The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0615.000Dec.&ber 13, 1990 HONORABLE CIT~ COU~CIL Palo Alto, california BRy.HT STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD tXTENSIQN STUDY PUBLIC HEETIN'G Members of the Council: This is an informational report r6qarding a recent public meeting tha.t was held as part of the Bryant street Bicycle Boulevard Extension study~ No Council action is required at this time. On OctOber 25 1 1990, a public meeting ~as held at the Palo Alto Senior center for the purpose of providing an opportunity for the public to learn more about t".he current study and cownent on preliminary conceptual alternatives tor the bicycle boulevard extenslon~ The l18etinq fOrMat was organized into a workshop format including a general presentation, quastions for clarification l and SlHll group discussions wit.ll cOIDDents recorded on newsprint. This was followed by a period for public comment and completion of a written response form~ If.r. Jim creighton was hired by the City to serve as the facilitator for the meetinq. Attachment 1 is a copy of the meeting notice that was sent to nearly 1,900 area residents and other interested persons. Attaohment 2 is a copy of the meeting agenda and related handout materials that were provided to each meeting participant. Approximately 65 people csttended the three hO\.lr meeting.. While there were obvious differences of opinion amon<] the meeting participants regarding the need for the extension of the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard, as well as the manner of doing itl there was a general sense that the participants gained a ~tter understanding of the proposed project and provided staff with valuable input for further evaluation and consideration. Attachment 3 is a copy of a recent transmittal that was sent to each meeting participate as a toll ow-up to the public Beeting. The transmittal includes: (a) a summary of the comme-ots trom the small group process, (b) a summary of the open forum comments, and (c) a swamary ot the written re5ponse form. CXR.61S,O o staff is proceeding with further evaluation, developltent of a pr.ferred alternative, and preparation of a draft study report tor this project. A second round of coaaunity review and comment is plarmE<d tor January, prior to the translIittal of a report and recommendation to the council tor its consideration in February. Raspectfully suPultted, AttachDents: ~£~y KDINETlI R. S CSO'.EI BER Director of Planninq and community Environment 1. Notice of public meetinq (OCtober 25, 1990). 2. Public meetinq agenda and han~out .aterials. l. Transmittal to meeting participants providing summary comments from public meeting. cc: Palo Alto Bicyole Advisory committee CI!R: 615: 0 12/13/90 Page 2 Tronsportatlon Diylslon (415)32g-2136 October 5, U9il '."-. /' Cit~l of 1'al0 )lIto p,o &Oll:. 'D2~a NOne E OF fUBl! C MEET! MG October 25, 1990 ~ ATTACHMENT 1 '--(page 1 of 21 P!ACE AND TIME' PaTo ATto Senior Center, 450 Bryant Street 7:00 p ••• , Thursday, October 25, IUD SUBJECT: Bryant Street Ii cycle BouleYard ExtensIon Study. , , "C568DUNp: The Bryant Street 11cycle Boulevard ~5 establ;shed in 1982. and currently extends I distanct of two .nos fro. East lleadow to Churchill Avenue. The Bicycle Boulevard Is • street on ""'ch bIcycles hay. precedenco; ""ere direct, efflcfont blcycl. trl •• T Is enhanced by li.,ting the number of stops; ani where conflicts with .. tor yehlcles are .Inl.hed. The Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard does not .-connect to any lIIjor actl.1 ty center. The lack of a traffic signal It the intor,ectlon of Bryant Street and Eabareader. has been I aajor lopedl .. nt to the extension of the 'ite boule,"rd to downtown Palo Alto end through to the llenlo Part city 11.lt. In J\int the CIty Councll approyed funding for the InstallatIon of • traffic sfgnll at the IntersectIon of Bryant and Eabarcadera In the n90-95 CapItal IllProy_nt Pl-ogr .. budget. Vork on the design and Installltlon of the traffic signal will not proceed until a rec-ended pTan f",-the exten,ion of the bicycle boul.vard to downtown Is e..,loted and p ..... ented to the City Counen for re_Iaw and approval. I'IIRPOS£ Of MEETING: T~e purpose of this ... tlng Is to provide an opportunity for the public to learn .... about the current study and c ..... nt on prell.inary eonceptual .ltor.ltl.e. for the bicycle bouleYord extensIon. The.e conoeptual ,lans Identify a .ange of potential changes In Ixlsting conditions along Bryant Street (potential site. for a barrier to i~. Yehlcular traffic, select I.e cIIanges to stop signs and to on-street parkIng in tM doomto...,); on II.verley Street (r8lO.ll .f existing bike la ... , restoration of on-street parking); and at Br.)lant and Eablrc:ldero (alternatlYes froll fu11 access to 1!.lted Icce .. signalIzation). The ...ting will follow. wortshop fOnlat Including a ge.erll presentation, ..all wor~ln9 groups for Iiscussion Ind eYITultlon, and • period for open ..... nt. IIrltten cc.tnts are .pproprlate before, It, or following the .eetlng. Stiff will use the c....nt. fraa this .eetlng In the ovalultion and further reflft8l8nt of the bl~ycle boulevard extension plan. TIlts notl .. has been sent to all residents within. one-block ndius of the study corridor, "'TO of the '.10 Alto Ilcycle Advisory c..olttee and other Interesteer parties. A up of the study corridor h proYided on the back of this notice. GAYU LIKEIIS kill or Phmer .' ..•. o Ciiy ofJ'alo )lIto .. 0 .ox ~O:?'50 ~ ... ~O 4:.10, 'AL~OQ.N!"" 94):;j IIRyAft S'1'REI!'l' BICYCLI! BOOLI!VARD J!XT\IIISIOK STUDY PUBLIC IIBB'l'IIfG 1;00 PM Thursday OCtober 25. 1990 Palo Alto Senior Center eso Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA AGENDA 1. Opening Comments 2. Presentation on conceptual Alternatives ATTACHMENT 2 (paqe 1 of H) ). Questions for Clarification of Alternatives 4. Small Group Discussions (7:00) (7:20) (7:40) (S:OO) (9:00) (9:15) (9:45) (9:551 5. SlllUIary Reports fro .. 5 .... 11 Groups ,. Open Period for Public COllllents 7. Completion of Response Forws 8. Closinq C.,...,nu Handouts: A. Sumaary of project background and current process. B. Reference work sheets tor conceptual alternatives. contact Person: Gayle Likens. senior Planner. (415)329-2136 HANDOUT A DRY AlIT S'l'RXET BI c:YCLI! BOVLJ:VARD BXTElfSIOH STUDY smMARY OP PROJ1!CT IlACltGilOORD AIID CURlUOn' PRO<:Ess A .. Purpose rhe FUrpos. of the bicycle boulevard ia to provide: (1) • throughway upon which bicycles have precedence over automobiles; (2) • direct route that reduces travel time for bicyclists, (3) a .. ate travel rout.. tbat ainimizes conflicts with .otor vehi~le traffic: and (4) a facility that pro.ote. and facilitates the use of bicycles as an alternative transportation .ode. The purpose of this study Is to develop a recommended plan for the extension of the Bryant Street Sicycle Boulevard frem its ~resent ter.inus at Churchill Avenue northward to .00 throuqh downtown Palo Alto and on to the existing bicycle/pedestrian bridge across San Francisquito creex to Menlo Park. B. Polp Alto egunei1 Policies Tbe Palo Alto Council has long-standing poliei •• , and a notable record ot actions and achieveaenta r that emphasize, encourage and facilitate the use of alternative .odes to the autoaobile (walkinq, bikingr car/Vanpoolsr transit). These poliCies and actions over a period of ti.e bave resulted in a bicycle system and related aupport faeilitie. and pro.ctiDns that consistently place Palo Alto III the top ranlts of bicycle usage and uoer fri _11 ness. Such efforts to facilitate and enoouraqe the use of alternatiVe transportetion -.odes will take on increasing importance as regional and local efforts to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality continue to escalate. c. tllp Alto Comprehensive Plln The transportation element Of the oo.prehensive Plan contains a nwaber of policy atateaents and related; proqrams that strive to reduce the usage of the autoBObl1e and eneouraqe the use of alternative travel :aodea. Specirieally. the Comprehensive Plan include. '!'ranapartation POUcy 12: 'PRO!IOTE BICYCLE OSE". along with related programs to aupport end echieve such a policy including: Progr .. H -Develop and impleaent _ network of through bicycle boulevards, and Proqr .. 35 -Re.ov. traffiC control i_pediJten'ts anc! physical barriers to bicycle travel. • / o o D. Ixisting Bicycle Boulevard 'rile .dating Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevar6 vas .otablished In 1112 and extends a ~1.tAnce of tvo _11ea fro. East Xeadow Drive to Clwrch111 Avenl.le. Within that distance, there ere three locations that specifically perait bicycle passoge and pro~ib!t automobile passaqe fa .treet closure at Lowell Aven~e, 01 street clolure at El Verano Av.n\,Je anlSi a bridge crossing 8:t Matadero cr.e:k:}. Also, stop .1qn. at a nuaber of intersections along Bryant St~eet have been located ao as to fsvor bicycle travel along the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard. E~ Capitol IapocQyepent& In 1986, the narrow pedestrian bridge, where Bryant Street .eets Matad.ero creek, was replaced. with two new .tructures: a wide bicycle bridge .n6 a separate pe<iestrlan bridge. This past oummer. the two temporary wooden barriers (strut clcsure.) on Bryant street were replaced with permanent r.ised and landscaped concrete hlanc!s. Beth projects were funded ~rou~ the City's capital IaproveDent PrOgram with grant funding in exc.sa of $87,000 from th. State .. throuqlh the Metropolitan Transportation COmmission. F. CUrrent Study 'rgce§s The objective of the current stud.y is to develop 0 reCO!llllMlnded plan for the extension of the Bryant. Street. Bicycle Boulevard that is consistent vi~ the inten6ed objectives of ~e bicycle boulevard concept, Ilcidre.se& the concerns of affectec3 residents, and .ini.izes any real or perceived negative effects. The prill4ry study tasks include, I. Define Project Goal II. Data CollectIon' Analysis III. Develop Conceptual Alternatives IV. Coam'l..lnity Review and COllDDents V. Evaluation' Conclusions VI. Develop Preferred Alternative VII. Prepare Draft Study Report VIII. Ca .. unity Review and eo .. ent$ IX. Final Report , Recommendation to City coancil X. IRplewentation of Approved Plan Auqust September Septel>ber October November November December January Fet>ruary Later This current public aeeting (Task IV) to review conceptual alternatives and receive comments will be followed by another public lleet!l>CJ (Task VIII) in January to revi .... a preferred elternative an6 6raft study report. A finsl decision by the City council reqarding ~e i.ple •• ntati~n of the extension of the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard (including • traffic aiqnsl .t the intersection of Eabarcadero Road and Bryant Street) is scheduled to occur in February (Taak IX). • , • e HANDOUT 8 a • p • • B • C I • 0 a K •• I I ~ 8 P 0 a CO. C • • ~ D A L a L ~ I • • A ~ I TIe ... o cd ~I i ~---3-~-W-'-'-:3""-:\O-:'~-~ I il ~ .~ ..... -.. -.. ~ _ ........................... i ! i SAW 3()al"310~ ~1._ .............................. ; .!.t,.. .. -... -... -... -.... -... -.. I-~-.. ~-.... -. . ... L ...... " IH:lIIIIH) ......... 1 It w ... Z w tl ~ z .. l!l (!) It .. (!) .I'--~--fJ : Jr---li i 5 ~--~~-L--~5r-~~~~~~ r-__ -r,-~~~~l .... o.o ....... J.~ .. ~ .: .. 0 , z ~ U J • J ;: • .. .. --r--4i f---4l ~r-~l~~~--~ JAY i r-r'--if~ ; =81 r-f-U- IT t, f- 00' eoen,!" t--r-I-- f- ,"111'1" r--r-- 5~r - -I SEGMENT B I • ~ • • • • c ~ I 0 • A L ~ Z • • A ~ I V • 8 Embarcadero -To EI Camino Real EXt§T!NG CONPITtoNS -To EI Camino Real Castlleja School ALTERNAnvE 1; FULL ACCESS SIGNAL, LEFT TURN POCI<ET8, BRYANT ClOSED BETWEEN ADDISON AND LINCOlN l1-foot lane .1d!M A To Waverley -.. Legl!nd: ¢ traffic signal 1659 exiSling volume I-IDOl Janl widlh, To Waverrey .... Legend; ¢ traffic 1659 - signar 1274 new volume .... with anernative Embarcadero -To EI Camino Fleal ALIERNATIYEofr W.tTED ACCESS SIGNAl (NO. LEFT URNS FROM EMBARCADERO). BRYANT CI.OSEO BETWEEN AOOlSON AND UNCOlN -To E I Camino Fleal ALTEBNADYE 3: LMTED ACCESS SIGNAl. (RIGHT TURNS ONLY FROM BRYANT), LEFT TURN POCKETS ON EMBARCADERO. NO ClOSURE ON BRYANT To Waverley - - To Wa.vertey - -To £1 CamIno Real ALUBNATlVE i; U"'TED ACCESS SIGNAL (RIGHT TURNS ONLY fROM BRYANT>. NO CLOSURE ON BRYANT Embarcadero -To EI Cam1no Real Cas!lIeja Schooi AlTERNATNE s: NO SIGNAl, UMTED ACCESS (NO LEFT TURNS FROM EMBARCADERO, RIGHT TlJINS ONLY FROM BRYANT), NO ~E ON BRYANT. REFUGE ISLAND Castilleja School o To Waverley - Embarcadero Ia-feol : .. ". ."id'ihi To Waverley ... • ~, m • • J ~ ~ g I ilt ., ~ ~ ! % ,., C ~ ~ ~ • :i. ,., :i o ; .. . : --' .. -_.-....... i --! I I I · --I--c L -'L-~ z --~ r-z 0 a z o .. II: ... a ... [ L · · :- : I : ! ~ ! t ! p I ; I 'rT-r-..,. ; ; ; -r=-L,--''---! i • , • ! . j.l-l.oo-• .I....L..I...,J •. I 1111 H -r-r-- I-- r--• --• ~ -II ~ c f--.. II: • [ill r--! I; . JAY LS; J I f---1lff .. ~ I--t-- .ll I--I-- • f--I--r- ~i ~ O. 11 !::: /' . ~'~~ ~~' lr -~ ~ ii~=-: c: • I: o a. : ;: :~ -:; A- 0 ; 1_111111 I I j:"" .... u.~ g~ ~'OO\ JAY .UIS't! " ill'lI IIIII fl'jYH . g: I~I ~~ f.-......................................... _ .................... ·-........ · .... 1/ .. " ...... +jgj,j, ................ . ULl. t... ~'i~ ru r- I r--== '3 =--i ! & D~ & ... I In .... .. i ''1)M~ Ii! 1----r--1 i ~ f I--.--Y ~ I : .... " ... _ i. , • ", .., .. "a I z c~ ::; cS , !!: .. ~ " .. :!: "2 -~ <>- • SEGMENT F a.~.~aD ca •• aa. o • • DJ.caa~ BIE •• ArB • 1CaOY. ..latlDg bit. l~.a ~tveeD ~JttoD ~G Coler14g8 • ... ~or. DB-str •• t partlui • IbI:t ... d bike 1 ..... 'rOIl Waverlay to Bl"Jant • lbI:teDG bite 1 ..... frOll 1I.".rley to Bl"J~t o DISCUSSION GROUP ASSIGl'.'MENT 1) The meeting facilitatOI will assign you to a discussion group. 2} Each group has been assigned a Recorder. TJrl Recorde!" ~: -Help your group get starttd. Keep II summary of your group's discussion on. the ;1ipcJu:.rt. Re-mind yOiJ. of time limits. J1~nswer simple clDrifying questions -major technical" fjuestions will be Qnswered by rovin.g steff who can be CRlled on by your group. The Recordn should .tt.a..t: Make dmsion.5 for 'your group. Insert kis/her Dwn Ot1rnions. Centrol the di5Cu.ssfo~ tOUYlrds II particular outcome. 3) SeJect a Spokesperson. The Spokesperson is someone from your gro:Jp - but not a City Staff per,on -who will pres<!nt a summary of your group's discussion to t.he entire meeting when It reassembles. The ~'""Okesperson is not: to use his/her position to argue fOT his/her own positions. 4) For eo ch segmen t a) Discuss the o-?tions for that segment~ as neE-ded, untH everybody in your group und .... tands the options. b) On the flipchart, record all the issues/arguments you believe p«>ple should consider in evaluating the options. The group as a whole doesn't have to agree lVith each point -as long as someone in your group war-,ts it up therE:~ write i~ down. d Move onto the next segment. Be ,sure to watch the time, or you may fmd you've used up ail your time on only 1-~ segments. d) As soon as yot.! are done, assist your Spokesperson in as.sembling flipchart sheets and preparing to give a reporl 5) The report-back procedure will be as fonows: All the Spokosp".,;ons will be assembled at the front of the room at the same time. The m~ting facilitator will ask one SpokesperS<ln to take the lead in presenting all his/her group's points regarding one segment. Other Spokespersons will then be asked only to add new points that were not raised in the fust group. A different Spokesp"rson will be asked to take the lead on the next segmen t, etc. ~ REDUCED IN SIZE FOR 1IIf ~PRODUCTLO~ PURPOSES tJICl'Q.( IIU.l'I'AIC mtJ&SJCII-~EYAUIo\TJ"<'iCe p'L_ ....... 1ft .t ~ .... ., !till. _11,..) 'w _ .r .., .If I tf '!Itt ., .... j ..... ,..... .. tn!.,. 1"Off",!, ,.... ~ ............ tor no. ........:IOP .... I ". .. n ......... lu ...... tl __ ,..ell.,.. "'.111'1111 ... ~~ ... _ ... i ............. n ..... k ...... _ Iftftu ....... : IQII01 :I «-lItl"" ., ~ .. L "LM I::) ~ .1_ 1 ....:I 2l, Mr..tll' -, -~Il If 1'W Iff.", .... ~ ."ttl.-. ........ ,.,. ~t iII' ...... tt.II __ opt ... , 'I .... _I":', . .1_11_ ... IItterl" MfIM ..,1_. c....., .. 1 n., «a, __ .,. It.,..., • ..,......e ~ni . • !.., 1~ ~ .. ;.tl .. __ II. ,I.,. ~ ~;IL . • " l;: LI~'" _ .1_\ tdll:r -... ..... ,. rr-•• , ... ,u,'" ~L ....... .., • ..,.." •. ,.It'h ... 1 .... 1. \Wi'ood.., .... Co. L..ft _ t ... ~'. Millo' _ .. I, fr •• ~) ... cl ........ ~. ITf_ 1.11nIL - c.c.;.c...1 , • .., tth ...... n ... 'I .... ~I ... I.." ......... ' •• 1_ ... ...,.... ... _'""'. 1OdC!'!&IJI "" _ IIoU\ .......... ar..n,.1 ..... ...,.... . • '" ~ ~ .,.1:1_ .. _I.tl.,. .. ~I",l..,. 1Ilpot1.., t: r-v a' ..... -.. ...... s ••• r ...... ~1 .... IIIptLIII'I]' .. _ .... t. I ..... _ • a...r.-.r ... _ • ..,.....,: • • 1., "" CI_ ~ .. ~ .... 1 MIl ... ~I"'",,- ','::>. /-~';~t ,;: . o ~I '1., (C). ~ .",.... til Mlui ... -.11 "_ • .-.'" 11 ~ «1....,.1 ...... 1 ... til .... 11 ... ,.....,1 .... c-,:I: ~l" I~ iCINtIo ship .1 ...... I.rl .. ft ~ 1Ipt1., z,. ~ lUIp III.,. ... 1'11 .. 11'1: ~. ....... - -...n r: ......, ____ .. _1-..:ICf'CU ... ,Ift _ --..-nRl-": ~t ., .. It): -.. ... 1 .. 1"Il iIIt.,.,.,. 1_ (III ~I.,.-~ .... L7tt.,. .. Cot...-,. _ ..... 1~1 ... .nn.t .po<i;i .... _I_ ~_ ~""",\ .. 1_ til .,.."..-l, __ ",'.r'" 1),.."",111 .I~\ •• _ ~.,.,..... .., _Lly •• 1_ tIol ... ~ ao1rrcl. 1_ c. .,..,... . • ""';t, .. r.I ............ u.rt ~I. _ If ~C'tIt. !_ ..... ___ . .-r..1: .... ~ WIn_ I{~. 1_ til-...... 1., . • 1.",,.. h _ ~ _.t~ ~..,.rll iIIk:.,c1. 1 ___ ~ __ ..... • , ... 5. to M'I .. ..., ~...-'-ao1lO'J'C'l.o 1_ t:III ~ - --City!1ip Tranaportation Division P.o. Box 10250 94303-0862 DecembQr " 1990 ..i.TTACHMENl' 3 (page 1 of ].;) 250 Ha~llton Avenue Sixth Floor (415) 329-2136 Subject: Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Study Dear Meeting Participant: The purpose ot this letter is to thank you for your participation in the October 25th community meet ing regarding the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension Study. Enclosed: for your intormation, are summaries of the comments received during the open forum and group discussion segments of the meeting, as well as a summary of the responses to the survey questionnaire. The comments and input provided at the lIIeetinq -will assist staff in developinq a draft study report and recommended implementation plan. We anticipate that the report will be presented for public revieW" in January 1991. Again, thank you for your interest and participation in the Bicycle Boulevard Extension study process. Sincerely, ~~~~ Senior Planner, Transportation Enclosures: CODUnents from October 25th community Meeting (a) Group Discussion Comments (b} Open Forum Comments ee} Summary of EValUation FOrD Responses SlW.L &ROUP tOlllDlTS .~/ BRYANT STREET BICYCLE BOULEVAAlJ WEllS ION STOOY PUBLIC MEETIN& • OCTOBER 2S, 1990 s£!jIIQ!T A; Churchill to EIIhrcadtro I. The proposed stop sign c~ang.s are consl,tent with the objective. of t~e bike boulevard. 2. T~e Waverley/Churc~il1 lnt!rsection fs dang~rousi removing the bike lane $eg~nt on Wallerl ey and instal) ;n9 bike 1 aRes on CoTeridge are good ideas. 3. None of the options go fir enough··barriers on Embarcadero should be conside~. 4. Conflicting op1nions expressed about the exfstins conditions as being okay and dangerous. 5. toncerR about increased volume and speed of tnffic past Castilleja Schoo' with 2-w~ stops; cars ~ould ignore them. 6. There is not much spe~d1n9 anyway on Bryant. 7. Removal of bike l_nes on Churchill may be unsaf! because of Palo Alto HiSh School traffic. S. What Is traffic impact on Kellogg? 9. Check hedge3 on corners (Churchill/Bryant] to impro~e site distan,e. lO~ Visibility of existing barriers is not very good, particularly at night~ lL The jog ill the bike route in S~nt -A-has a greater impact on bicyc11sts than the proposed jog at the north end (Segment '0"). therefore, extens10n of Boulevard on Bryant is s~pported. ]2. Crossing Embarcadero from the sotJtn is roore dangerous during non-peak hours from Wav~rley than from Bryant. Wa¥er1ey has too many lanes (10 vs. 6 for Bryant) and lIO""e turning movements and confl icts. A signal at 6ryant vould allow residents from the south to access or cross Embarcadero frOB Bryant (the less dangerous intersection). 13~ The existing jog to Waverley s~ould be ~afntijned because bicyclists are separated from the traffiC (vi. bixe lanes). 14. Bike lanes present their own hazards: they oft~n have debris and they prcvide biclCiists ~th a false sense of se(urity. Many drivers actuallJ encroach on bike lanes. 15. Bike lanes do present some hazards, but for young children, thJ!Y can provide SOBe sense of direction and assistance. 16. Approves of removal of Bryant Street stop signs at C"urc~ill to oinimiz. delay to bicycli.ts. I 17. /'~' , Small Group Comments -2- ·- o Should r~lin 4-.IY stop. Disapproves of removal of Bryant Street stop signs at Churchill because Chur<hill Is h •• vlly triveled, .spechlly by P,l. Alto High students. Bry,nt Street trovelers should not have the right-ot-way over the children who bike up Churchill. No stops on Bryant would p",sent an increase iM danger to these students. City should recOiniz. that children often do not obey stop Signs. 18. Churc'PI1l1jBryant not dangerous beceuse of stops on Bryant and barrier further up. 19. If stop sfgru. are re.oved frOil 8ryant at C~urchnl, consider using an adult crossing guard. SEGfilOO I; BruntJEI!barcidero intersectfon I. There should be Signs directing people to the Urgent Care Center. 2. Alternatives wit~ left~turn lanes on EmbarcaderCl are dangerous. becaIJa the resulting traffic lanes ire so ~arrow; wider traffic lanes are safer for lutOlOb11es and bicycles. 3. Since left-turn lanes on Eabarcadero do not ~elp bicyclists. w~y are they Included in the .1terDatlves: 4~ The i~tersection ,lans must try to accommod.te everyone, but bicYclists' needs are of foremost importance. 5. C~nt5 on Alternative 1: a A barrier It Addison and lincoln would be disruptive to the nefghborhood. Ramona Street, which fs very narrow. would recelv~ addftlona1 trlffi, th.t It cannot handle. o The barrier would onll block 2 1/2 to 3 blocks_ That!s ridiculous because it lIM!ans that IIOtorhts can travel only I short distance before hayir.:g to turn. Gther barrier locations ~sua1l1 anow ItOtorfsts to travel a gri!a.ter distance before havfng to turn. Barrier would also bE: too clese to Downtown. Ba.rriers pr~vent residents from simply being able to drive around the:r own neighborhood. o If residents oppose barrier, consider anoUer ilterllative that ... ould be actfve only part of the day. so residents are not prevented from driving around their neighborhood. o Oetermfne whether road bumps would be I viable iTternatfve to a barrier. o Alternatfve] h a normal, natura' drhing experience~ Alterniltives 3, 4 •• 5 are unusual (WfirdJ and create unexpected experiences for driveri Ind bicyclists, and, therefcre, are less safe. . . ~ Small Group Comments -3- o Alternatfve 1 does r.ot address the problems associated .ith the mir of right· turning venlcl., and bicycl.s . strip d.,lgnated .r •• fer bl kes. 5. C~uC"ts on Alternative 2: o Tbis alternative is ·pro automobile-. a Left turns froo Embarcadero onto Bryant sh~uld b. allowed. Bryant is too far from El Camino for lrft turns to be prchibit2d into the neighborhoods on either side. o Is gQod because it reduces conflicts between bicyclists and' left turDfng Y!hic1es from Embarcadero. 6. Comaents on Alternatiye 3: o left turns from Embarcadero to Bryant wou1d be difficult if cc-ncrete barriers were ;nstal1~ on Bryant and could be considered nazards to lIKItol"ists. o Preferable because no barr1er is proposed. 1. COmMents on AlterDat~ves 4: o Barriers iIil eff~ctiye in reducing tr.ffic on Bryant. o The barriers around the bike lane 0" Bryant will protect bicyclists from Cirs t~rRing off of Embarcadero. 8. Comment. ~n Alternatlve~: • This I. the ~st dangerous altern.tive for children and bicyclists o This is the least dangerous alternative for same two groups o The centerline on Bryant next to the bD:e lane sfiould be a r~iSEd nedian. o Cyclists will dart across ElI1barcadero to the median when only one lane of traffic stops and t~e second does not a This Ilternat1ve is J. cheap fnter1ra measure t"'at could be tested and changed If It doesn't work. o Young c~;1dr.n try t. run w!t~out a lIgH; with proposed islands (Altern.tlve 5) there will be a fals. sense of s.fety. o Heed to consider other options without. traffic light. Alternative 5 Is • strawman/bad choice. D Refuse island .ust be sufficient to protect multiple bicyclists at one ti.e and bikes with trailers. SMall Gro~p Com.ents -4- .... o a left turr'ts should be permitted SCI people are not pre'llented from entering neighborhood toward Oowntown. o The refuge island provides protection for bikes ~1thout the neEd for • traffic slgnal. 9. EmbarcadETD shculd be only thn-! lanes wide: one lline of tnffi'C in either dfr~ction and I ce~t~r two-v.y left-turn lane. Hi. The existing tn:ffic signal .at Embaradero./Waverley s~ou.ld be mO'Jed to Bryant/Eab.rcadero. il. Tbe traffic light should be I .teady green for Embarcadero that can only be triggered b~ bl~~clists on the side streEt. 12. Traffic l!ght is too costly and would ,ause pollution and noi~e. 13_ me lack of • traffic light at 8ryant/Embarcadero oakes the (existing) bike boulevard usel •• s_ 14_ me safety Issue at Town and Co"ntry Village (acro .. fro .. Paly High) is greater than at Bryant/Embarcadero, so why ~orry about the latter? 15~ Alternatives 1 and 2 are the least confusing; Alternatiye~ 3, Ct S wou'd be confusing for motorfsts. 16. The refuge Island .19ht be dangerous for bikes. 17. Alternatives that block cross IfiOvement to/from Oowntown cause 1nconye~1ence to drivers. Actually all the alternatives (becau~e of the barrier) cause inconvenfence to drivers. 18. The upgrading Df this intersection would Improve the safety fDr kids going to/from Castll1eja. 19. Alternatives that r~strfct turDing movements at Embarcadero wou1d cause more traffic to us.e neighborhood streets--espechlly due to Castil1eja dropoffs (alts 2, 3, 4, 5)_ 20. £xistiog intersection (Embarcadero and Bryant} is a mess for cars, bikes and pedestrians. 2L "irlfHe ligf\ts mess up traffic; lights cannot be syncnroniz!d; COlJnter productfve to traffiC flow on Embarca~ero. 22. Bryant I. the best through route for bicyclists. 23_ Bicyclists will Ignore red light for Altern.tives i -4. 24. Why not keep the status quo? or use Waverley as the extension of the Bike Bouleyard. 25_ Concerned about Palo Alto Clinic expansion and effect on Bryant; and coordinatfon with street closure in Alternative~ 1 a~d 2. J" g:lli?2JC±~_' .. "j"" "..-; ,. Sm.ll Group Comments ·5· 2~~ With prohibition of left turns. conc.erned about increased traffic on Kellogg, Kingsley and other 'treets. TIlls Impacts resident, of the surrounding: streets. Heed to analyu impact on surrl)undi+ng streets before presenting plan to City Council. 27. Consider removal of ill few pirldng spices on Bryant jl.tst north oJf Embarcadero In order to facilit.te turns from and to Embarcadero. 28. Concrete islands in roadt.'ays (Alternatives 3,4 & 5) are unexpec.ted, eonfiols1ng for ROtorish and create safety problems, particularly at !'light. 19. All left-turD lane alternatives pro,ide .. fer left·turn ,I."e""'nt. from Embarcldero+ 30. Consider .1ternative that would have si9n11 flasb yellow ~n fmbarcadero and red en Bryant except when bicyclists or pedestrian would trigger a normal cycle of signal operation+ 3]. Wait·time on .cross streets (e .9. Waverley) shoiJTd be lIliJlimized, Tither than giving so =uch ti~e to Embarcadero. 32. Rig~t turn •• bould not trIgger troffic sl9nal. Include a del'j sensor. 33. MaiGtaiD .on-street parking ''In oryant. 34. Consfder possibil ity of barrier in onl)' Orle directicn in order to lIa~ntain access to urgent care cent!r; Dr maybe twa Qne-.a~ barriers. 35. Consider road bumps instead of street closure··llthou9n nois~ associated with busps is i concerA. 36. Move existing ~afl box on Bryant 200 feet furtner away from the 1ntersection. U-turns and blockage issociated w;t~ users of mai1 box is partictilarly troublesome it its present location. 37. The number of vehicles using Embarcadero ccrnp,ared to the number of bicyclists is very very ~igh. Hie numerous motorists t.lS'ing Embarcadero should not haVE to suffer (del.y ••• ,oclated wI sIgnal) for the benefit of the few bIcyclists. 3B. Bicyclists have ~ot been treated equally, ic this tcwn or in any other. Mot.orists, for example, would never be requested to .ake a jog en one of their arterIal,. Why shou1d bicyclists? 39. lIill. signal help "" ~inder the .. fety of the school children? ~ore children "1 be encouraged to cross thfs street. Has Castilleja school raised thfs as a cor.ce~? 40. A Signal should ·ONlya be c.onsidered if staff caf'! assure that it wi 1 1 function in full coordinatfon with Waverlej. 41. The quality Df the loops and their maintenance ;s essential. Too often. they are not wDrking. . " o ~all Group Comments ·6· o 42. Entel"'ing or crossfng ElDbartidero is nat II probjell! i"" the late evening or .0.IYllOr"I"9. Operation of any signal should ~ limIted (perhaps ~twe.n 1. and 7pm). 43. Question the noted reduction (.alues} In traffiC on 8ryant for several of the options (especially 3 l 4). Certainly, mGre of the Va.erley traffic would ~ shifted onto Bryant for Ilternatives 3 , 4, t~an Is shown. Options 3 l 4 should onl, be consIdered .Ith a barrier In Segment 'C', 44. Any sign.l should ~ blcycl. and pedestrian sen.ltlye (actuated). 4~. Bryant, north of Eabarcadero fs historical in c.har.acte,..~ OPPosI!'d to a signal or i~]thi~ else that light hurt this. 45. TraffiC .111 Incrt •• e on Bryant due to the signal. 47. A signal already exists ~t Waverley. Why install another one at 8ryant? Should signal go at Bryant, the $~s~al at Waverley mU$t be taken out. s£6!!£!!T C; £IIureadero t. Forest I. Adding stops t. H .... r aod thinning .111 .1 .. traffic and make these streets sa fer. 2. (speehll, north of fnbar(adero tnere are IINny sig~t impedHltents at intersections where stop signs would ~e removed. 1. No (;lse cflangfng stop signs because bites don:'t stop .t thell Oil"l.yway. 4. Concer. about fIre trucks ~ing blocked by the barrier. 5. Changing stop signs .ates It safer and Quicker for bike tr.fflc, especially at Homer and Channing. 6. The bike bo.'evard would tend to increase s.fetl because people would see IROn bikes concentrated in or,e place. Thus, drfvers.' awareness of bikes would increase, and vice versa. 7. A barrier Bight .ntagonlze people. 8. Concer. about effect of street clo.ure (Alternatl,e. I & 2) on blockage of access to Urgent Care Center. g. Consider b~rrier with Alternatives. 3, 4 •• 5 also. 10. If stop sign> aN! added on H ..... r and Channing removing stop sign at Waverley/Homer and Va.orley/Channlng. at Bryant, consider traffic signal at 11. Ylslbility exIting fro. Vhlt .. n Court to Wa.eriey Is a problem. 12. 1Oroughout the existing Bike Blvd., homes are aore desirable and property values have lncreised. The same should be expected i~ Segment ·C·, if the Bike Blvd. Is •• tended. •. , , r "-----_ ....... -....... - Sm." Group Comments -7· 13. Riding. bike on Bryant is preferred over Waverley. Bryant is • ""ch caTller street. 14. Conslderotlo" to eAten~ing the Bike Blvd. fs premature." The City sttll has Many Pila Alto Medical Foundation questions. Strong desire to impro~e the Clinic "Campus'. 15. The Bike Blvd. issue should not be held up on .ccount of the PAMF. Bike Blvd. needs priority over PAHF. A birrier is needed even if the Clinic IIOves out. 16. Yery concerned that on-street parking on, Bryant wi]1 be eliminated. There are very few off-street parking spaces fn the~! old houses. All on-street parklng needs to be .. intllned. 17. Reduction in on-stre!t parking is also opposed by bicyclists. They feel that the existing Bike Boulevard functions fine with parking. 18. Consensus that -bike lanes· not be placed on Bryant Street. 19. Anything that slows traffic arod reduces the number of yehicles can improve the quality of lifo. 20. Staff should consider barrier just r.arth of Embarcadero~ However~ this may pose a hazard for motcrists turnfng off of e~barcadero. 21. Staff should also consider 80re t~an one barrier. 22. Any barrier sho~ld COMplement the ar,~itectural c~aracter of the existing Mstoric.l neighborllood. It appeared to be a group censensus that the existfnq barriers t~ro~ghout the City would not be acceptable for this 10(:atfon~ 13. Concerned about getting to Downto"". A survey should be conducted to deten.ine the fmpact. 24. There will be IIOre conflfcts at the barrier location between bikH and autos due to traffic turning onto the side streets. 25. Speeds will increase on Bryant due to removal of the stop signs. 16. Design of the barrier is ugly. 27. Concerned aoout adding stop signs on Channing and Homer, whick are collector streets. 28. Barrier will shift IIOre traff~c to Waverley which already carries twice the amount of traffic carried by Bry.nt. t9. Concerned about adding .or! bike route signs on Bryant. 30. Stop signs should b. added at HOIer to incre.se saf.ty. 31. Agree with removing 8ry.nt stop Signs it Kingsley. o SEamq a; For"t to Lytton Small Group Comments ·8· o I. Conflicting opinion, ,.iced regarding ""ether diagonal parllng or parallel parking is safer Dr dan;!r~u$ for bfcyclfsts. 2. TheM!' is a concern tna.t bi~es will rfde in ttle center of the road, especially south of downtown, t~e~ continue to ride in the center in the downtown area \IIh~c~ is busier and !lOre dangerous. 3. This section ha, the IIOst potent III conflicts due to traffic ,.1u,"",. bikes, ~a~kfnq, drfveways, ped~$trfins and general activity_ 4. Tizing .f three traffic lights ,hould favor traffic on Bryant. S. The Downtown Irea .lready has a shortage of parking. If we change to parallel sp~ces, we Tose some needed spaces. Changing diagonal parking to parallel would be contrary to the city policy of no net loss of parking in the Downtown. 6. If -bike lanes-on Waverley are removed, and diagonal parking installed~ I net increase in parking could result. 7. Bicyclist feels tnat both diogonal and parolle1 parking are hazardous to rfding. However. diagonal parking is the least tltceptable. Whoere parallel parking exists •• bicyclist sl~ll rides far enough away from the cars to avoid a collision wit~ an opened deor. S. Disagreement by i non-cycli.st. Parallel parking should be IlOre dangerous_ People open car doors 'Without notice to bicyclists. With; diagona1 piildng. at least you get some warDing. You can s!e a vehicles revers.e lights. Dr their break lishts. 9. Traveling any.mere through Downtown presents problems and hazards. 10. Delfvery trucks for tne drug store.s often park on Bryant just south of University Avenue wheTe the street narrows. lL Investigate conflict between bikes and autos using the Civic c.enter garage. SE&I!OO E: lytton to san Franelsgulto Creek t. Consider the need for ill barrier on Palo Alto Avenue ;nd on Bryant in this s"9""'nt. 2. Palo Alto Avenue should be one-way (eastbound only· -concerned about creekside preseryatl~n). 3. The Sik. Boule,ard should b. on Waverley from the cr.ek to Churchill. 4. Blkes going left from Palo Alto Avenue to Bryant have poor ylsibility b&oause of the twisting ro.d. Sm.ll Group Comoe,ts ·9· s. IApOrtant that stop signs be rtvcrsed at Hawthorne as proposed. 6. Visability is poor at H •• "tnorne and Bryant. 1. Consider using 2-way and '·way sign indicators at stop interse(tions. 8. No strong faelings about thp.se changes one way or th~ ot~er. 9. Yfsibility at t~e bridge is poor approaching from Bryant. gGlf£HT F 1 Ie lated Changes on Ad 1,cent $treeh I. MoYlng bicyclists off of Waverley Is desirable. 2. C1ty should consfder utending the Bike Boulevard i..tln if II signill at Embarcadero is not approved. 3. If tile bike boulevard is extended, removal of Tanes 0'. Waverley is logical, If it is not extended, bike lanes on Waverley would be useful. 4. Restoration of on-street parking on Waverley is a plus. 5. Cor-cern about the remoYil of parking on Addison and Coleridge in order t~ extend bike lanes from Waverley to Bryant. 6E1tE!!Al CIlIIHOOS I. 2. 3. 4. s. The IIOst iBportant objective fs to ereate a throughway for bicycles <In Bryant similar to Alma Street fo, motor vehicles. Thirty YUr, .go it was safe for children to bike In Palo Alto; no" it tsnlt because of increased traffic. Drastica1ry increased pal ice enforcement of traffic violations by bot~ motorfsts and bic~clists is needed. A no. du.l message traffic 'isn should be developed that r.ads, STDP for autos and YIELO for bicYclists. A signal would go in at Bryant/Emban:adero if a c~i1d ~ere ki ned in an accident--let'$ not wait. 6. If the Waverley bike lanes are removed and parking h restored, the presen!! of parked cars on both sides of the street would reduce the ovorall speed of traffic. 7. Pre·loops should be Installed on Bryant in advance of the traffiC signal It Embarcadero so bicyclists don't have to stop as long at tne intersectfon. B. What will be the effect of the proposed street clo,ure (Alternative, 1 & Zj on Stanford football traffic. Small Gro~p Comments ·10· 9. City s~o"ld survey how blcycll,t, pick routes. o 10. Not important to .. Intol. existing bike lanes on Waverley. 11. Traffic and parking are signified.t problems Dewntown, and getting people aut of yeMcles and onto hi te. would help illeylate those problems eanslder.bly. 12. Vhit is the co,t/b<neflt rotio? 13. Vhat is the relationship of this study to the PAMi study such is yolumes, access. closure of Brya"t et(.? 14. Divide the funds to put bike facilities all Dyer tawn rathor than CD"Centrate on BrYint~ 15. On Wayerley, there are stops eyery 200 meters. This slows cyclists and causes delay In travel time. Motorists do not ~ive to zig zag from point A to B and have nc idea how tllile consuming and difficult 1t is fGf cyclists to travel from one point to anotMer. The Bryant Street BH .• Boulevard needs to be extended so ~yc11sts can have a thcrcugnfare, just like motorists ~ave Alma and other streets. 16. Cyclists should be concerned about their safety related to haying to share • slreet with an emergency facility and •• hlcl.s. 17. There should be ne traffic sign.l installed at Bryant ind Eillbareadero. Not necessary to have i sfgnal~ Signal would ~ead to furt~er congestion on Embarcadero. Hot that .a.y cyclists will be effected, and It ~.y not help cyclists. 18. Approaching the bicycle bridge to Menl. Park on Bryant Street Is shorter t~an from Waverley. When approaching from Bryant I cyclist cln see the triffic on the bridge from the opposite direction and does not ha.e to look for cross traffic. On Waverley, i cyclists GUst watch cross traffic and Is f,c" with yisibility problems. 19. ~.ny of the alternativ~s offered ire workable. 20. A systeJI af barriers fs ne<:essary if Bryant is to work is a bite boulevard. ·' OPEN FORIJI COIIfEKTS BRYANT STREET IICYCLE 8OUL£YARD ElTENSIOH STUDY PUBLIC METING -OCTOBER 25. Ig90 8 I. Alt,rnathe 5 for the Bryant/Emb,rnder. Inter.ectfon could be implem<!nted OP a trial bas1s. is I cost effect1wt .lternative to I traffic 519na1. 2. Opposed to the exten.sion because it would create barrier.s to vehkular traffic. 3. Opposed to project becau.e of hfgh cost. !. other factors need to be consIdered, Including the City'. decisfon on the ,.10 Alto Medical Foundation expansfon Ind the f.pact of the Golden Trfangl. TOM Ordfnance. 5. Speaker feels the opposition to the project is due to the potential inconvenience to neighborhood' resfdents. "Progress" may sometimes inconwenience peaple. 6. The bicycle boulevard ex:tension wilf lIaic.e it easier for eyel ists to travel io and through Palo Alto. 7. It would be possible to imple""nt the project and .hll maintain the fntegrfty of the neighborhood. B. Shifting tne bike route liP to Waverley means more left-hand turns, which some cyclfsts have difffculty wfth. g. SpeakEr ha •• philosophical opposition to anoth.r traffic .ignal and would prefer,. non·signalized alternative at Bryant/Embar'cadero. 10. Conc .... expr.ssed t.at the Bryant/Embarcadero sfgnal would be too close to the "'averl.y $19n.l and drivers l!mlM stop at bot" lights even if tnt signals were coordinated. (Graphs submitted tD substantiate t~i5 c-cncll1sfon) . II. The Cfty has • commitboent to the Prof.ssorvflle neighborhood, I ... ell as to the bicycle boulevard. TOi. neighborhood needs to be protected. Speaker support. idea of a traffic barrier in the neighborhood if it is sen.Ithell deSigned and will stop future Incr ... es I. trafffc. Important that on· street parking be retained. 12. Cit1 ... t take long· range approach to thfs Issue. Some i.terests h.ve not been represented at t~e meeting, fncludfng Downtown merchants, long-haul b; Ice COIIrIIuters. 13. City should collect bike counts on other parol leI streets. City'. goal should be the DO .... nt of people. 14. Maverley Is l.s. desfrabl. becau.e of bus trlffic, obstacles in the bike lanes •• tc~ Open Forum Coaae~ts -2- o 15. Proj~ct •• y couse BOr. traffic on Bryant; , barrlor Is essenti.l. 15. Altern.tl.o 2 'S the only s.nsibl. intersection .1teroati •• _ The barrier Is •••• ntl.l if through tr.ffic to the Oowntown fs to be discouriged. Tn' blk. boulevard should be tho counterpart .f Middl.fleld for bicyclists. 11. Bicyclists ,"o.ld han ·.qull .ce ... •. 18. Bicyclists are I. suffici •• t .~rs I. Palo Alto that thoy should ha,e ,recedence on l!!!ll street. 19. Bicyclists hive difficulty ffndlng suitable direct, .fflc;",t tr .. el routes. The tra .... el tiIM savings that the bike boulh"ard extension would provld. Is illpOrtant. 20. Stop ~!gns ~uc •• cyclist's speed by 7~ on Waverley Street. 21. City s!.aff should ride the route it .i9M. Sight lin.s are botter tra.ellng from tne San franclsqulto Creek bike bridge to Bryant than to Waverley. < '< ._._--- alUm 1I0 ... UYAOO UTt.mll 'WIlT C 5uIlINIt'1 "f £va1wtlon ,_". '41.,. 1 5"",,",,1 1_' '" Rf'PIlfI,rS) ll_Y SWlWA wPNfU SIIi'fOll( I!£!!lMl. ~ ~ c~ •• e".l I'hirH ~"I\" .top JIV'" on a",..ftl .t CIIunilln !I ) • I Opu~ I, 'u .... ~.t(1¥J fGllr-",y tiotl algat .t Iry,,,V ClM'cM" , I ~ 10 • StmU It.lt'P"".ti •• h ,,,1' .'X .. , si~.l. left t'il't'n ~bts. • • S!'"y."t d4~1id twr.t.tft Addtsolt I l/(ltqln Alhr".ttw It If'''lf~ ICC"", Ii",,,., ~no lttt turn. frfJfI 11 1 • tllbf.rudtol"!Jl. 8t')'tnt. e. o .. td b/. M,.,Hlon It lHl.coln Alt"..,..Uyf' J: U_HIJd tlcttn (f',gtlt tu"" only'''' 9J":)'ollt1.}, , • • 1.ft tu"" pod: .• \".. ftC) c: 10'1.1" (In Bry .. "t I\lUtI"",Uv • .-1 It.tteul ace'lU "'111;'" tr'4ht turll' flllly ff'tll\! , 5 1 1 • Dry.ntl. no ,10',," Oil 8I'y."t Alt."",,,Uytt 51 M1 S11J~1. HlltUd ",teU (no \'Ilft turns f'rO\ll! • • , " " E"'rcaoJtro, t'igllt 1.\11"1'1' ollly f'f'Oft I\r,al'lt), rut-" ~;. clowt'lJ 0« IP"Y«nt. Nlfuq,1: hhnd ',. 3M!!! , " ') 'onc~t'''' "Ml Rlftr .. It(l, li1jn' .t &1';Y.ntjr.1ng"lt:t. ,....". , '\.1' .. '" l~ • ,tlllP Ii,., Gt\ 8r)'lnt .. t AddtJ..,,_ add .. top '.91\1 tin boUt Ht'IIIIIl" "Jld' Cftltlll\fI'9 at-8r,.nt OpHon I t ~ stt&\' $1"". II eli1,Hng tot er11M\t.~~nqf.ley • • l 10 OpUDIt 11 1l./fflI • .It:JUnq (O""'''IY nop "9"t lit BrYlntjAddhun J ~ , II o,tI." ), Do hat cdd ,top ,f'lnt. an HOIMt" or C~.nllinlJ ",t S,.y.t/lt , • 5 • OpHon 4, ('0,. '''')lint _tween Addhon IIn~ linedl!) ,. • • , .~. BJCYCl[ 8OOLE~AIU) UT(~SIOM slVOy '&g. 1 s..t.1"1 a' b .. lu.c1on '"ftI& t_ Of R£S,,*,ES) 5TAOJIGlY STAOfrtIilY Sf!jH£Nr Q SUetOf!I SUtpoR! NEUTRAL oteoU _GIS1- Co~uptuil '1.111 No chi"9tl to t.llhttng cOll4tttons. " l • , OpthM 11 COIIVttt dt.nll parttng to ,i,.U.1 plrklng. S • $ 5 .. SEGI1£NT £ one'fltll.l Ph"l At".rs. stop S19n! It 8ry ..... t/H.wthom., 2. l , raov. Itop ligA on Brnnt It Poe. OpUon 11 ""P stop slgns oil ... tlI19 It 8rYlnt/HI.thorna, 2 l , 12 rif,~t~:~~;-:~:~~f~~';~?':' of: '-, '; ': Option 21 K.ap _top '19n, II '.1Itltlng .t Bryant/POf, l • 10 ~'~(<<I f t" , " , . ConCiPtuill pllnl ReIIO" •• htlng blcycl4 hnes On .,."eI'18Y 15 6 fro. Lytton to' (ol.ddVa , restore en·,traft ,.1"11:1 "V. bt.nd Mdtson Mcye). Ian .. to 8rYlnt, I'VIO-V4Ii •• -.tl::1 Cbunbll1 blc)'d. hnl, betwen 'I"Ylnt , "IV.1" .,. a.t.nd Cohrld98 "IClcll lHils to 8rl"nt, Option II Do nat r-ova t.hUrtV Wlv ... l., bicycle 'Inu • • ff)on 2: 00 not rtdar. on· street pII"I(1n9 IVf" 11 bkyrll hines 2 10 ... bet.,.." Brnnt u4 VI ... erley. Option 3, 00 not .xtend Addhun bl,),cle h_nf. to Wlver)IY. 2 OptiOn 4100 not "'''''" .xllt1~ Churthlll bicycle lanel heheen , 2 • S Bry ... t ud Wi.,.rllY-. Option 51 00 not. •• tlnd Col.,.id!lt bilCycle 1alt8S to 8l'Ylnt, 2 , 10 "