less sure areas for future tree planting are the narrow medians, which are controlled by
Caltrans. In our ideal world, we would like most medians north and south of Page Mil! to
contain trees which will add to the canopy of the trees defining this "Kings Highway." To do so,
medians will have to be wide enough to meet future Caltrans requirements for large shade trees.
These requirements will be indicated in a memorandum of understanding between the City and
Caltrans due at the end of this year. We don’t presently know what those requirements will be
but we are eager to see them.
Tonight, I am here for the purpose of asking you, the Planning Commission, to reserve space for
large shade trees in the medians and along the sidewalks. As you allocate space to the various
stakeholders of E1 Camino, please include a space-holder along most of the 4.3 median miles for
the arbor green that we visualize. Realize that without a strong statement of shade trees, we will
accomplish very little in transforming E1 Camino to be a canopied street that will mitigate the
year-round harshness of traffic and heat. There are many interest groups seeking your
accommodation of their priorities on E1 Camino. The bicycle interests here tonight have offered
a plan to further affirm Palo Alto as a credible bike-friendly community. They have been
working both for some time, I thought it was at least two years, (Joe, I’m quoting you) to develop
this plan. Included is an option along E1 Camino so transportation opportunities will be multi-
modal. It is your job to consider the various uses for E1 Camino. One thing is clear, as bikers
bike, pedestrians walk, shoppers shop and park, drivers drive, school children cross and these are
all the stakeholders, and the community enjoys the street in familiar and new ways, an arbor of
large shade trees will enhance the experience of all these stakeholders. I respectfully urge you to
embrace our vision and provide space to ensure large shade trees in most medians and along the
sidewalks. You will, in so doing, create a more inviting boulevard-like street. So we are just
another one of the stakeholders but we have a vision that is quite exciting.
Chair Burt: I have a question for you, Betty. Has your group looked at the additional
prospective benefit of the trees promoting traffic calming and, therefore, bicycle and pedestrian
and vehicular safety at the same time?
Ms. Meltzer: Are you asking can we co-exist?
City of Pa]o Alto Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
!3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Burt: No, I am asking does it, in fact, improve the traffic calming? I seem to recall that
that has been established in the studies and that would be an ancillary benefit.
Ms. Meltzer: I think it would be one factor in many factors that are focused on calming traffic.
For many reasons, traffic calming would be a goal.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Our next speaker is Steve Rock to be followed by Richard Swent.
Mr. Steve Rock, 3872 , Palo Alto: My name is Steve Rock and I live in
southeast Palo Alto, and I bicycle about 7.5 miles to work each way commuting over to the
SLAC in Menlo Park. There are 25 stop signs or traffic lights each way. I consider that a lot.
The number is growing all the time despite the appearance of the bike boulevard. The number of
stops over the past 20 years has been increasing as the City, both Palo Alto and Stanford add
more and more stop signs. One of the main problems is the City is organized both for and
against cars but always around cars. Either you try to stop cars from going through
neighborhoods by putting lots of stop signs, which stop bicycles, or you divert them on to these
arterials which become too dangerous at least for many bicyclists don’t feel comfortable on
streets like E1 Camino or Embarcadero because of all the cars. So you leave very little places for
bicyclists to bicycle quickly and efficiently. The bicycle boulevards are a prime way of avoiding
lots of stop signs. So I think that is a very important part of the plan, is to put in more bicycle
boulevards with no stop signs or very few stop signs. Even our existing bicycle boulevard has
some important stop signs like near a school but some gratuitous ones which are unnecessary
like in California Street. So I recommend that and especially the east/west bicycle boulevards,
none of them exist right now.
Another important part of planning I think is to actually include bicyclist needs when the rest of
the City of Palo Alto makes plans for various City improvements. An example, a very bad
example, of how some people in the City try to create kind of an outdoor community center at
the exits of the California Street underpass on the east side. There is a bench and there is a
telephone. If a person is on the telephone, they are sticking out into the sidewalk blocking
entrance to the underpass. There are two newspaper racks where people, both pedestrians stop
and get newspapers. Drivers come along and stop and go across and get their newspapers.
There is a light pole or sign poles blocking on the street side. So everything has been done that
is possible to block access to the underpass. Some clever planning would have realized that
people want to go through that underpass and clear the path and make it easy to get through and
safe. An added distraction is when you get up on the sidewalk to reach that underpass, not only
is the ramp very narrow and it carries people going both ways on bicycles, people pushing baby
carriages and al! sorts of things, and there is a little one-inch lip so you can bounce across it. So
I encourage you, when you make plans, say, what is going to happen to bicyclists when this goes
on.
Another thing which I think is mentioned in the report but I don’t remember exactly, is police
enforcement of the laws. There are bicycle paths in Palo Alto where it says no parking but that
doesn’t discourage many cars from parking on there. The City police as far as I know, makes no
effort to give out tickets on the bicycle paths in Pa!o Alto. Every time, for example, I go on
Louis Road there are always several cars parked on the bicycle paths. If the police came along
on just a few occasions and gave out tickets, I am sure those people would be discouraged.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Another thing which is maybe more difficult for the police to do is ticket people when they don’t
signal when turning. This is very dangerous to bicyclists especially when you make right turns
because bicycles are to the right of cars and if we can’t tell if a car is going to turn right, we may
be hit. It is the fraction of drivers who use their signal lights. It is maybe 20% as far as I can
tell. And that is not a scientific number but it is very small. It would be very easy for the police
to make a lot of money for the City of Palo Alto by enforcing that rule and making it a lot safer
for bicyclists.
There are also phantom bike paths in Palo Alto, like Cowper Street. It is labeled "Bikes Only"
on this bike path and then it is also labeled "Parking Permitted." The bike path is about three
feet wide and it is very difficult for cyclists to go through a parked car. So I encourage you, if
you have a bike path, have a real bike path. Keep the cars off it or if you don’t have a bike path
be rea!, don’t call it a bike path, cal! it a parking place. Am I out of time?
Commissioner Packer: Yes.
Chair Burt: Each speaker has five minutes. Thank you. Richard Swent to be followed by Roger
Holland.
Mr. Richard Swent, 2950 Clara Drive, Palo Alto: Hello, I’m Richard Swent. I am a member of
the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee. I have worked extensively with VTA on their
school bicycle education program over the last few years. I am a member of the City School
Traffic Safety Committee and I was on the Steering Committee for the Office of Traffic Safety
Grant that funded the street skills for cyclists class. I took that along with my 12 year-old son.
So guess what? I want to talk about education and not about pavement signs. Because I think
the education part of this plan is every bit as important as the network of facilities. It doesn’t get
as many pages in the plan, it is certainly not going to get as much attention tonight but I think it
is very, very important overall.
We have gotten ourselves into a bad situation in Palo Alto. We know that at the schools
bicycling is way, way down. There is a vicious circle, a couple of them, working there. One of
them you may have heard of that a lot of parents say, "I am not going to let my children bike to
school because there is too much traffic, it is too dangerous." Their solution is to drive their
children to school which makes more traffic, more frustration, more bad driver behavior, more
danger and fewer kids bike to school. I don’t think that we are going to build our way out of that
problem. Certainly, here and there some [spot] improvements would help, but I think we need to
get inside people’s heads and change their attitudes, change their behavior if we are going to
break that cycle. There is another one that I ran across recently, I was teaching a bicycle safety
class to some Boy Scouts, these are boys 12 to 15 years old. They are physically and
intellectually capable of bicycling across town by themselves. I know it because my son was the
youngest one in the class and he can do it. But the boys who don’t bike to school were awful. I
was horrified when they got out on the street. Their skills were terrible. They could not take
their hands off the handlebars to signal without weaving all over. They could not judge the
speed of approaching cars. They were not able to negotiate for the right-of-way at a 4-way stop
sign with drivers. They need education and they need practice. But you take people like that and
you put them out on the street and they don’t know what they are doing, they make al! kinds of
mistakes, they get in trouble and they say, "Oh, this is too dangerous, I am not going to do that
City of Palo Alto Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
again." Whereas in fact, they should be doing it again and again and again so they will learn.
But they need somebody to help them get it right the first few times. So again, we are not going
to build our way out of that. When these kids grow up, if they don’t learn to bicycle properly
and if they don’t enjoy bicycling when they are young, they are probably not going to do it when
they are older. So if we let these two vicious circles go on, I am not sure we are going to get the
doubling of mode split that Joe talks about. So I think we need education. I think we need
education for bicyclists, for motorists, for children, for adults, education for law enforcement
officers, for people in the school district, for people in City Hall and we need some leadership
and some courage because really it is the people in Palo Alto who are going to make it bike-
friendly, not the roads.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Bonnie, you have a question?
Commissioner Packer: I just want to take this opportunity to commend Richard Swent’s efforts
on education. Our children go to the same school and I know what he does and it is wonderful. I
just wanted to take the opportunity to publicly thank you for everything that you have done.
Mr. Swent: Thank you. There’s nothing wrong with our education programs. We have good
education programs. The only thing wrong with them is there are not enough of them. That’s the
only problem.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Our next speaker is Roger Holland to be followed Ellen Fletcher.
Mr. E. Roger Holland. 1111 Parkinson Avenue, Palo Alto: I am Roger Holland and I have been
a bicyclist since I was at Stanford in 1959 and I bicycle regularly in Palo Alto. Part of the reason
is that I need the exercise and I enjoy bicycling and many times it is faster than getting in the car
and trying to find a parking place. I wanted to second what the gentleman before me said about
bicycle lanes and people parking in them. I have never once in all of these years seen a car that
was parked in a bicycle lane with a ticket on it. I don’t think we have ever ticketed a car.
Bicycle lanes are dangerous if there are cars in them because you are then weaving in and out of
the lane and that is the most dangerous thing you can do. So I avoid any bicycle lane where most
likely there will be cars. I also once ran into a door, which opened momentarily right before I
arrived on the scene and I can tell you, that’s another scary thing.
This plan is great. I think the proposal for all of the bicycle boulevards are just great. (And there
isn’t one on here that I won’t ride when you get it made into a bicycle boulevard.) The one thing
I do have a feeling, I live near the Community Center and I often bike to Midtown and I never
bike on Middlefield Road and no matter what you do in making a bike lane, I won’t bike there no
matter how safe it is, which I’m sure it won’t be because I hate the noise and I hate the smell of
cars. So I always go up to Cowper and I will continue to but I would sure like to see you make
this connection between Ross Road and Newell because that would be great. If I were running
this thing, I would take all the money that would go into Middlefield and put it into completing
that connection because it would be a much more pleasant way to go and not only that but it
would be a lot safer. Thank you.
Chair Burr: Thank you. Ellen Fletcher to be followed by Cedric De La Beaujardiere.
City of Palo Alto Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
4!
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Ms. Ellen Fletcher, 777-108 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto: I am Ellen Fletcher, I live on San
Antonio Road. I’m at 777 in Palo Alto. I would like to address the E1 Camino issue because it
has become a little controversial. Overall, all roadways in Palo Alto should be bicycle and
pedestrian friendly. Bicyclists use E1 Camino legally and for practica! reasons because that’s
where the destinations might be so it should be used hazard-free as possible. Bicyclists,
including me use E1 Camino and other arterials occasionally because they are usually more direct
and have fewer obstacles than residential streets. For Palo Alto, it is even necessary to use E1
Camino to reach the Palo Alto Medical Clinic, which unfortunately I have to visit quite often
these days. And from the Medical Clinic, I’d have to go to the bank which is on E1 Camino and
California Avenue, the most logical way to go is on E1 Camino. Sometimes I go on to Mountain
View. I have an accountant on E1 Camino in Mountain View and also an attorney whom I visit
occasionally. Now, I don’t think any of us choose E1 Camino when there are other ways direct
ways to get there. And I say that for Middlefield Road, too. I don’t seek these places out butif
that’s where the destinations are from my location where I start out, that’s what I use. And they
should be only made as bike-friendly as possible to both attract the bicyclists to use a bike
instead of a car, but also to make it safer for all of us. Then there’s the argument that, well, I
would never go on E1 Camino or Middlefield. That’s fine. Nobody says they have to go on
either of them. They can still be made bike-friendly for those people who do use those arterials.
Before the County Expressways were open to bikes, I don’t know if you remember those days,
we heard the very same arguments we’re hearing now. It is too dangerous, there is too much
traffic. Inexperienced bicyclists will be enticed to, accidents will soar. Experience has shown
otherwise. It’s just speculation, which isn’t accurate.
Chair Burt: Thank you, Ellen. Cedric De La Beaujardiere to be followed by Robert Chaffield.
Mr. Cedric De La Beaujardiere, 3153 Stelling Drive, Palo Alto: Good evening and thanks for
the opportunity to address you. I’m Cedric De La Beaujardiere, 3153 Stelling Drive. I am a
member of the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee. I want to touch on three points. First off
to start out, one of you Commissioners made a point about the commutes to school versus the
commuter routes. I think initially in the first analysis that we did in PABAC, we found that for
some reason all the big streets were really heavily prioritized and the other routes to school were
not as heavily prioritized. We determined it was because we had a factor that was commuter
serving. We decided we needed also a bicycle route-serving category so that we could end up
with a better distribution of those things and not be so commuter heavy and actually end up
serving the whole community. That is why those are two different categories.
I want to mention I really like the Matadero Creek Bike Path. It didn’t really come out as one of
our high priority ones but personally I like it. I prefer general bike paths over roads. I think they
are more pleasant to ride on and as an enviromnentalist, I see the possibility to restore Matadero
Creek and turn it into a native riparian corridor and include bike paths on that as a means of
getting people in there and recognizing the natural beauty that exists already in our community.
Finally, I’d like to echo some of the comments that Ellen has made about the arterial routes. The
plan does need to address the needs of cyclists of all levels. So it is important that those routes
are made as safe as possible. Cyclists, as Ellen has said, don’t use those routes like E1 Camino or
Middlefield if their destination is on there if they are going across town, or if they are passing
through Palo Alto. There’s a very good direct route. So they will use that even if an alternative
exists so it has to be safe. And we wouldn’t tell a driver, "Oh, you know, this road is a little
City of Palo Alto Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
dangerous. I think you should take the circuitous route over there because there are less cars."
We wouldn’t tell that to a driver and I don’t think it is fair to tell that to a cyclist either. Also,
there is a project underway, an original project with Palo Alto, Stanford and I think it’s Menlo
Park, which is to rank bike routes in the area. I think if E1 Camino, for instanc, e were labeled as
a bike route, if we were to include in that labeling a ranking scale on there, then I think that
would allay many people’s fears about encouraging inexperienced cyclists to ride on that
because they would see the double diamond and not ride there. So I think that’s all my points.
Thank you.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Robert Chaffield to be followed by Joan Marx.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Mr. Robert Chaffield, 86 Roosevelt Circle, Palo Alto: Robert Chaffield, 86 Roosevelt Circle,
13 which is down in East Meadow. I have an interest clearly in South Palo Alto and I’ll be kind of
14 going back and sharing what I’ve learned from this with the Green Meadow community with
15 which we’ve worked. The comments are largely centered around that area. I will speak probably
16 as sort of one of each, I’m a bicycle commuter to the south, toward to NASA Ames. I like to go
17 shopping and go with my family and recreationally. And my daughter is bicycling to school now
18 and will be bicycling to Gunn later on. So I really have all those concerns. The point I want to
19 make is that as we are chasing various types of money, let us be very clear there are some things
20 that not only should be fundable but are low cost and can be accomplished very rapidly and they
21 should be accomplished. They should be accomplished to save lives, perhaps to say Palo Alto
22 money. If you take a took at South Palo Alto, it is a more modern, I guess, a suburban design,
23 quite broken up. It is difficult to find alternate routes in South Palo Alto, or they’re going
24 north/south or as we’ve heard this last time. However, Palo Alto has taken a view that once they
25 approach Mountain View, the concerns stop. It is almost impossible to get safely across the San
26 Antonio. I haven’t stopped at Middlefield and San Antonio, but as a motorist I’m asking, "Why
27 am I doing this? Do I want to die?" I try to avoid that area. It’s an attractive nuisance also. Adn
28 that it’s designed to be a bike route but within Palo Alto and Mountain View. [Danita Road] and
29 the crossing at Alma and San Antonio are all adjoining in the neighborhood and communities
30 and deserve some immediate funding. It is cheap to fix these things. Another aspect leads us to
31 San Antonio going across the freeway. Once again, it adjoins other communities. The route
32 over there is closed, in fact, most of the time, 7 months of the year. That provides great
33 difficulty. The Jewish Community Center will soon be in the neighborhood at the old [Sun site]
34 and I believe will be working at the Cubberley site]. And both of those will engender bicycling
35 needs. I think both of those especially the Cubberley site need to be taken a look at in the same
36 way as schools. They do have, of course, several schools there. A preschool, a Greendell
37 school, and they have a whole bunch ofschoo! functions within Cubberley lane and all. It is
38 very difficult to get there. It is an attractive nuisance. You go there and you are told there is a
39 bike path and you are forced out into traffic or into a shaded sidewalk. There’s one other
40 opportunity which hasn’t come up which is, I think particularly helps in the Green Meadow
41 neighborhood. It would be very helpful to adjoin Mountain View, Palo Alto and Los Altos by
42 making a very simple right-of-way. I think it is about 100 feet or less between Miller and Los
43 Altos Avenue. It is a very straight, simple connection which would help all of those things. I
44 think that is about all I really need to say. You can go after these quite economically. Obviously
45 Palo Alto needs to put money into these inexpensive but very useful improvements. You need to
46 make this part of your basic funding scheme. Thank you.
47
48 Chair Burt: Excuse me, where is Miller?
City ofPa lo Alto Page 19
!
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Chaffield: If you just take Los Altos Avenue, go across and then take Wilkie and you go
south, I think that’s the one, I’m going to say Monroe.
Chair Burt: [Monroe], okay. So that connection is it. Thank you. Joan Marx to be followed by
Kathy Durham.
Ms. Joan Marx, 827 La Para, Palo Alto: I’m Joan Marx. I am a Barton Park resident. I am a 7-
year veteran of the City School Traffic Safety Committee. I am an experienced cyclist and I
commute all over Palo Alto. I wanted to briefly reiterate what I wrote you in my letter. I think it
is very important that the bike boulevards that you already have designed in the Bicycle Plan
which I hardly support. The bike boulevard in the Barron Park area, particularly on Maybel! are
very important ones to keep for the school students that will be using them. And my letter was
about the distinction between the bike boulevard and putting bike lanes on those streets which
are fairly narrow streets. There is a popular misconception that the bike lanes will make the
streets safer. In fact, for students what it does or for any cyclist it forces you, there is not a !ot of
room for a very wide bike lane, it forces the cyclist into a narrow lane and then the cars into a
narrow lane and then once you put in that center stripe, the cars will stay to the right of the center
stripe even if it is a broken line. You can see it as you cycle everywhere that this is the tendency
of cars. They believe that the cyclists have their given area now that you have a bike lane. The
difference between that and the bike boulevard is that when you have schoo! children commuting
to school and I have seen this. I have gone out on Maybell and watched this, when a car is
coming down a street behind a cyclist or a pedestrian, there is no striping right now, for example,
on Maybell. When they see that, they swing wide. And they actually will ride basically down
the middle of the street. If there is another car approaching from the other direction and the car
is behind a cyclist, they will actually wait because they see that this is the natural feel of the
driver. Once you put in that striping, then it changes the whole force field, so to speak. The cars
feel they have a right now to a certain area of the road and the cyclists should stay in their area of
the road. In practical terms, it will be very good for the cyclist to have a bike boulevard on those
Barron Park streets and it will be more dangerous for them to put in bike lanes.
I wanted to briefly comment on some of the other points that have been brought up. I agree with
Ellen’s point about Middlefield, for example. I myself use the Midtown area. IfI want to go to
Long’s on Middlefield, I really don’t have the option of going to Cowper. I have to take
Middlefield to get to Long’s on my bicycle. I have also seen the Jordan cyclists come out now
from Jordan and they are going on Middlefield. I mean, willy-nilly, they are there so we want to
make it safer. Also, I want to point out to you again an intersection which is very important to
the Gunn area and that whole corridor area is E1 Camino and Charleston-Arastradero. That is a
very dangerous crossing for cyclists and the bike lane goes up as you probably know on the
sidewalk.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Kathy Durham to be followed by Doug Kolozsvari.
Ms. Kathy Durham, 2039 Dartmouth Street, Palo Alto: Good evening. I’m Kathy Durham, 2039
Dartmouth Street. I just want to mention I am here tonight as someone who has been involved
with traffic safety issues in the schools since 199 ! and with the same issues in our neighborhood
but I am speaking as an individua! and not either part of the Council or the [inaudible] Resident
Association. First, I would like to express my strong support for the proposed policies and
City of Palo Alto Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1!
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
actions in the implementation plan outlined on the first three pages of Chapter Six. You actually
might find it valuable to look at Chapter Six. Whatever else you do tonight, I urge you to
strongly support these recommendations. I know that for decades, this City has claimed to be a
bicycle-friendly City but, in fact, we ask our cyclists to accept second-class status as far as
maintenance or safety issues or putting up with facilities that don’t meet the recommended
standards. And I keep badgering Gayle Likens all the time about.things like tree branches in
cyclists way and road construction projects where the contractors are putting cyclists at risk and
not doing what they are supposed to be doing. I am sure we will both be happier when the steps
outlined in these sections are incorporated into the standard priorities and procedures of the
Utilities Department, Public Works and all the other folks who mess with our roadways.
I also want to comment about the action steps under Planning Education and Safety
Promotion/Funding Implementation. This is on pages 6-4 and the top of 6-5. If you look at them
one by one, each one is commendable but here is the problem. You do al! of them and it is not
enough to reverse the decline in biking to work and biking to school that has occurred since the
1980’s. There is certainly not enough to get us where we want to be in terms of this increased
mode share and the goal as outlined. (Appendix B) Yes, we should do yearly counts in bicycle
traffic. Yes, we should analyze bicycle accident reports to identify causes and remedies. I have
been begging for this since 1995 when I found out what the data collection was like. But I am
told that it there isn’t the staffing in the police department or transportation to do this. So how
are we going to get what we need to know about the causes of bike accidents if we don’t know
them? How can we possibly fix what it is that is causing the risk that these people are
experiencing? I certainly know this for the kids. Kids who have accidents with collisions. They
stop biking. And their friends stop biking, too, in that area. So it’s something that we really need
to deal with. Crashes aren’t accidents.
I also want to report that the strong decrease in the perceived lack of safety on local and collector
streets. And that arterials are now very much more than the early 1990’s perceived as barriers
that it is too unsafe to cross unless you are surrounded by stee!. And I site in this data that we
got from parents about why they drive their kids to school and how lack of safe conditions on the
streets is a strong increase in the 1990’s. I can also talk about my kid in 1993 as a sixth grader,
my older one, all of the kids from our neighborhood biked across E1 Camino under the California
bike path and up to Jordan. In 1997, parents were beginning to say, "This isn’t safe enough."
Now, I know how much the volume had increased on E1 Camino and on Stanford Avenue. Last
summer 2001, the majority of kids, called their parents and decided it was not safe enough and
they drive them all. We have got to turn that around or we will never get what we want. I don’t
have any magic solutions but I do feel that we have to look not just at improvements desired by
the serious commuter cyclists, those are important. But we have got to figure out how the
majority of people can be more comfortable biking more often on all of our streets. And unless
we persuade them to get out of their cars for that trip for the gallon of milk, then we are going to
be looking not like what we want to be in 2010. Can I say one thing about the criteria?
Chair Burr: Wrap-up and then I have a follow up question as we!l.
Ms. Durham: I wanted to express concern about the list of high priority projects and the criteria
of use and how you rank them. I don’t think we can adequately review outside ofPABAC. I
think you’ve heard a lot in the comments that you got about pushing one’s favorite project or
[dissing] something, I’ll never ride on Middtefield, etc. but what we really need to do is look
City of Palo Alto Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
!1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2!
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
more at this criteria. This Committee just did not have enough time to do that. And I just want
to give you one example. If you !ook in Appendix K, Project 8, it says Newel! Road. And
Newell Road is ranked as a low priority. It scores 11 on these priorities. If you look at,
however, at the, I think it says obstacles are rated as low. That means road has no safety
obstacles. Anyone who believes that Newell and Embarcadero is not a safety obstacle, I’m sorry,
that at least has to be [N]. Route to schools, why is that, it ends at Jordan. Los Robles gets an H,
why doesn’t Newell which carries many more students.
According to the criteria what bicycle traffic volume is on Table 6-2, it ~hould be an [L]. Access
to adjacent jurisdictions, L means none. Well, Newell goes into East Pa!o Alto. And Serves
bicycle commuters, it is supposed to be a [M], I believe, if it directly serves major schools. So
that gives you five more points, which makes you a high priority. So I am not trying to argue for
the Newell but I am trying to save this list and the ranking, and making decisions based on the
rankings needs to be reviewed more.
Chair Burt: Kathy, is it the School Transportation Safety Committee that reviewed this?
Ms. Durham: The City School Traffic Safety Committee. It is a joint City and school like a
PTA.
Chair Burt: Did you have adequate time as a group to go through this thoroughly and give a
detailed input?
Ms. Durham: We got it like a week ahead of time and Spring is nuts. I know that for the middle
school representatives, I mean I am the representative for Palo Alto High School because my
youngest is now a Sophomore. But tonight is the big end of year concert for middle school kids.
Plus, if you have a kid in baseball, you have no life in Spring. So I fee! it is a very important
document. It is a very long and complicated document that is not very user friendly and we
didn’t have the Staff Report. So, we could have used looking at an earlier draft.
Chair Burt: Also in your handout which the Commission received, I don’t know if the public has
had a chance to see it, it was a 3-page handout. I was struck by the table on Page 3 table
comparing 1985 and 2001, just an incredible decline in bicycle use. Jordan went from 74% of
students to 22%?
Ms. Durham: Right. I think I can explain why that was more. In the Spring of 1984 they closed
Jordan and the kids were bused for seven years to JLS. When they reopened Jordan in 1991 and
abolished the bussing, the whole culture of biking like from the Duvenek area had disappeared.
Those people started driving their kids more.
Chair Burt: And even within the other areas on average, we have probably more than a 50%
reduction in biking usage.
Ms. Durham: Yes, and I can say that during my time in PALY, as PALY Traffic Safety Rep, we
have gone down by 80 cyclists, despite my efforts.
Chair Burr: And yet our goal is to double it in the course of this plan.
Ci& of Palo Alto Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
!4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Ms. Durham: Double trips overall, fight. And I am saying unless you can strongly increase
folks other than serious commuter cyclists because commute cycling is only one-fifth of our
trips. You are never going to get the numbers you need.
Chair Burt: So it seems we have two challenges, stop the decline and fully reverse it? Those are
big challenges. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I have a question for you, Kathy. How did these numbers come into
being? How are these statistics determined?
Ms. Durham: We counted the bikes actually parked. You have to park your bikes in certain
places so it is rea! easy to determine. That’s one regulation that you can’t get around. And then
we divided the number of bikes by, and factored in parking in different areas so we’re not
messing it, divide the number of students in the school. So these are hard numbers. And all the
other stuff that we’d have to get by survey and stuff and you could dispute, so this is hard stuff.
Chair Burt: Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: I would like to ask Kathy a question as well. We have discussed this
dramatic falloff in bicycle participants among the school age populations and one of the speakers
spoke about safety. It seems to me, and maybe I should provoke you a little bit to talk about the
different safety aspects. I mean there’s vehicular safety that you were referring to ifI understood
you correctly. There is also the safety aspect of kidnapping and security.
Ms. Durham: Security. There’s traf~c safety and security.
Commissioner Griffin: Thank you I was searching for the terminology. So brainstorm a little
bit, how does one grapple with that? I myself’m saying that is a very serious societal situation
that you are up against.
Ms. Durham: I would say it was no less secure in 1994 than it is now. It is true that there are
more boys biking than girls. I don’t know what it is like at Gurm but at PALl, probably 90% of
the bikers are boys. Now how much that is parents protecting their little sweet darlings or how
much is "my hair gets messed up with the helmet," I don’t know. Probably both.
Chair Burt: Yes. Richard Swent, go ahead.
Mr. Swent: I have a couple of things. One is, how many children have actually been kidnapped
in Palo Alto in the last 20 years and how many kids have been hit by cars? The fear of
kidnapping is more an emotional response. The solution to the fear of kidnapping is to drive
your child to school which causes instead of these imaginary danger or real danger. So
unfortunately, the solution to the fear of kidnapping is causing a worse problem than it is solving.
One of the things that can be done is for kids to group together. My daughter meets someone
down the street and the two of them go together. And when you get kids in groups like that, they
are much more secure than if they are traveling by themselves. So that is one of the things you
need to do. And then, they enjoy it more than if they’re going by themselves. They talk and it is
more a social thing. I think that is the sort of thing that we really need to encourage. It can make
them more secure and it can relieve the parents concerns also.
Ci{y of Palo Alto Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
!8
19
20
2!
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Burt: I was trying to think anecdotally of whether I have ever heard of a child riding to
school on a bicycle being accosted or kidnapped versus walking. That would be interesting if
there is any of that information available.
Ms. Durham: In the suburbs, your children are much more likely to be killed by cars than by bad
guys of any type, shooter bad guys or kidnapper bad guys much more. That is the kind of thing
that I think education because of the way the media works, we ignore it, the violence caused by
cars.
Chair Burt: Thank you, Kathy. Doug Kolozsvari to be followed by our final speaker, Dorothy
Bender.
Mr. Doug Kolozsvari. 409 East Meadow Drive, Palo Alto: Good evening. Doug Kolozsvari,
409 East Meadow. I work for Sam Trans as a transportation planner, I used to work for City
Staff here in the City of Palo Alto. I must say that is a hard act to follow. Kathy and Joan, it’s in
their passion. I’ll give it a shot.
I wanted to address two things tonight. One was E! Camino and arterials in general. There was
a comment in Attachment F from a resident who was concerned about bicycles on E1 Camino.
And in the third paragraph, he states, "Few bicyclists carry bikeway maps." I try to carry an
extra with me so that I can give it away. Not knowing what the alternatives are, they’re likely to
stay on E1 Camino even if they decide it was abad choice. And what that says to me is that there
are not enough people giving away bike maps. And that people will still use E1 Camino even
though it’s an unsafe road. And my concern that it’s taken off the list of improvements, that the
improvements won’t be made. There are potential improvements that could be made. Bike
detection on E1 Camino is a very feasible option and it will help improve safety tremendously. I
would just like that, the improvements, at least to be kept in there even if you don’t call it a bike
route. Improvements are what really counts in this Bike Plan.
The second issue I would like to address are bicycle lanes. I have to respectfully disagree with
Joan about bicycle lanes on Maybell. I worked on this [Safer House] School Project, I was a
member of the Working Group and it would be very difficult to put any improvement on
Maybell. It is a very narrow road and I agree with you there. I don’t agree that bicycle lanes
cause safety issues. I used to use that route when I rode my bike to Gunn every day. So I am
pretty familiar with that road as a medium to an experienced cyclist. I felt that in this group, I
would be much safer if there was a bicycle lane there designating where vehicles drive, where
bicycles can ride and where vehicles can park. Parking was more of an issue than anything on
this constrained roadway. Because as it is in Barron Park, there are no sidewalks to give
guidance to vehicles so you end up with a staggered effect. It is a collector street with high
volume, relatively for Barron Park and with high speeds. So this was a suggestion that was made
out of the Working Group. It went to a Grant for a [Safer House] School for acutal funding.
Now a bike boulevard would be great, too. I’m not going to disagree with that. Anything to
improve safety on that road would be great and wonderful. And if there is a viable option, I
think we should pursue it. But in light of no funding, in light of having a fire department nearby
it would be at best opposed to almost any sort of traffic calming device. I think the bike lanes
are much more feasible for that road. That is a very specific comment and that is something that
will probably come up later. I just wanted to emphasize that I feel much safer in bike lanes.
City of Palo Alto Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
That is my personal choice. I am not the most experienced rider, I’m not the least experienced
rider but I remember what it was like to be the least experienced rider and I feel much safer in
bike lanes.
Chair Burt: Question. On a narrow street such as Maybell, if bike lanes are put in, would it be
safer in your opinion to not have center striping?
Mr. Kolozsvari: I would first like to say that striping has also been identified as a traffic calming
device in the traffic calming workbook that is put together by our Transportation Division. It is
used on various streets in Palo Alto. I do feel that any kind of striping would channel cars and
slow them at the same time. That is my personal belief. There are a lot of studies out there that
disagree and contradict each other. So it is whatever study you find and you like, you can use.
So my personal opinion, yes, I feel safer when there are designated vehicle lanes, designated bike
lanes. And another additional benefit is that on Maybell where there are no sidewalks on the
majority of the street, pedestrians can also use the bicycle lanes and given the amount of volume
for bicycles and pedestrians there would be relatively few conflicts and also keep vehicles farther
away from the pedestrians.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Dorothy Bender, our last speaker.
Ms. Dorothy Bender. 591 Military Way. Palo Alto: Thank you, Pat. I’m Dorothy Bender and I
live in Barron Park very c!ose to E1 Camino, and I bicycle every day and on weekends. I do long
distance riding. I have been riding all over the world including several weeks in Vietnam. And
I’m thinking how lucky we are to have such a wonderful environment to bicycle every day. I am
also the Secretary of the Western [Realist] Bicyele Club and I do rides in the foothills and all
over this area.
I just have a couple of comments. Richard Swent’s letter rea!ly talked to me. I was very
delighted to read that. His comments about E1 Camino Real, I think someone who faces the
choice of going on E1 Camino every single day because I live very close to E1 Camino. IfI have
to go to, for example, the Palo Alto Medical Clinic and I do go several times, too, I have to
decide whether, or Town & Country or any place north, do I go on E1 Camino or do I go over
Park Boulevard or to Churchill across the tracks. I mean, there are so many obstacles so I do go
on E1 Camino once more, and I don’t choose to go on E1 Camino but it is the closest path up
north. Also I like to go to Kepler’s Book Store. There is no bookstore in our area, or there’s one
down in San Antonio. So ifI am going to Kepler’s, I have to think of how would I navigate. So
Richard and Ellen’s comments about E1 Camino, I do hope that you see E1 Camino as an area
that should have continued priorities that does have on the accident list, it is listed as number
one. It is listed nine times. So people wil! ride E1 Camino and because they will ride it, we
should ensure that we make it as safe as possible. Middlefield is listed eight times, so that should
be included.
I like the idea about providing perhaps incentives for people to bicycle. I work at Stanford and
parking gets more and more expensive. So to the degree that people can get rewarded, we get a
benefit from bicycling. They’re not buying a bike pass. So those are things that perhaps we
could encourage like businesses to make that part of their Plan. Then finally, I don’t know if
your proposal addressed Arastradero Road and the bike path on to Los Altos. When you are
coming back on the bike path from Los Altos and you want to go, for example, left. How do you
City of Palo Alto Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1!
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
go left on Arastradero and toward Gunn High School? It’s impossible. So people have to
through the Jewish Community Center and get on to Terman Park and that is a difficult
navigation. But those are the little details that for someone who bicycles every day like I do, I
have many, many stories about it. I’!! let you talk. Thank you.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Well, I think we need to look at our clock and readjust our plan on how
we are going to address the Bike Plan. We have had such strong interest and valuable input from
the public and a lot of interest from the Commission, and we have the SOFA II Plan yet
scheduled for this evening. It seems that the Commission is going to have a fair amount of
discussion and input on the subject. What does Staff foresee as a potential to have Commission
discussion and comments be deferred to a subsequent meeting? Bonnie was mentioning the
other possibility would be to attempt to complete this item and not be able to address SOFA
tonight. So, we’d welcome Staff’s input on those two options.
Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official: I think we’d like to take a break and look at the
schedule and then come back after the break v~ith some ideas about how to do that.
Chair Burt: Okay. One thing is that the public that is here tonight if there is not going to be
more discussion on the Bike Plan, they may want to leave at this time. Are you guys okay?
Okay, in that case, we will adjourn for five to ten minutes and get back together.
At this time, we are reconvening our meeting. Would Staff like to give us your feedback on
recommendations for how we should proceed with the schedule?
Ms. Grote: Thank you very much. Our proposal would be that you continue the Bicycle Plan
discussion to July 17a, that is a Wednesday. It would be a Special Meeting on July 17tu. That
will allow you time to consider the public’s comments tonight, as well as further analysis of the
Plan and Staff Report. That would also allow you some time to talk about SOFA II tonight,
continuing your discussion. We would also ask that you consider having further discussion
about SOFA II on June 27tu. That is a Special Meeting on a Thursday evening that would allow
you to consider the economic analysis at least in draft form that is currently being prepared. And
again, that would be June 27th, which is a Thursday for further discussion on SOFA II.
Chair Burt: How does that suit the Commission? Acceptable? Great. Then I would like to add
to that that Staff is planning on coming back on July 17th with a revised plan reflecting the
comments tonight, comments from the City School Committee.
Mr. Steve Emslie, Plannin~ Director: The reason we selected that date is it wil! coincide with
the City School Traffic Committee meeting which will be June 20 so they will be able to take up
the issues raised tonight. Staff will be able to craft proposals to address those and present those
to you to help focus and frame your discussion when you do take it up on July 17th.
Chair Burt: I would like to add as an encouragement to Commissioners that if they would like to
provide comments to Staff prior to our July 17th meeting, to try and do so in the next two weeks
or so, so that Staff can include those as input that they would respond to. Wyrme, you look
anxious to make a comment on this?
City of Palo Alto Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Ms. Wynne Furth, Senior Assistant City Attorney: That’s fine because as long as you give it to
Staff then we can present it, put it together and bring in back to you in a public document so that
the public will be aware of the comments you made.
Mr. Emslie: And I would say the deadline should be June 20th with comments that we are going
to leave you at that school at the Committee. That would be a great way to get al! the comments
at one time and consider them and put them together in a comprehensive proposal back to the
Commission.
Commissioner Bialson: Should that be by e-mai! to Gayle?
Mr. Emslie: I would say e-mai! to Gayle would be preferred, yes.
Chair Burt: It was brought to my attention that there may be an issue on how to address some of
the public comments. One of the audience members had said that planning_commission was the
address. Is there a correction somewhere on that?
Ms. Likens:
Chair Burt:
know that?
Ms. Likensi
We will correct that correspondence.
Should we put into the record tonight, what would be the correct address? Do we
Yes. I’ll defer to Zariah if you’d like.
Ms. Zariah Betten, Secretary: It is plandiv_info@citg.pato-alto.ca.us. It is all lower case, please.
Chair Burt: Then finally, I would like to note for the record three items that were introduced
tonight that will be available to the Commission and the public at a later time. One is a letter
from Jeff Brown, second from Kathy Durham and third from Grace [Liu].
So thank you everyone who has come for the Bicycle Plan and we welcome your continued
participation and are looking forward to perhaps seeing you on July 17th.
At this time, we will proceed to Item 2 on the agenda.
City of Palo Alto Page 27
ATTACHMENT F
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26:
August 14, 2002
REGULAR MEETING -7.’00 PM
City Council Chambers
Civic Center; 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL: 7:10 pm
Cotmnissioners:
Patrick Burr, Chair
Bonnie Packer, Vice-Chair - absent
Karen Holman
Kathy Schmidt
Michael Griffin
Phyllis Cassel
Annette Bialson
Staff:
Steve Emslie, Planning Director
Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
Michael Jackson, Dep. Director P. W.
Gayle Likens, Senior Planner
Carl Stoffel, Transportation Engineer
Glenn Roberts, Public Works Director
Ariel CaIonne, City Attor~wy
Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary
Lynne Johnson, Deputy Police Chief
Lt. Jon Hemandez, Police Dept.
Chair Burt: Good evening. At this time we would like to begin the Planning and Transportation
Commission meeting for August 14, 2002. Would the Secretary cal! the rol!? Thank you.
At this time we provide opportunities for members of the public to speak on items that are not on
the agenda.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda
with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a
speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and
Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15
minutes.
Chair Burt: We do not have any speaker cards for unagendized items.
Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19.
20-
21
22
23:
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Emslie: I see the Public Works Staff nodding in agreement that that could be included when
we come back.
Chair Burt:. Does the maker of the motion accept thai amendment?
Commissioner Cassel: Sure.
Chair Burt: And the seconder. Michael, did you wish to comment?
Commissioner Griffin: I wanted to broaden that even more. The whole concept of alternatives,
what else could be done in order to avoid having to build this facility out there in the parkland?
Could we combine for example with the cities of Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills and
find some non-Palo Alto location for a transfer station that we could jointly own or jointly
operate with other cities in an attempt to have our cake and eat it too have a transfer station or
have a recycling facility but not in Byxbee Park.
Chair Burt: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: I don’t want to change the motion as we have now. I think we have a
fairly broad motion on the floor for the Staff to do some research and some adjustment in what
they are doing. I am sure this kind of thought will come forward. It will have to in the EIR and I
am sure we will end up with a full EIR.
Chair Burt: Okay. Any other discussion?
MOTION PASSED
All those in favor? (ayes) Opposed. That motion passes unanimously. Thank you all very
much.
The next item on our agenda is The Bicycle Master Transportation Plan. We are at 8:30, should
we take our break now before diving into the Bike Master Plan? Yes. Okay in that case we will
take a ten-minute break at this time while Staff sets up for our next agenda item. Thank you.
Our next item is a continuation of the Commission review of the Palo Alto Bicycle
Transportation Plan.
Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Plan: The Commission will review and comment on
the Master Plan and formulate recommendations to forward to the City Council.
Chair Burr: The Commission will review and comment on the Master Plan and formulate
recommendations to forward to the City Council. Would Staff like to give us an update?
Mr. Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official: Thank you Chair Burt, Members of the
Commission. This is the third time we have come to the Commission with the Bike Plan the first
in May for a study session and then on June 5 for a public hearing receiving public comments. I
will quickly go through a couple of slides. They may be repetitive from past meetings but I think
City of Palo Alto Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
’ 43
45
46
47
48
these points are very important to keep in mind to set the framework for your discussion this
evening.
There is a strong basis in the Comprehensive Plan for consideration of cycling facilities and
improvement of cycling facilities and even preference for cycling facilities in Palo Alto. Why
consideration, why improvement, why preference? The range of benefits that cycling offers as a
transportation mode. Startling, stunning, breathtaking compared to the use of motor vehicles and
¯ really auto dependency in the terms of our Comprehensive Plan. Moving right across the whole
board from the environment to energy dependence to personal and RuNic health to the economy
and to residential quality of life. Often overlooked, the quiet of the bicycle and the eyes on the
street that cyclists provide to communities and to neighborhoods.
What is the potential of cycling? Well there is good news and bad news. The good news is there
is tremendous potential for cycling growth. The bad news is we severely under use cycling as a
transportation mode. Just amazingly enough about half of U.S. trips and we have no good reason
to believe we are any different in Palo Alto, about half of U.S. person trips are three miles or
less, which is a relatively easy bicycle ride in a bicycle friendly environment. However, U.S.
bicycle trips are less than one percent of all person trips. This is all based on the National
Personal Transportation Survey, which is taken every five years. There was some discussion, I
think very good discussion, last time with the Commission about fixing where we are, how much
cycling do we have in Palo Alto. The point was made our estimate of current cycling is very
soft. One of the issues for our Bike Program is to improve our numbers, improve our estimation
of current cycling and our projection of furore cycling.
What do cyclists need to fulfill this great potential? They need a network. They need a range of
facilities that appeal to and serve the range of cyclists from the elite experienced cyclist, which
Palo Alto has all the way to beginning cyclist, young children and all the rest of us. Cyclists
need secure and convenient parking. Also sometimes overlooked, encouragement that cycling is
fine; it is a good idea,¯you should do more of it and some education. As the Commission knows
the Bicycle Program has been doing both.
Issues in the Bike Plan before you this evening, which Gayle wil! discuss and members of the
Bicycle Advisory Committee wil! also discuss, we have the Chair of the Committee, Paul
Goldstein here and other members. The whole issue of over and undercrossing barriers, train
tracks, freeways, and so forth, the need for more of those grade separations and where. Bicycle
boulevards, we have the nations first and it is coming up to its 20manniversary. A bicycle ’
boulevard: a bicycle friendly street where bikes go through and vehicles cannot go all the way
through.
What about providing for cyclists on arterial streets and major streets? Should cycling lanes be
provided or wider curb lanes? The issue of a comprehensive network since our road network is
so comprehensive why shouldn’t our bicycling network be equally comprehensive? Again;
about diversity of cyclists, do we serve and provide facilities for only a small percentage of
cyclists or the complete range of bicyclists? .Lastly, how best to link with plans and programs
and projects that address school commute safety, traffic calming and public transport. As you
know, the peninsula and Palo.Alto .benefits from this and has one of the most bicycle friendly
commuter rail operations, if not the most bicycle friendly commuter rail Operation in the United
States. How better to interface with public transit to get the complete benefit of public transit
City of Palo Alto Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
!7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
and eliminate all the potential for automobile access by having for example bicycle access to and
from the train stations, encouraging more of that. We need safer roads in order for that to
happen. Gayle Likens wil! take over for me to present to you a quick overview of the Bike Plan
specifically addressing some of the concerns the Commission has raised and the public has raised
including the City School Traffic Safety Committee, all the members of the School Committee
and the Bicycle Advisory Committee for Palo Alto. I believe again that Committee members
may wish to address the Commission. Thank you very much.
Ms. Likens: I would just like to begin by reviewing what were the main bicycling priorities we
heard during the public input process including and up unti! your last meeting on June 5. They
were that we should develop a network of bicycle boulevards, that we should have better bridges
and undercrossings to fill gaps and close gaps over roadways, over railroads,.over freeways and
to improve the maintenance of our facilities and improve the routes to school component of the
bike network should be very clear, that we need to educate our motorists and our cyclists of all
ages and abilities about the rules of the road and how to travel safely and share the road safely
and that we really need more streets with bike lanes. At the June 5 meeting you heard from
members of the community and you also heard from members of the school community asking
for further opportunity to provide more detailed review and input on the plan. As a result of that
Staff took the plan to the City School Traffic Safety Committee and to the Palo Alto Bicycle
Advisory Committee. The Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee basically felt the plan was
fairly comprehensive but wanted to make sure that we improved showing which facilities served
which types of cyclists and also that the plan and the document emphasize the education
component more in the implementation plan than it did. The implementation plan chapter of the
report was mostly geared toward facilities and policies but not toward education and promotion
of bicyc!ing. The City School Traffic Safety Committee looked at the plan in great detail and
they had several recommendations. One was again that the plan be clearer about the types of
facilities and the types of cyclists that would benefit from those facilities from school children to
adult cyclist, commuter cyclists, recreational cyclists to really have the plan state that more
clearly than it did. I think during the discussion at the last meeting there was a question about is
this plan oriented more toward the .adult commuter skilled cyclist than anybody else. We have
tried, in revising the plan, to clear that up. The City School Traffic Safety Committee also felt
that the plan didn’t adequately address the spot improvements that are needed at intersections,
difficult intersection especially along school commute routes for children who could otherwise
use those routes safely but at major intersections encountered difficulties. So in reviewing the
plan we have identified those !ocations. They ar.e all of the signalized intersections of Oregon
Expressway, which for the most part are school commute routes, Newell and Embarcadero,
which is another intersection along a major school commute route to Jordan and also to Paly.
While Newel! has bike lanes the intersection and crossing at Embarcadero is quite difficult. Also
intersections along E1 Camino, Arastradero was called out in the earlier version of the map but
we have added Stanford Avenue and Churchill and Embarcadero to that list. So these are
improvements that I think really strike.a balance between the linear routes that we are proposing
and the spot improvements that need to be made. The Committee also had some
recommendations with regard to including Maybe!l and Donald Avenue bike routes as one of the
implementation priorities which they have not been. So we have updated the entire Master Plan
map and the new map was included in your packet. It shows all of these improvements. They
have been incorporated as recommended by PABAC and the City Schools Traffic Safety
Committee and members of the PTA.
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 22
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
!0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Then in terms of the implementation priorities what we have tried to do in Table 6-3 is show how
all of the recommended priorities serve cyclists of all ages and abilities and which facilities serve
the school commute and the less skilled cyclists and those that serve the more skilled cyclists.
So we have broken out the recommended implementation priorities into the strategic
improvements which include severa! bicycle boulevards, among them Castilleja and Park
Boulevard, the Matedero Margarita Avenue bike boulevard, the E1 Camino Way/Maybell way to
Terman Middle School, Everett and Palo Alto Avenue which is part of the Downtown North
plann.ed improvements which will enhance that route for bicyclists, Homer Avenue, Chaucer,
Boyce and Melville and of course the extension of the Bryant Street bike boulevard. Those bike
boulevards serve everybody because they are direct routes, efficient routes for more skilled
cyclists but calm streets with low traffic volumes for those student cyclists or recreational
cyclists. Undercrossings are another strategic improvement and we heard in the pubic testimony
that people would like to see more of these in the plan including improvements in South Pa!o
Alto noting that most of the undercrossings are in North Palo Alto. So we have made sure that
the South Palo Alto undercrossings of Caltrain are identified in the plan as implementation
priorities. Of course they serve all ty~es of cyclists, school commute and pedestrians as well.
We have broken down the major Street system into two categories, collector and residential
arterials and the improvements that we have recommended in the implementation plan. More are
geared to serving skilled cyclists and some school commute routes because we do have routes to
school on our collectors and residential arterials. Then the major arterial streets such as Alma~ E!
Camino, Arastradero and the Research Park collector and arterial networks that really attract
more skilled cyclists and commuter cyclists. Then we have added a second category of spot
improvements to the implementation plan and those are the ones I described earlier.
So we think that this plan is a more balanced plan and the way it is presented shows the balance
more than our previous draft. We would like to hear the Commission’s comments on those
things as well. We have made some initial editorial changes in the text of the implementation
plan and in the text of the report but that is not a completed revised report. We are looking
forward to your comments and we will go back and totally revise the text of the report before it
moves forward to the City Council taking into account your comments, the comments we have
heard in detail from the school community and from PABAC. That ends my presentation.
Chair Burr: Thank you, Gayle. Phyllis, you have a question?
Commissioner Cassel: Gayle, my question, relates to existing paths that go through parks that
connect things. They didn’t get included on this updated map and there has to be some reason
that that’s not done especially when it provides a crossing across a creek. So either it isn’t high
priority or they aren’t in good condition or the school bike routes don’t like them or something.
For some reason these keep getting excluded, what’s happening?
Ms. Likens: That is an oversight. It is referenced in the plan in the text that we will include
them in all of our bike route maps and they will be incorporated in this Master Plan map before it
goes forward to the City Counci!. We took that comment to heart.
Commissioner Cassel: So this isn’t a fully updated map.
City of Palo Alto Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Ms. Likens: We need to add those and we will certainly add those facilities as park paths. They
may not all meet bike path standards but that Would be a separate category of paths that could on
this Master Plan and also on every published map that we issue.
Commissioner Cassel: So wisely they could be a different color or something but parents need
to know that there are alternate ways thrdugh some of these spaces.
Ms. Likens: Absolutely because they do provide direct connections.
Chair Burt: I notice that as you mention in the implementation plan it is under Subsection 4.5
that you have stated that intention to include them in the maps.
Ms. Likens: Yes.
Chair Burt: Other questions prior to hearing from the public? In that case we have so far three
members of the public who have submitted cards and I suspect we will have additional ones.
Our first speaker is Pau! Goldstein to be followed by Cedric de La Beaujardiere. Paul, welcome.
Mr. Paul Goldstein, 1024 Emerson Street, Palo Alto: I am Chair of the Palo Alto Bicycle
Advisory Committee. I just wanted to speak very briefly and say that the Committee has spent a
large amount of time working with Staff on this plan. We think it is a very good plan and we
think it is actually a better plan from the public comments we’ve had, from the comments
particularly of the City School Traffic Safety Committee who raised good concerns and from
your comments and the very good work of Staff.
So I think it still has some refinements to go through and it could be made better especially in its
presentation but I think and the Committee thinks it is a very good plan and it is a very balanced
plan.
The balance, when we initially talked about how the plan should be developed PABAC very
clearly said to the consultants and said in the objective that we did not want a purely physical
plan. Many bicycle plans are only talking about physical improvements. We wanted to talk not
only about physical improvements but also about programs, education and encouragement
programs. Now, I think that the plan actually does a good job of this but the way it is organized
the non-physical improvements are not placed in the same section as the physical improvements.
I think that maybe upon a redraft that the emphasis could be made clearer that we as a
community feel that the education and the encouragement programs are just as an important part
of a bicycle plan as the strictly physical aspects of the plan. I actually have no doubt that Staff
feels that way. I have no doubt that our policies should be directed that way and I think it is
stated in the plan but not as succinctly and clearly as I would like it to be.
Along the lines of education, I think something that has been said in some of the other public .
comment and email exchanges is that some of the things that a bicyclists needs to do in riding
with traffic, and this goes for both school children and adults, are not particularly intuitive and
one needs to learn how to deal with these things. I, myself, just finished completion of the City
offered street skills class. I have to say it was an excellent class it was very interesting even
though it was basically lecture. It was very wel! presented. Although I am an experienced
cyclist I knew much of what was happening there I think that the kinds of skills that we could
City of Palo Alto Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
teach to adult cyclists would make people a lot more comfortable about cycling in traffic. I don’t
think traffic per se is dangerous for cyclists. I think that cyclists not using proper techniques can
make things a lot more dangerous for themselves than traffic. Conversely, using proper cycling
techniques in traffic can make it much safer and feel much safer.
I wanted to say something about the specifid physical projects that are listed there. For one
thing, comments were made that there was some feeling that we should prioritize the projects or
rank them. I would encourage us not to have a ranked list of projects but simply to identify a set
of projects that we consider high priority. Many of these projects can qualify for funding from
other agencies: I think we should take an. opportunistic approach within the high priority projects
to develop and prioritize those that are more likely to get built at any time. I think that an effort
to rank them may be counterproductive. Also, along the lines of those projects I would like us to
look at the specific projects without too much attention to the specificity of them. Let me give
you an example. We have a project to convert the Maybell-Donald-Georgia route to a bike
boulevard. Currently there may be an opportunity to put bike lanes on that street. I would
consider both of those projects as being a high priority project to enhance that route. The
specifics of whether it is a bike boulevard or a bike lane that sort of thing will come out as we do
the design, get the funding, as we prioritize things and move them to the implementation phase.
Similarly the E1 Camino route is marked only as a route. We may have an opportunity to put
bike lanes on it. Certainly there is not a conflict in the plan between bike lanes and bike routes.
What is indicated primarily is that that’s a high priority route for cyclists and if we can go
beyond a bike route to bike lanes so much the better if the opportunity presents itself. Thank
you.
Chair Burt: Thank you, Paul, and thank you to the Advisory Committee. Cedric to be followed
by Robert Chatfield.
Mr. Cedric de La Beaujardiere, 3153 Stellin~ Drive, Palo Alto: Thank you Cha~ and
Commissioners for giving me the chance to speak. One of the things that Ariadne asked me to
mention is education, the road one courses that Paul just .mentioned. If for some reason we can’t
get bicycling, education in the school because of feelings that there is not enough time given the
school curriculum and stuff perhaps we should consider increasing the funding for more road one
courses because these are appropriate for both adults and children. A lot of children have
attended and benefited from these courses.
Also the plan ca!ls for doing yearly bicycle counts. I think that is a good thing. I think that you,
the Staff and the Commission, might consider at some point whether it would be possible to put
in automatic counters at intersections to automatically count both cars and bicyclists. I think that
would give you good planning tools and more complete numbers than just a yearly count, which
is very weather dependent, etc. I think that the plan hopes increase the share of cycling but I
don’t think the plan alone can do it. I think the Staff and the Commission and the Council need
to consider what else they can do to reduce auto dependency and increase alternate modes of .
transportation. Some of the things that I think should be considered are revising our parking
requirements and reducing the amount of free parking available. When I taJk to people in San
Francisco one of the reasons that a lot of them take transit is not just that the transit system is
very good but that finding a parking space is very difficult. So I think that is something to
consider as well when we make too much parking available everywhere then why bother biking
when you can just drive.
City of Palo Alto Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42-
43
44
45
46
47
48
Joe Kott pointed out an interesting statistic that 25% of trips in the country are one mile or less
and 75% of those trips are done by automobile. So it would be interesting to do some studies
about why people drive and what could get people out of their cars. In another group I’m in, the
Santa Clara Valley Resource Team on Air Quality, we sponsored some youth focus groups at
Paly and Gunn High Schools to ask that very question. Why do you drive? What would get you
to not drive? The students where very clear that they lead busy lives and that the public transit
system is inadequate to meet their needs and that if they had incentives to take alternative modes
of transportation that they might do that more. So for instance the schools might consider doing
commuter check programs. For instance I can get three dollars a day for every day that I don’t
drive to work or I can get $100.00 commuter check to buy my monthly Caltrain pass. So of
course we need to see what we can do about providing better public transportation in the City.
Something I wish I had mentioned years ago is that I think that are opportunities when we are
doing big developments like South of Forest Area to combine developments in a way and
provide car-free bikeways: So for instance if you have an area with three parallel streets and
large building developments on the blocks in between the streets if the underground parking is
accessible from both sides of the street then basically you can divert all the traffic to the exterior
streets and have the people access the parking from these exterior streets. Then on the center
street you can then take cars out completely they don’t need to be there and you can put in more
trees and more pedestrian ways and more bikeway. Unfortunately I think that opportunity may
have been mostly lost in the SOFA area but maybe one day these opportunities will appear again.
I think that’s it. Thanks very much.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Robert Chatfield to be followed by Bob Moss.
Mr. Robert Chatfield, 86 Roosevelt Circle, Palo Alto: May I ask for a correction of the
perspective? I can’t quite see South Palo Alto. That is actually point number two. Point number
one is it is a great job that the Bicycle Committee is doing. I like things that I see here even
better than what I saw last time. Sorry I have been out of town, I haven’t been able to commit
some things to paper for you.
Point number two is South Palo Alto and access and getting something done for real traffic
safety. I think if you will direct your eyes up there you can see that things really do fall apart in
South Palo Alto. I think of South East Meadow. I live on 86 Roosevelt Circle just south of East
Meadow. I think things have become progressively worse as you approach the borders it is as if
Mountain View does not exist or Los Altos or that anybody would ever want to go there: We
like to visit friends, we like recreation over there, we like to have access also to South Palo Alto
over to the Baylands Palo Alto and Mountain View. sites, both. Take a look at Middlefield
crossing San Antonio, yes that is supposed to be fixed up. It needs fixing much more than I
would say .three of the sites in middle Palo Alto that is Oregon. You really need to have good
thought. I see the words I don’t see the emphasis al! the way from Challenger School and points
south to trying to get into Mountain View. That.is probably the worst. Fairly bad is the way to
get out to the south or southeast along Alma, along the San Antonio crossing. There is no
marked intersection improvement there. It is extremely confusing as you try to approach the
borders of Palo Alto about what you are supposed to do. How do you get to those nice bike
lanes and bike paths in Mountain View? How would you get to Los Altos? The comer there
needs to be spotted for improvement. There is a great job that has just been done at a crossing
City of Palo Alto Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
over into Mountain View at [Nitka], that’s the part that is marked. The only difficulty is that the
remaining serious problem with cars running into cyclists potentially on a side street. It is a
simple change and a little more attention there. Last point here is really access to Los Altos. If
you take a look at the Wilkie path there is actually two or three very easy ways to get to Los
Altos Avenue. This is also a school improvement in that there are enough people in South Palo
Alto who can use Los Altos Avenue to get to the new junior high and to Gunn High School. My
daughter will be going there and that is a good potential route for her. There is a clear channel
right between one of the streets right off the Wilkie bike path directly to Cezano Court that is
directly across from Los Altos Avenue. All those things will help all with thoughtful access to
the Baylands site will certainly help. That is point number two.
Point number three is really very simple yes you need to consider alternatives. There are several
suggestions to the Bicycle Committee and to the Planning Commission that you actually
consider sidewalks in some areas in South Palo Alto. As you can see things are broken up there
and it gets harder to get across Cezano Court, it is harder to go through Green Meadow and so
forth. It is very difficult around the school complex, esPecially with Challenger Schoo!
expanding there. In al! those cases a modest improvement improving bicycle on sidewalk with
enough room for pedestrians and clearly marked will have some real success. I just want to
emphasize flexibility in that region.
Point number four is again thanks very much. Good plan.
Chair Burt: Excuse me. I had a follow up question. I was trying to follow your
recommendations for the connections off of Los Altos Avenue and I got lost there.
Mr. Chatfield: It is actually easier for me to come up and point for you.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Bob Moss and that is the final speaker card we have on this subject.
Mr. Bob Moss, 40!00rme, Palo Alto: Thank you Chairman Burt. You had a very valid point
when you talked about the bike path versus a bike boulevard on Maybell and I would like to
discuss that briefly. It would be relatively easy to putbike paths on Maybell particularly from
Coulombe all the way down to Donald and Arastradero because the street is wide and doesn’t get
an awful lot of parking that interferes with the bike lanes. The section right by Briones Park and
Briones School gets a lot of parking both from people dropping off at the unit and people parking
during the day at the park. So bike lanes ~there would be a little more difficult to make work.
One area that is really difficult on Maybell is as you get c!ose to E1 Camino there is an awful lot
of traffic in and out of the Walgreen’ s which can create some more hazards for cyclists along
there. So if you want to put anything along there you would have to do it very thoughtfully. In
concept putting a bike path rather than a bike boulevard might be more effective on Maybell.
Actually, I would suggest that we take a little closer !ook at it.
The other street section I am still interested in is this section down here. This section here has a
lot of traffic and right over here Briones Park and Briones School there are drop offs along here
for the old age people and there are a lot of people that park here during the day. The daycare
people take kids to the park and park their cars along the street. From here on down the street is
relatively unencumbered in terms of bike lanes and then you have Walgreen’ s up over here
which gets a !ot of traffic ’al! day long. So if there is a bike lane along here it would have to be
City of Palo Alto Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45.
46
47
done very carefully so you don’t have kids that are endangered by the people pulling in and out
of Walgreen’s.
The other section I am interested in the one block between Laguna and Orme which is quite
narrow and I don’t know how you are physically going to put a bike lane in there. The street is
26 feet wide and after you put a bike lane, there is a bike lane sort of on the north side fight over
here but there is really no room over here because it has a storm drain. I used to think you could
narrow the street a couple of feet and make some [Langford] lanes and it would work but after
seeing some of the huge construction trucks go up and down that street lately, these big dump
trucks, you can’t take too many feet out of that traffic lane. It wouldn’t work. So you are going
to have to be creative along here and maybe for one block you don’t need bike lanes. Maybe you
only have a bike lane on one side. I don’t think you will get bike lanes on both sides of that one
block.
The other area that you might take a look at is if you want to put any bike lanes along Laguna.
There are sections of Laguna that are quite wide and could accommodate it but I don’t know if it
really pays off. You might take a look at it and see whether you think it would be effective or
not. That is a transit corridor between Briones School and Barron Park School and a lot of kids
do go there and it would be nice if they could be able to ride their bikes. Although in general
biking in Barron Park is not a hazard. I see people go up Los Robles on bikes, on skateboards,
inline skates, we used to see people ride horses up there unti! Ken Artunen moved out with his
borders, but it is a rather eclectic area in terms of methods of transportation. Thank you.
Chair Burt: Thank you. So.at this time we will return tothe Commission for questions of Staff
prior to our own discussion. Who would like to begin? Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: Just a point that I would like some confirmation on with regard to
designating E1 Camino a bike route. As we have been talking within the E1 Camino Advisory
Group, etc,, there has been discussion of creating dedicated striped bike lanes. Here you are
speaking to designating E1 Camino as a bike route in order to assure adequate outside lane width.
Could you give me an indication of why we are designating E1 Camino the way we are what we
hope to achieve by that?
Ms. Likens: The reason that we have identified El Camino as a future bike route is because there
is a level of bicycling activity along that street now that is fairly utilitarian commuter oriented
route but there are also cyclists who have destinations on E1 Camino and it is a state highway.
So we don’t have jurisdiction over it but we want to show that we recognize that it is a commuter
cycling route and by designating it we have an opportunity to work with Caltrans to have them
maintain design and engineer the facilities on that street with both vehicles, transit, bicyclists and
pedestrians in mind and that the space allocation along the street provide for a safe place in the
roadway for cyclists to fide, That is a certain width which can be or doesn’t have to be
designated as a bike lane but as is coming out in the discussions with the E1 Camino corridor
study the space that a cyclist needs to travel next to a moving vehicle in a travel lane is about the
same space that you could either stripe a lane or not stripe a lane. So in this plan we are saying it
needs to be recommended that the lane width be adequate for safe cycling and it doesn’t
necessarily have to be a striped bike lane. That’s where this plan is showing it. In addition there
are other features of the roadway, the signal operations, the signal timing and al! the other
City of Palo Alto Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
!2
!3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
engineering of the roadway that has to have cyclists taken into consideration. So there are good
reasons to designate it as a bike route.
Commissioner Bialson: Just as a follow up to that. My main concern is that in certain areas of
E1 Camino there is sufficient width to have a dedicated striped bike lane in other areas there is a
need to have a tradeoff between what is allocated to pedestrians, what’s al!ocated to parking,
what’s allocated to the bike lanes.. I am concerned that by including E1 Camino as bike route we
are somehow frozen to leaving that four-foot width for bicyclists to the detriment of pedestrians
or parking. So I want to make sure that we understand what we are doing by agreeing to have E1
Camino designated a bike route if either you or some else, Joe, could answer that question.
Ms. Likens: I want to state that this is a master-planning document. This is not an
implementation document. We are not at the schematic design. That is kind of where the E!
Camino corridor study is going but this document is not at that level of detail. It states more the
policy that we want to show E1 Camino in the future and move toward a street that is safer for
cyclists to ride on and could be designated as bike route. We are not doing that today but the
goal is by showing it on the Master Plan in that way that we would move toward implementation
in the future.
Commissioner Bialson: Just one more comment Pat. My concern is that by putting that into the
plan we say to future Planning Commissions and future City Councils that this has somehow
been thought out and is part of the vision we have rather than recognizing that there will be a
balancing in the future. Is there some way we can say that in the plan as well as have E1 Camino
designated on this map that we are creating? I want some language attached to it, that’s all.
Mr. Kott: Just a comment on arterials like E1 Camino and bicycling. As Gayle pointed out we
do have bicycling occurring both on E1 Camino and the sidewalks. There are so many driveway
cuts and lots of curb cuts as you all know on E! Camino there are some real concerns for us,
safety concerns. The main thing is width. We need to have clear width for the cyclists. When
they are with parking they need to have clear enough width to avoid not only the travel lanes to
the left, the vehicles in that; but the doors that swing out of the parking lane. There is a
legitimate issue and debate about striped bike lanes. I have my own personal opinions about that
and I know members of the PABAC do and other members of our Staff do and so forth. There is
a certain level of encouragement implied in a bike lane. The bike route designation does mean
that there will be more provision made for safe cycling. Since it is already occurring that seems
to be an important point to consider.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Michae!.
Commissioner Griffin: I would like to express largely the same sentiments that Annette
discussed on the E1 Camino. I still am concerned about Middlefield Road and I know that Cedric
and some of the other ski!led bicyclists are undeterred, about opening up Middlefield in the
Downtown area with bike paths but I don’t share that kind of enthusiasm. I am wondering do
you have any mitigations that you are offering to permit the safe.usage of Middlefield and North
Palo Alto as a bike route.
Mr. Kott: We would certainly only establish bike lanes where we had adequate width, which on
an arterial road would mean at least five feet of width. The bike route designation is probably a
City of Palo Alto Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
little bit less encouraging as I have said. With bike lanes we want to make sure that there are not
only wide enough bike lanes striped but also continuity, no breaks, in the bike lane. So you are
not left biking on the street and the bike lane is gone. You would have no bailout point, you
might say. When Middlefield Road is considered we have to make sure that we have both
continuity and enough width for safe cycling. Without those two things it is very difficult to
encourage anyone of less skill than some of our cyclists to use that road.
Commissioner Griffin: I am also concerned about diminishing the carrying capacity of
Middlefield as it heads into Menlo Park. As you know it narrows down to a single lane as it
heads across San Francisquito Creek Bridge and as the Downtown North traffic program kicks in
.Lytton and Middlefield are all going to be carrying more traffic. I can envision a safety issue if
all of that were to take place simultaneously.
Chair Burt: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: The Staff Report on 2.4 talks about eliminating sidewalk bike paths.
There is a lot of discussion back and forth about that and different people have different
perspectives. How is. Staff rectifying that conflict?
Ms. Likens: Staff supports the elimination of sidewalk bike paths because of the intrinsic unsafe
nature of the sidewalk bike path. It has been demonstrated in many studies. They are not
recommended as bicycling facilities under the state standards. Bicyclists who ride on the
sidewalk are traveling at a faster speed. They encounter many driveways, which are potential
points of conflict. They often enter the intersections riding on the wrong way, which are serious
points of conflict. We support removing the designation on our system of sidewalk bike paths.
For the most part that would not mean that you could not ride on the sidewalks but that we would
not promote the riding of bicycles on the sidewalk. For instance young elementary school
children most likely are going to ride on the sidewalks. They ride on residential sidewalks but on
Middlefield and Embarcadero and Alma Street and San Antonio where we have sidewalk bike
paths shown on our map, called out on our map as places to ride, it is Staff’s recommendation-
that those signs be taken down and we not show them on the map. That doesn’t mean that you
would not continue to be able to ride.
Chair Burt: I have a follow up question on that. I appreciate that there are intrinsic safety
problems with promoting sidewalk bicycling certainly where there are viable alternatives. I do
see places in our community where the intrinsic risks are greater off the sidewalk than on the
sidewalk. So for us to have a blanket ban on that or ban on the designation when we aren’t
addressing what the alternative is at that location seems very problematic to me. I’ll use an
example. Embarcadero between the track and E1 Camino out in front of Town & Country we
have an underpass there that has a designated sidewalk lane as I recall. Then as you emerge
from the underpass the cyclist is left in no mans land and it is a very dangerous situation. There
is absolutely no room on the street. When I take my children there it is avery precarious
situation and I would never take them onto Embarcadero at that location. Yet we have trees
planted on the sidewalk with none of the gradings that prevent bicyclists or for that matter,
pedestrians, from injuring themselves and we have no viable alternative there. It strikes me as
far and away the lesser of two evils and I don’t understand why in a circumstance like that we
would not address that situation and accommodate that need as best possible. Please convince
me otherwise.
City of Palo Alto Page 30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
1
2 Mr. Kott: This Commission and the Staff have already had quite an interesting experience visa
3 vie Embarcadero Road. We are very pragmatic, as I know this Commission is, we would not
4 force cyclists into dangerous road sections. Our ideal is to phase out sidewalk sections when we
5 can providea safe place on the roadway for.cyclists. The Embarcadero section you talked about
6 is obviously not a safe one for most cyclists, not all but most. So we are not really talking about
7 a rush to do this. I think we are talking about a phase out when and where we can, when we have
8 the opportunities and we have the money and so forth. We had an interesting opportunity with
9 traffic calming on Embarcadero to make a dramatic improvement in cycling conditions but it
10 wasn’t to be at least not yet. Sidewalk cycling presents real hazards. Drivers often do not look
both ways as they exit their driveway. They look toward approaching vehicles. They certainly
often !ook past sidewalks. So when we have, especially cycling at faster speeds it presents a real
safety hazard and we are uncomfortable with that.
Chair Burt: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: Could we rephrase this then? To say that we would phase these out as
we are able to make other accommodations rather than that we just take the signs off. Make it a
phase out based on making other accommodations.
Ms. Likens: That is an option. Philosophically I think the question is would people ride on those
facilities if they were not shown on the map and by showing them on the map we are, as a City,
saying that is the place where you should be riding but not only riding but we are saying to you
that’s a route to ride. That is the.philosophical question that I think from a Staff perspective you
can have people ride on those facilities without calling it out and saying go to Embarcadero and
ride on the sidewalk or go to Middlefield and ride on the Sidewalk, which is really what we are
saying when we put those facilities on our map. It is a discussion. We could phase them out but
in the case of Embarcadero there is no short term alternative.
Commissioner Cassel: Right, there is no alternative.
Ms. Likens: The-program is not moving toward having on-street bike lanes.
Commissioner Cassel: I drive Embarcadero going south towards 101 to take 10! South in a 10-
person van. Let me tell you it is quite an experience to watch bicyclists in front of cars. I know
to go slow because I bike or have biked. A lot of people get extremely frustrated with those
bicyclists that .are in front of them and there is no way to go around them. Those are adults and
they have enough guts to sit out far enough in the lane that there is no choice to go around them,
which is the way to handle that. For.younger people getting to close to the curb is actually not
the way to go and they will get on that sidewalk. As dangerous as that may be it certainly isn’t
as dangerous as riding on that street if they don’t know what they are doing, if they don’t have
that education and know how to do that or have the guts to do it. The way to do is you don;t
crouch the edge and give someone a chance to go around you when they don’t have space and
you don’t have space.
Chair Burt: Just.one more. follow up on that subject. Phyllis, I think later I do have some
proposed wording changes to Section 2.4. I think we talked about a philosophical question and a
City of Palo Alto Page 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
pragmatic one and I think what we have had is the philosophical approach trumped the pragmatic
in the verbiage in the plan. I think we will look to balance those two more. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: A couple of quick ones. I find the availability of maps and schedules
and stuff to be not that great in this community for the shuttle or the bike maps. So I am hoping
that the City will look at installing some kind of boxes, a quick example would be like the real
estate sales flyer boxes, I am sure there is something that would be better but something like that
at major intersections so you can see where you are. Also the signage, it talks about on
pavement signage. Last time we talked a little bit about double black diamonds and that sort of
thing. Is that being considered something that is a graphic symbol? It was stated by Staff that
most people don’t know the difference between a lane and a path and a route and boulevard. So
if there is some kind of graphic symbol that can indicate to people on the roadway what it is that
they are on and what the degree of difficulty is, I assume there is no liability issue with that so if
you say it is a green whatever and somebody might think that it is mislabeled I assume that there
are no liability issues.
Ms. Likens: Palo Alto is participating in a joint planning process with Menlo Park, East Palo
Alto and Stanford on developing a sub-regional bike route map that would include all the
facilities from al! these jurisdictions. One of the issues that we are going to be discussing and
evaluating is the idea of suitability ratings on the map, not only showing the facility, what it is,
i.e., bike lane, bike boulevard or a bike route but leve! of ability whether a beginner route, an
intermediate route or an advanced route, is it for a skilled cyclist or an intermediate cyclist. We
haven’t come to a determination yet but that would provide much more information to the
cyclists rather than just a map that shows what is on the street, what the pavement markings are.
Commissioner Holman: One other thing too is along the school corridors in those bike lanes if
there is some kind of way to have an additional school marking that maybe motorists would also
be able to see that and so it would be kind of a notice to them to also slow.down because it is a ¯
school corridor. I don’t know if that will be helpful or not but I’ll just wanted throw it out there
Mr. Kott: As some Commission Members may know there are communities around the country
and world, Amsterdam and Portland, Oregon for example, who have some on-street bike lanes
that are delineated by colored pavements on the bike lanes. We are very interested in that
approach. We would like to work sub-regionally though to do it. In terms of pavement
markings, the whole pavement-marking world is ultra conservative in terms of getting changed
symbology or changed wording marked on the pavement. We need to work with the state’s
committee to do that in order to provide the kind of uniformity that is really expected. In terms
of mapping we have lots of latitude on that. I would recommend the San Francisco bike and
pedestrian map they just issued as an outstanding example. They show grades that is, the change
of grade on street sections to prospective, cyclists and walkers.
Chair Burt: I have a number of questions so maybe take a few now and then let other people
return. One has to do with how we have determined what sorts of safety programs we need to
address. I noted in a letter from Kathy Durham the absence of analysis in the number of bicycle
accidents that have occurred, of what age groups and what locations. Here we have a very
comprehensive program but in terms of addressing safety problems we haven’t done very much
in problem analysis. I think we have some visceral sorts of notions of where problems exist but
we lack data. We have got a very comprehensive progam here and I think that the program
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
!4
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27..
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
cannot really serve some of its objectives adequately without better information of where the
problems truly exist. One of the major aspects is accidents. The more I have thought about this
issue the more convinced I have become that we have to incorporate this as part of the plan. Joe,
do you have any comments on that? I see we have Lynne Johnson here who could maybe offer
something in terms of the feasibility from the Police Department perspective. I don’t mean to
catch you off guard Lynne but if you have anything to add on this subject it would be welcome.
Mr. Kott: That is a very important pointa One of the deficiencies in an otherwise very good
accident statistics we have is that even though we do have reported accidents involving cyclists
and pedestrians through our Police Department and state police provided reports we don’t have a
large portion of the accidents because many of the bicycle accidents are not reported. This is a
problem just nationwide and worldwide. Lot’s of times people just in effect dust themselves off
and get back on or limp along by walking their bicycles. So we have lots of that going on. We
need a better research approach to figure out what is really happening out on the streets.
Chair Burt: So given that you seem to agree that we need more we certainly can’t achieve that at
this moment in time as the plan is moving forward but I think it is going to be something needs
to be added as an element to the plan. As we have talked before that this is a living document
and we will be updating it I feel very_strongly that we need to incorporate that for the future so
that we really prioritize based on a tree understanding of the problem.
Anyone else have anything at this time? I’ll take a couple more stabs.
When we look at another objective of the plan, which is to increase ridership in the City I notice
that you cited Davis examples. That got me thinking about whether the UG campus and the
student population is within the city limits in Davis and a sizable portion of our student
population is essentially outside the city limits in Stanford students. In f~ct today I had a friend
who took his 21 year old daughter who is a Stanford student out to finally get her driving permit
at 21 years old. Up until now she has been able to move around this town on her bicycle. That
goes back to points, that were made by a number of the members of the public and the School
Safety Committee and I would like to commend the input of all these very thoughtful letters that
really added to our thoughts on the subject and the dialog that we are having. Once again,
referring to statistics that Kathy brought forward in 1985 we had 74% of the Jordan students that
were bicycling to school and today we have 22%. It is just striking, overwhelming, in terms of
looking at how the problem has worsened. What as task we have in actually reversing this trend.
We have a goal of doubling ridership but we have a trend that is counter to the direction we want
to go and it also emphasizes that theschool, age population probably represents our greatest
opportunities for increasing ridership. I am very glad that the plan has moved in a direction of
addressing those issues. I think we need to go even further in that direction. One question, what
year did we stop having the school buses in the community? Does- anyone know off the top of
their head?
Ms. Likens: I think about the time Proposition 13 was passed.
Chair Butt: So shortly before this statistic and it is very ironic. Kathy?. So throughout the 1980s
we had a decline in the use of school buses would be a fair characterization. It is very ironic that
we would have presumed that if we have fewer school buses the widespread shuttle system that
we formerly had in this community that we wouldn’t see an increase in bike ridership, we saw a
City of Palo Alto Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
drastic decrease. I just think we need to focus on that even more than we have done in the plan
so far. So that is a general comment but one that I don’t think I can emphasize enough. When I
look at those statistics they are overwhelming.
Then there was another subject that maybe we want to discuss as a Commission more in our
discussion period. That is whether there should be some form of ranking of the priorities. I
certainly acknowledge that we would not want rankings to interfere with taking advantage of
opportunities for funding. So they shouldn’t be so prescriptive that anything on the high priority
list we wouldn’t pursue funding opportunities wherever they may be. I don’t think that ranking
priorities prevents us from pursuing all opportunities for funding. Does Staff have any further
thoughts on that issue?
Mr. Kott: One way around the concern about missing out on funding opportunities is to do a
more categorical, a broader brash ranking. A very simple minded way that I think about it is just
high, medium and low not one through 55 and not rank within those broad categories.
Chair Burt: That seems reasonable. Then I have several questions on specific gaps or possible
gaps in the plan. One that we had discussed before is the grade crossings in South Palo Alto. It
is great that we now have the Loma Verde prospective crossing as listed under one of the
priorities. If that crossing which is further behind any of the other crossings or crossing upgrades
that we have in North Palo Alto, it is just at the beginning conceptual stage whereas every one of
the others including the Everett crossing is further along, I think that we are still doing too little
to address grade crossings in South Palo Alto in particular on the two real heavy school commute
corridors at East Meadow and Charleston as they cross really the series of Alma, the railroad and
E1 Camino. I know that we have a spot progam intended for Charleston and E1 Camino and that
is a very constructive addition but I don’t see anything at the grades at East Meadow and
Charleston. I would like to see it identified as a problem area, identified as an area for
improvement but not determine at this time what form of improvement is necessary but get it in
the plan. These are some our heaviest commute corridors for bicycles and our great at-risk
population of the children, especially with Terman opening we are going to have even more of
that. There are a couple other areas in the plan, one I was gratified to see the Staff included was
the community centers as areas to expand designated paths. When we are looking at a north-
south route parallel to Middlefield along the issue that Michael was raising of for less than
advanced bicyclists there is a need to be able to reasonably avoid Middlefield. The bike path at
Guinda and Boyce steers off toward the Chaucer Street bridge and there is nothing that continues
parallel on Guinda. I for a number of years commuted by bike periodically between Palo Alto
and Redwood City and this is the natural ideal route and it is not designated. Is this something
that Staff thinks would be a reasonable addition to the plan?
Ms. Likens: Yes, I think that would because it would connect up to the Everett/Palo Alto
Avenue bike boulevard. It would make an easy connection. The Boyce route goes a different
direction and serves a different need. So we certainly could incorporate that.
Chair Burr: Right. It is really intended to connect to Chaucer Street Bridge, is that correct? Yes.
Then there are three connections to Stanford that I think are lacking. If we look at the map
certainly the extension of Embarcadero all the way from the tracks until we hit Campus Drive
there is not a designation there although there is an off-street bike path on Galves. Should we
include that on our plan? Yes and lanes on Galveso So we have good bike routes there why
City of Palo Alto Page 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
don’t we just put them on the map. Then the other area that I think is more of a gap.and this is if
we were to take Churchill and its extension into Stanford campus or where Park Boulevard bends
around and extends into campus we don’t have designated routes on campus that way. Those are
natural bike routes and I am not certain whether there may be some existing bike paths that
already address my concern or not but if they are there then I would recommend that we put
them in the plan. If they aren’t there I think they may be areas that we want to evaluate more.
Next on the Loma Verde underpass we have listed it in the priorities but it is not drawn in on the
plan nor is the extension of the bike lane on Loma Verde between Bryant and Alma.
Commissioner Cassel: Pat, may I disturb you?
Chair Burt: Sure.
Commissioner Cassel: I presume that one of the reasons that it is not drawn on Loma Verde is
there isn’t an underpass at Loma Verde. It is drawn in that we would try to go under at Matadero
Creek and that isn’t at Loma Verde.. That may not be as high a priority as dealing with the
crossing at Alma and the train at Charleston. So while it needs to be there it isn’t at Loma Verde
it is just noted to be near the Matadero undercrossing.
Chair Burt: I use the Loma Verde description as the approximation for this future underpass.
Ms. Likens: We are showing it on the map but it is more in the alignment of Matadero Creek.
That is the general vicinity, it could be at Loma Verde or it could be near the creek.
Chair Burt: So wherever it is in that area we don’t have it reflected on the map either the
prospective, oh I’m sorry. It is reflected. That’s the circle.
Commissioner Cassel: That is what I am telling you.
Chair Burt: I see now.
Commissioner Cassel: I have a different opinion about how important that is in relationship to
other intersections on that route, which are critical existing problems.
Chair Burt: I see it now and I understand it is that solid orange line. Excuse me on that one.
Then we had a speaker talking about.some of the additional connections in far South Palo Alto as
we approach San Antonio. I am not familiar with what the street is but I see the dotted black line
coming in on a street west of Alma. So .we have the Alma Street connection, there is a dotted
black line on Alma and then just below it on the map is a dotted black line coming in from
Mountain View that dead-ends on San Antonio there.
Ms. Likens: I think that is Showers Drive but I am not sure.
Chair Burt: I just wondered if there was some way to have that not be a dead end bike path
coming from Mountain View. It is not far from some of.our others and I don’t presume to know
what would be the appropriate connection between Showers and our bike paths or bike lanes but
I just noted that it seems to dead end at the Palo Alto border.
City of Palo Alto Page 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Ms. Likens: I think the connection actually across the tracks is the undercrossing at the train
station down by the Mayfield intersection.
Chair Burt: Okay, great.
Commissioner Griffin: It is just off to the right of the map but there is an undercrossing
underneath the tracks at that stage.
Chair Burt: Then my final topic just had to do with seeking greater coordination between the
different aspects of the Transportation Department itself, the Public Works and Building
Departments as we have construction that might interfere with bicycle use during construction
and then understanding and integrating within the plan the relationship with the Police
Department as well. I would like to see that City department interaction to be more of a
specified part of the plan itself. I think that covers most of my long-winded questions. Anyone
else have any follow ups? Phyllis~
Commissioner Cassel: In my comments if we are out of the questions?
Chair Burt: Why don’t we go into comments and discussion?
Commissioner Casset: I have been very concerned about what is going on in the Charleston
corridor area along Alma and what we can do there. I don’t want to say that we shouldn’t be
putting our time and effort into the underpasses that we have in the north part of town because
those are progressing for other reasons and other funding reasons. We now need to look at these
intersections and up until now we have had neighbors who have been very seriously against, at
least that has been my experience, doing any kind of underpass or undercrossing here. So we
don’t have the kind of excited interest about doing that kind of solution in this area. It really is a
critical issue and people are saying we can’t grow because we can’t allow any other construction
because we can’t get across this intersection. We have had kids have real serious problems here.
Chair Burt: Maybe we can even in certain areas of the plan suggest some verbiage changes. I
have a few but I would be glad to wait if others would like to make any recommendations before
then.
Commissioner Cassel: I would presume that that would then be an agreement amongst all of us.
Chair Burt: That is what I would be doing. Whichever we have putting them out the
Commission to see if we have a consensus on the recommended changes. Okay, I will take a
stab and if there isn’t consensus then there won’t be. One is under Attachment 2, Section B
which is called Undercrossings. If we are looking at adding additional South Palo Alto grade
crossing then maybe we simply call it grade crossings and they can either be undercrossings or at
grade but some safety enhancements.
Commissioner Casse!: Wetl it is here. It is says South Palo Alto Caltrain Undercrossing under
Undercrossings.
Chair Burt: Yes, that is not what I am referring to. I am referring to if we add the East Meadow
and Charleston grade crossings then perhaps this section should not be titled Undercrossings but
Cit), of Palo Alto Page 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
!6
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31-
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
really grade crossings whether they are undercrossings or enhanced safety at grade. Something
like that.
Then under Operations, Section 2.1 the latest plan.
Commissioner Cassel: Page?
Chair Burr: It would be page 6-2. So this is under the Implementation Plan, Section 2.1. It was
an elimination of what was a directive to use two-way rather than four-way stops and use one-
way stops at T-intersections and instead was a more generalized statement to consider the effect
on bicycles when evaluating new stop sign requests. I would recommend that rather than
stipulate that we use these changes of two-way rather than four-way stops and one-way stops at
T-intersections that we turn that language but put it in as pursue opportunities for or evaluate,
something like that, that still acknowledges the merit in those where appropriate rather than
eliminate that concept all together.
Commissioner Cassel: What is wrong with what they did? I think there were some objections
by other people that indicated that there were some issues that other people were having to the
very specific language.
Chair Burt: Right and I think the objections had to do with essentially wording that virtually
mandated use of two-way rather.than four-way stops. The former language says use two-way
rather than four-way stops. Use one-way stops at T-intersections. So my point is that the former
language didn’t have flexibility and I think that was a large part of the objection. I would
support leaving those programs in but with language that provided greater flexibility in the
implementation of it.
Commissioner Cassel: That would be leaving the Staff language in, I am sure that will do the
same thing.
Chair Burt: Any other Commissioner thoughts on the subject?
Commissioner Bialson: I guess I am recognizing the time that we are spending on this and the
fact that word-smithing while it is attractive in many ways to an attorney, even I am finding it a
little bothersome that we are doing these things here. I appreciate the things you are trying to
achieve but I agree with Phyllis that we have gone through this and that Staff has made these
changes in response to other comments. So I guess I am just not seeing the importance of trying
to get the Commission to revisit these things at this time. I would appreciate hearing from other
Commissioners because I acknowledge I am getting a little punchy here.
Chair Burt: Kathy.
Commissioner Schmidt: I support Annette’s comments too. I think Staff has put a lot of hard
work into this and it has been noted that this is a document that is a living document that we wil!
update from time to time. I think a lot of improvements have been made, lots of hard work. I
don’t think we need to try to make it absolutely perfect in somebody’s eyes at this moment. I
think they have done a great job and we don’t need to do all the w(~rd-smithing tonight.
City of Palo Alto Page 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3.1
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Burt: I guess my comment would be that I think people who are less frequent riders are
less concerned with these issues but there does not seem to be consensus on that aspect. In
Section 2.4, this is one that Phyllis and I had talked about earlier the current wording is,
"eliminate sidewalk bike paths." If we added eliminate sidewalk bike paths with some wording
wherever safe alternatives exist or can be created. Something along those lines would be more
acceptable to me.
Commissioner Bialson: Pat, could we put in something about phase out sidewalk bike paths. I
think that’s the thrust of what the Commission has been speaking about. That to me indicates.
perhaps that we want there to be some active process where alternatives are sought out and that
there is an objective to phasing them out completely.
Chair Burt: I would support phasing them out where safe alternatives are provided. Does that
seem reasonable? Okay.
Then one other comparatively small change on 5.4 1 wasn’t quite clear on the intent where it says
implement a pilot school corridor plan and it says before expanding program to other corridors.
Is the intention that there would be an expansion to other corridors based upon the pilot plan?
Ms. Likens: Yes. This was the recommendation from the original phase one of the school
commute corridor safety study in North Pa!o Alto. That we do a pilot project on one school
corridor, develop a signage program and then evaluate it. If it is successful and the community
accepts it expand it to other corridors as appropriate. We haven’t done that yet. We included
this reference in the document to make sure we didn’t overlook it.
Chair Burr: That last aspect that you added, that if it is successful to expand it to other school
commute corridors is what I would like to see as an additiona! part of the plan. You just stated
that that was the intention and I would feel better if that was clear to everyone who reads the plan
that that is part of our long term plan to expand these to other corridors. Is that reasonable to
other Commissioners? Okay, no objections anyway. Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: No objection but we are back to word-smithing small language details
and we would like to move on. We have another action before us tonight.
Chair Burt: That is my final item but I will disagree with you in terms of the difference between
word-smithing and whether we long term are going to have school commute corridors as a
primary component of our bike plan. So having said that, that hits my issues. Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I have one suggestion. I don’t have the exact language for you but I
would ask tl-ie Commission and Staff to consider making some sort of comment, which
acknowledges either in the Introduction of the Implementation section what Kathy has called this
plan and that is a living document. We need to acknowledge somewhere in here that this is not a
direction to future decision-makers but rather an acknowledgement that the safety of bicyclists
needs to be considered in all matter affecting these various areas that we designated as
appropriate for bicyclists. That does not mean that necessarily bicycle needs trump the needs of
pedestrians, vehicles, nearby neighbors who may be affected if we reduce the carrying capacity
of a street so that there is spillover traffic but that bicyclists need to be considered. I don’t know
where that should be put and I leave that to Staff to decide, I haven’t found it clearly stated here
City of Palo Alto Page 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
.32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
and I would like that to be. I don’t know how my fellow Commissioners feel about it and I
would ask for comments,
Chair Burt: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I don’t really object to that except that I am wondering if it isn’t already
covered on page four in the third paragraph. It says, "The Comprehensive Plan calls for the
development and period update of a comprehensive bicycle plan. It is not intended to be a static
plan that does not evolve over time." So maybe that is already covered or if you are suggesting
that it should be different language but if we have both sets of language in there than it is really
confusing, I think.
Chair Burt: So you are referring to how the Siaff Report refers to the Comp Plan, is that correct?
Commissioner Holman: Yes, and again on page four paragraph three of the Staff Report.
Chair Burt: I would agree with Annette that it would be appropriate to include that concept, fold
it into the plan itself.
Commissioner Griffin: Perhaps just lifting that paragraph that Karen just read and inserting that
in the Introduction to the draft plan.
Commissioner Bialson: But expanding it somewhat so future decision-makers get the thrust of
what I said and fellow Commissioners said.
Chair Burt: Okay.
Ms. Likens: We can do that.
Chair Butt: Great. Any other comments from Commissioners?
Commissioner Cassel: There is a question on how to handle Donald Road that we need to
resolve. Is it a Staff recommendation that we look at both alternatives and evaluate those and
work with the School Commute Committee? I would like to see us confirm that approach.
Chair Burt: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Clarification on one other thing. You have been very patient with us
tonight, thank you. While I am at it, very good job I think the community and the committee and
the Staff has done a terrific job. The striping for lanes in Barron Park a neighborhood that was
brought up last time and was brought up again here that a lot of the streets do not have sidewalks.
So is the feeling then in those neighborhoods or is it a street-by-street basis and how are you
covering that in here whether it should be a striping or not?
Ms. Likens: The plan does show those streets where bike lanes are shown. Los Robles is one
and the other streets because of their narrow nature at least in this edition of the plan most of
those routes.are shown as either bike boulevards or signed bike routes. We w~l work with the
Barton Park community. They are very interested in the traffic calming program and have
City of Palo Alto Page 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
submitted applications and we will work with them to find the most appropriate way to safely
enhance bicycling on those streets. Because the roads are so narrow with the exception of Los
Robles there may not be opportunities for ful! bike lane treatments on all of the collector streets
in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Holman: Perhaps Commissioner Bialson would bring her pacer car to Barron
Park to help out with that traffic calming.
Chair Burr: I think that concludes our discussion of this item and thank everyone for their
participation throughout tonight and the last couple of years. So we are enthusiastic about the
plan moving forward to the Council.
Commissioner Cassel: Does this need any kind of motion?
Chair Burt: Okay.
Ms. Likens: Yes, please.
MOTION
Commissioner Casset: We forward this to the City Council with our enthusiastic
recommendation.
SECOND
Commissioner Bialson: Second.
MOTION PASSED
Chair Burt: Any discussion? All in favor? (ayes) That passes unanimously. Thank you.
Our final item on the agenda is a Study Session on Elements of the Neighborhood Traffic
Calming Program. Joe, would you like to start off?
NEW BUSINESS.
Public Itearings: None.
Other Items:
Study Session on Elements of the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program: On June
12, 2002 the Commission reviewed the first-year report of the Neighborhood Traffic
Calming Program (NTCP) and recommended that the City Council approve the revised
program with a few changes. The Commission wanted further information about a few
elements of the program in the form of a study session.
Mr. Kott: Thank you Chair Burr. I will filibuster for a moment until Carl Stoffel reaches the
table. This Commission did ask Staff to return to present some additiona! material on the annual
review of our traffic calming program in a study session format. We have prepared that material
City of Palo Alto Page 40