Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0389.091, - August 15, 1991 HONORABLE CiTY COUNCIL Palo Alto, Califo~nia BRYAN~~I:ET BICYCLE BOU.IDiARD EXTENSIQN STUDY PJJBLIQ_ MEETING Member$ of the Council: This is an infor~ational report regarding a second public meeting that was held on J'.1ne 6, 1991, as part of the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension Study. No council acticn is required at this time. An initial pt:.blic meeting for the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension Stucy was he)" on October 25, 1990. An earlier staff report (CMR:615: 0; December 13, 1990) summarized the format a..,d results of that l!1eeting, in ""hich staff received valuable input fro~ the meeting partiCipants. Subsequent to that ~arlier public meeting, staff continued with its evaluation and development of a plan for tne extension of the SrY3nt street Bicycle Boulevard. On June 6, 1991# a second public meeting ~as held at the Palo Alto senior Cente, to share info=mation regarding an Inte,mediate Preferred Plan, answer questions, and receive iurther cort'llnents. Mr. Geoff Ball 'Was hired by the City to serve as the facilitator for the meeting~ The meeting format included an overview of the study with an opport"J.nity for general CO!!\l'!1erlts and questions, followed by a more specific presentation of the Intermediate Preferred Plan, on a segment by segment basis, including ~ perioC! for questions and comments pertaining to each segr.lent. Meeting participants 'Were also encouraged to submit 'Written comments. AttachmP.nt 1 is a copy of the l:Ieeting notice that 'Was sent to apprOXimately 2,100 area residents and other interested persons. Attachment 2 is a copy of the meeting cgenda. Attachment J is a copy of the Intermediat~ Preferred Plan Which served as the focus of the presentation and discussion at the 3une 6th public meeting~ ApprOximately 70 people attended the three hour meeting. Of those who siqned the attend~nce she~ts, 56 percent reside within three blOCKS of the p:n::posed Boulevard extension and 19 percent live within three blocks nf the existing Boulevard. CMR: 389;91 ",,' . - r --..,. --,._---.... -- As 'With the first meeting, there 'W'ere individuals present 'With strong e,entiments, both in favor and in opposition to the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard. virtually all individuals, however. expressed appreciation for having been provided information on the proposed extension 3nd for the format ot the meeting, because they were provided an opportunity to express their vie~s. Attachment 4 is a copy of a recent transmittal that was sent to each meeting participant as a follo~-up to the public meetinq. The transmittal inclUdes comments and questions raised durinq the discussion of each segment, as well as more gener31 comments and questions. Staff is proceeding with the evaluation and development of a recomlr.:.ended plan, and completion of the study report for the extension of the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard. At the present time, it is anticipated that the study report, inclusive of a recommended plan, ~ill be forwarded to council in September, for referral to the policy and services committee tor review and discussici. at its meeting in October. Respectfully s .... brnitted, ¥~VIN L. OVERWAY Chief Transportation Official KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment ~ f:a( I ~..--:; JUlIE FLEMING As~istant city Ma a r V Attachments: 1. Notice of public meetinq (June S, 1991) 2. Public meeting agenda J. Intermediate Preferred plan 4. Transmittal to meeting participants providing summary comments from the public meeting. Related Staff Reports: CMR:615:0, 12/13/90, Bryant street Bicycle Boulevard Extension study Public Meeting CMR:47B:O, 9/6/'9D. Extellsion of the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard cc: Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory committee Bicycle Boulevard Mailing List Attendees of June 6, 1991 Bike Boulevard Public Meeting CMR:389:91 L ~i 8/15/91 Page :2 • - May 23, 1991 a NOTICE OF PUBUC MEETING June 6, 1991 PLACE AND T!M.E: Palo Alto Senior Center, 450 Bryant Street 7:00 p.rn, Thur>day, June 6, 1991 SUBJECT: Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Exlension Study. ATTACHMENT 1 BACK.GRQlJND: L.2.st September, City staffbeg3.!!.:3 study "'ith the objectkt~ c! developing • recommended plan fer the extension of the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard from it:; present terminus Bt Churchill Avenue northward 10 and through dC'ATItOWD PaJo Alto, and on to the emting bicycle/pedestrian bridge across San Francisquito Creek into Menlo Park. last October 25th, an initial public meeting was held to pr",ide an opportunity for the public to learn reore about the study and comment on preliminary CQiJcephlal alternatives for the bicycle boulevard extension. Since October, City staff has completed further investigation and analysis of a variety of alternatives and issues, induding those that surfaced at the initial public mee ting. A DRAFT report has been prepared, documenting the information and process that has compr.sed the: study to date, including the prepar.tion of an lNffiRMEDIAIE PREFERRED PiAN. PURposE OF MEETING; The purpose of this second public meeting is to share informatio" regarding the lJ','TERMEDIATE PREfERRED PiAN, answer questions, aod rc«:ive further comment:,., The public meeting will include a general presentation, c!isc'-.lSSton., questions and answers, and a period of open comments. Written COITunents are appropriate before, at, or forJowing the meeting. Staff will use the comments from the IDet".tmg ill fnnher evaluating, {t".fiT1mg ';\.nd dev~luring 3 FlfI.al R~cr;'mrnendt:'d Phm for future, presentation 10 the Oty Council. A one page summary and related map of the INTERMEDIA IE PREFERRED PIA."! is enclosed [or your information and reference. A copy of the DRAFf report is ava.ilable for reference L"l the Transportation Divi.sio~ 6th Floor, Gty Hall, 250 Hamilton A~ ... enue and the Downtown Library at 270 Forest Avenue. A copy of the DRAFT report will be ma~ed to anyone. upon request. This notice bas been sent to an residents within a one b~ock radius of the study corridor, members of the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee, and other interested parties. A map of the corridor and the locatio!:] of the public meedng is provided on the back of lhis notice. CONTACT PERSON: Gayle Likens, Senior Planner, (415) 329-2136 Q BRYANT STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD EXTENSION STUDY PUBLIC MEETING 7:00 pm Thursday 11.ne 6, 1991 Palo AltO Senior Center 450 Bryanl Street Palo Alto, CA AGENDA 1. Introductions and Opening Comments 2 Genera] Presentation on Policy and Process 3. Overview of the Inte=edia Ie Preferred Plan 4. Presentation &0 Discussion of Intermediate Preferred Plan a. Segmc:nt Presentation b. Qarification Questions Co Group Discussions d. G roup Responses s. Open Period for Public Comments 6. Oo<ing Comments Handouts: A Description and map o( lnlermediate Preferred Plan (O!apter 7 0( draft repon) Copy of fun draft repon i5 available Contact Person: Gayle Ukens, Senior Planner, (415) 329-1236 ATTACHMENT 2 (7:00) (7:10) (7:20) (7:30) (9:30) (9:55) . -. ) - • FIG U A E 7. ~ INTEI'IMEDL"TE F-AEFERASD Pl"N ~-~,-. ci:~: ,~ , .,: (,~:;",.~ • .• ··· .. i.J-__ ._-_-~_._. ..~~-- , - o Cay of Yalo ;lIto p 0 &01: lono ~Al.C .t..l.1C CAUfOi:r.'A hl;;'J Transportation Division P.O. Box 10250 94303-0862 July 1.8, 1991 ATTACHMENT 4 250 Hamilton Avenue sixth Floor (415) 329-2520 I POllLXC nErUIG SUHXAlty COKHElr1'S I Sul:lject: Bryant street Bicycle Boulevard Extension study Dear Meeting participant: The purpose participation Sryant Street Enclosed for made during writinq. of this letter is to thank you for your in the June 6th community meeting ~eqarding the Bicycle Boulevard Extension study. your information is a summary of public comments this meeting as 'Jell as comments submitted in The comments proviaed will assist staff in further developing a recommended plan and the study report. We anticipate tbat the report will be available for public review in september, 1991. Thank you again for your interest and participation in the Bicycle Boulevard Extension Study process. Sincerely, .4dL i/{P-1<..a GAyi.EJLIKENS Senior Planner, Transportation Enclosure: comments from the June 6, 1991 Community Meeting VIAl Nt , , - o PtrllLI c: COlOlEl/'l' 8 BRnN'l' SrRI!lU BIC:YCLIl BOtlUVARD UTEliSION srtJDY PMlLIC MEETING -"tnI!I '. 1 U 1 I'GMJFt A; ChUrchill tq Emh&rcad~ 1~ concerned ~ith hicycle/vehicle interaction at Churchill and Bry~nt. What did analysis include? 2. Is parking near tha Castilleja school for drop off or for day parking? 3. study conducted by residents -98 cars dropping children off l and 50 cars travellinq north. C. Need to address ad1ed delays to Churchill traffic. s. Spacinq of bicyclist on Churchill traffic to cross. Bryant will easily allow Delays should be minimal. 6. Leave well en~uqh alone. Keep four way stop. Residents fOU9ht to get all these stops a long time ago. Bikes don't stop anyway. Removal of stop signs may increase number o~ accidents. 7. Let bikes jog to Waverley. S. N~ed to tully address student bike and pedestrian tr.affic. g. Since it is not a do-or-cUe issue. staff should stUdy further before recommending any changes. SEGKE~ 8~ Jryant!Embarea~~ro Intersection 1. Why does this project cost 60 much? break~own on costs? Does staff have a 2. The more urgent intersection for a traffic signal is Paly High/Town and Country. Safety at Paly is much higher priority. Due to fundin9 li~itations. and proximity, a signal at Bryant viII doom the possibility of ever havinq a si9nal at Paly/Town and Country. Especially true since every additional signal ~ill hurt progression along Embarc~dero. Issue expressed several times. ~":"')!l!,piII._Ili. i._IS.' .'.1-------- , - ' .. ...,. . t ..;. .-. __ ' .',",' ·~l~;.· _. _ I~·· ~i~.·.· ,,,f' - 3. 4. s. o On Ore90n. the Bryant intersection is signalized:. Does it work veIl ira terms of spacing? Is there a standard .pacing of 5iqn~1.? The spaci~9 ot the signals on oregon 118811 to be 900d~ HoW" would oregon relate to Embarcadero? consider one or the other tBryant signal or Waverley), but not both. Perhaps even con~i~er one at Co·~er. Did staff ever consider \Covinq the existing Waverley sign.l to Eryant? Additional siq-nals will cause delays, congestion and .moq. 6. Reference to 6.2.1, page 35: hov did staff arrive at 6' increase in stepped traffic? Did staff use a computer program? Did delay computations include start-up times? ,. The siqnal at Melville and Middletiel~ does not creat~ siqr,ificant del~ys to traffic on Middlefield. Will the proposed signal at Bryant and Embarcadero reslll t in siallar del.eys? 8. To what extent vill the coordination ot the siqnals effect the 25 MPH speed limit. Can the signals be coordinated to control vehicular spee~s or. ~arcadero? sta:tf should seek pro-active ways to reduce speeds~ Sboul~ even consider physical impediments. 9. Will a signal effect the 0Z!01t!ount of traffic on Dab~rcadero? 10. Kotorists can currently turn Embarcadero t.o northbound Bryant. eliminated? lett from eastbound will this movement be 11. If ~ left turn lane ~ere installed, .hat vould be the resultant lane widths? What is a typical lane vidth? Has City e~~~ienced a history of sccident problems at other ~oeations where the lane ~idths have been reduced? 12. Wants qreen arrows tor left turns~ 13. concerned vith 9 toot lane ~id~hs. 14. Consider 3 lanes on Embarcadero. 15. ~enlo Park has good coordination of siqnals on El Camino Real. Has staft looked at their program? 16. Question staft d.ata~ Since traffic on Bryant 'Will be effected by both the signal and the changes on Bryant~ prOjections should be made tor every $cenariQ possible. Do not shov ,:::'nanges in traffic, solely on the basis of signal options. 2 L •"'"' ;~"", ,~ , , " 17. o Concerned that removal of stop si9ns on Bryant is not reflected in the traffic projections. l!. Nort.hb:;und traffic on Bry£.nt should not be prohibited from turninq lett onto Embarcadero. Other northbounCI streEts from. the neighOOrhood have already been restricted from t~rnin9 lett. Data shows low left-turn volumes 1!I:'ly.ay. Even with a s1qnal, these volumes should not increase 5~stantially since there is a barrier just a few blocKS to the south. If prohihited, all traffic will need to qo to Waverley to enter onto Embarcadero westbound. 19. Northbound traffic on Bryant shoulO! not be prohibited from going straight to the Do~to.~ area. As proposed, I!I motorist would be torced to turn right at Embarcadero, and would then need to make a left at Waverley. Making a left turn at the Waverley signal is difficult during the morning rush hour. 20. Rather than restrict movements at the intf!,rsection of Bryant and Embarcadero, staff should discourage traffic by using a barrier or other physical device: away from tile intersection. 21. If you have a signal and a barrier, then you do not need restrictionsD 22. Without barriers, Bryant will provide a straight shot to the PAKF. A barrier will do more to limit traffic than restrictions at the intersection. 23. Motorists making a riqht turn from ~estbound Embarcadero are going to be travelling at hiqh speeds. 24. Instead of turning at Waverl~y, some traffic may turn on Bryant instead. Consider restricting so~e move~ents by time of day. 25. Wants better details of bike islands and approach lanes. Bow ~ill a bicyclist make. ,a right turn? Hov will a bicyclist activate the signal? 26. Signal options, and Segment C options all reflect staff's sensitivity to traffic on Bryant. Staff, however, does not seem to show that same level of s:ensitivity to Waverley. Impacts to Waverley need to be accounted for, ~hen discussing signal options, barriers, etc. 27. Regardinq a signal at Embarcadero and a barrier at Addison, did staff look at traffic impacts and potential increase of accidents to Lincoln and Xinqsl~y streets. J · . I , , , ~ [ : f l - 28. How many and what percentage ot bicyclists noW' activate the pedestrian signal at Waverley. Actl vat ion of signals by bicyclists will certainly incr-ease delays to Embarcadero traffic. In this regard,. we need to consolidate all 600 bicyclists at one location only. Either Waverley or Bryant. 29. Bov many people viII the light protect. 600 bicyclists divided by 12 hours is only 50 per hour. Does this justify impact to the hiqher number of motorists on E::mbarcadero? 30. Pre.terence is tor a siqnal with right turns only to northbound Bryant and a barri6r. 31. As a resident ot Embarca~ero,. I need to point out that ears vill not stop for pedestrians. Fails to understand how some people cannot be concerned about bad auto traffic habits. 1. As a resident of Waverley~ a desirable. Ther. will be Waverley. barrier on Bryant is not too much diversion onto 2. Its OK and appropriate to divert traffic onto waverley because it is a designated collector. 3. If all stops on Brya.nt are removed, tra.ffic 'Will travel too fast.. Concerned. t..':Iat children (going to Add.isonJ crossing Bryant will be hit by speeding motorists and cyclists. This Concern mentioned several times. 4. Are there aocUlllented findings which show that tra.!fic will travel faster When stop signs are re'lllove.:j? What has been our experience on the existing aike Boulevard vhere stop sighs have been removed? 5.. Bicyclists and pedestrians hav~ the same concern. They do not wish to be hit by cars. 6. Bicyclists tend to drive defensively. Bicyclists have a great incentive to a\."oid collisions since in any collision~ they are vulnerable to severe injuries. 7. As a bicyclist~ we need to knov that cross traffic will stop. c L , I -1 ~' i i t~ , I ! - 8. o Thirty year~ ago, we worked hard to get the qua,d and go system ot stop signa ins~al1ed. Why can't we just leave tbem alone? Thirty years ago, we had a lot of accidents, but with the guard and go system, accioents have been reduced. The consi~tency of stops at every other block works well because it adds to driver expectation. 9. Why chanqe the stop at Kir.qsley and Bryant? Kingsley has very little traffic that crosses Bryant and bicyclists currently run the stop AI'l}"'Way. Xeep as part of the syste:. 10. As a bicyclist, I do not think are Tleed to stop Kingsley traffic. I do not bike fast. Speeding shcu.ld not be an issue or 90a.l. 11. We need to keep the stops. We need to think about the children that bike. Allowinq bicyclists to travel faster does not increase bicycle safety. 12. No stop signs mean more traffic on Bryant, since left turns are allo'Wed from El:lharcadero. So a barrier is pref"erI'"ed. 13. Waverley has stretches of J or 4 blocks yithout stops or signals, and is liveable. We'd a.l.l like harriers on our street$ but they are not essential. 1.. The! neiqhborhood needs a barrier.. There are lots of children, and the best way to control trat.fic is by having a barrier. 15. Wherever a barrier is placed, there will be increased traffic on the si~e (ea3t-west) streets. that need to be accou.!ltea for. 16. Consensus at on~ table for a barrier some~ .. here on Bryant. 17. The substitute pl.ztn, 'With a barrier, shows that less traffic will be on waverley. 18. Location -A-is preferable because it is located at the boundary of the residential area and the commercial area. 19. Prefer a barrier at location -A-. A aidblock barrier is better than one ~t an intersection. At an intersection~ & motorist on the cross-street may not expect to have a blcrclist enter from the direction of a barrier. 20. A barrier at location -A-yill bloc~ off ~irect access fI'"OD the neighborhood to the future urgent care site. Preters a barrier north of location -A·, at Channing_ 5 1: ;7 ,. - 21~ A barrier at location -A W will separate the neighborhood ~rom the clinic. With a potential 5 year construction period, the barrier ]Day actually help to keep 'Workers from parking in the r~sidential area. 22. Believe that residents would prefer a b~rrll!r at location -A-, alonq 'tilth keeping the existing stop signs on Bryant. stops are essential in maintaining reasonable ear and bike speeds. 23.. Oppose a barrier at location -E-. This causes ill dead .. nd. 24.. Prefer a barrier at location -D.... A barrier here will do the eost to re~uce auto traffic. 25. While ill barrier can limit vehicular traffic, it should not be mad~ so that it divides the neiqhborhood. 215. A barrier, at the north side of the intersection of embarcadero and Bryant will not oivi~e the neighborhood or block it ott from the medical clinic or the downtown area. Similar to the one at Melville. Professorville relates to downtown, not Embarcadero. 27 ~ Part of Professorville is to be able to walk to the downtown area. A barrier will give a sense of sepaI"ation (psycholoqical). 28. The new barriers on Bryant south of Emb~rcadero do no~ visually impact thP neiqhborhood. 29.. Need to reiterate that a barrier anywhere will thr-ow traffic onto Waverley .. 30. 00 not limit diverter to just barriers. Also consider road bumps, stop siqns, etc. 31.. Road or spee~ bwaps may be more desira_ble.. Tend not to divide the community the way a b~rrier miqht .. 32. This segment, more. so. than any other-, has a qre~t Shortage of on-street parking. A barrier will utilite som.e or the parking areas and make this shortage more severe .. 33. On Addison, many of the homes are rental with numerous residents {Stanford students) having cars. 34.. This is an old neighborhood. Only have single car driveways. The study needs to re-emphasize the iQportance of maintaininq all on-street parking spaces. Any plan must indicate that all par~inq will be lDainti!lined~ 6 .. t - o 35. Need to emphasize the need to maintain the character of the neighborhood. Has staff contacted the Historic Resources Board. Ba=riers may not be feasible. 36. Are there difterent types: of barriers? Are they designed &0 that they will not give a sense of £eparation? 31~ As e resident and a bicyclist, believes that staff needs to provide new figures (projected trafficj that reflect chanqes to the complete system4 Inappropriate to expect people to show a preference at this time. 38. As a r~sident and a bicyclist j I ri~e my bike n~rth and south all the time. Everything is fine. I experience no problems and do not Eiee a need for changes. Going to Waverley to cross Embarcadero is not a problem. 39. As a bicyclist, requeE'ts that residents welcome bikes through their neighborhood~ 40~ As a resident and a bicyclist# preference is fo~ speed bumps a 41. What is the difference" between speed bumps and road: bumps? 42. Bicyclists shOUld just grow up. I rode bikes all my life and never had problems. Its safe. SEGMENT p: forest to Lyttop 1. Bicycle commutinq through the downtown area is greatest concern~ with all the short term parking, there is high turnover rate, Need to change angle parking to parallel parking or remove it altogether and r6ally make it a Bike Boulev~rd. Concerned both about backing out and doors opening. 2. Improvinq bicycle. travel through the dO\lo71tOwn area vil1 promote more cyclists and reduce the parking demand~ Need to coordinate signals on Bryant for bicyclists. Bike Boulevard traffic should have preference over east­ west traffic on Hamilton, University and Lytton. SEGMENT E: Lyttop to San lraneisquito Creek 1. Somewhere near the bridqe, need to put in sO~Ething to stop cross traffic. 7 :L • - o .--. 2. will Bike Boulevard siqns be installed directing bike traffic from Menlo Park~ BIGKiIT 1; I.latea Cbapg •• 0; A41ac.pt 'tle.tw 1. None expressed (meetinq ti~e had expired). GINlRA1. COXXEJlTB 1. 'I'his is a very e>epensive project. If this project 'Were not pur&ued~ could the monies be redirected? Has Palo Alto taken steps r~9ardinq the Federal Highway Reauthorization Bill to get funds diverted from hiqh~ays to transit and other alternative modes. J. Bow did staff arrive at the 2 plans (the preferred and the substitute)? A~e they intended as options for the neighborhood to choos£ from? Will the neighborhood have the final say? 5. Have schools been adequately involved? Castilleja, Addison I Paly., a.nd other schools 'Warrant addi tional attention. Concerned with small boulevard. Especially vehicle.s and bicyclists children crossing the bike if stop signs are removed and are allo~ed to travel faster. 5. Potential loss of on-street parking is o~ concern. Why ~as on-street parking not addressed? 7. How does the timinq of the bike boulevard relate to the development of the PAMF? Concerned that staff is being reactive rather than proactive in bringinq both issues together. S. Will new ErR be required for PAMF? 9. Oisl ike of ·street closure-teno. Prefers "auto barrier-, since bikes can still qet through. 10. Questions staff results and counts~ Counts conducted by residents are different. 11. Counts vary. What is important is future traffic. Projecticns need to account for complete scenarios. Not segment by seqment scenarios. 12. High bicycle "Use on Embarcadero Road. 8 .. " . .. c'--·L· ... • ", f ; , o 13. Were origin-destination studies conducted? 14. If all bicyclists were directed (force~) onto Waverley, could Waverley handle the volume? 15. 16. 17 • City should not be content with current bicycle Rather, we need to encou~age more ridership. number of bicyclists will help quality of life of housinq. nlllnDers. Increase and cost For over 2 0 years, lived harmoniously. as they are. bikes, cars, and pedestI"ians have Why change things now? Leave things city should recognize that many of the people in attendance are non'"residents. Most are bicycle activists and this i$ the!'r pet project. Many of the cODllllents mllide durinq the evening do not retlect the consensus of the neighborhood.. A ballot of the neighborhood residents should he taken to properly assess their sentiment~ 18~ Everyone 'Was invitec2. Residents had the opportunity to be present. 19. How wide is the S.P. right of way? IS there room for a bike boulevard. along there. It a boulevara is that important for bicyclists, then it may be worth pursuing. 1. PAKF construction 1 i1cely to cause travel problems on Bryant. Serious consider~tio~ should be given to leaving bicyclists on Waverley, and hold otf on pursuing Bicycle Boulevarc2 changes until after construction is complete. 2. 3. Reducing on street parking Gn Addison is a real problem. Rather, supports ba,rrier at location -A-along 'With a barrier on Addison (at Scott). A ba~rier on Addison will cut down on traffic and eli~inate the need for a marked biJce lane. Urge completion of the Bike Boulevard. Need to encourage bicycling. Changes re~~ired are minimal compared ~ith what was needed to put in oregon Express~ay. Not all bicyclists ~re young. Stops, starts, and detours discourage distance riding. 4. Both the preferred or substitute plans are acceptable~ 5. The project is compatible with the: objectives of the Cle.an Air Act. 9 • , .. -- .'f1,:_i'\, ~':;>~T:.·:.:.'?" .. ~: . . . "". ,h.' . , 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. The Bike Boulevard extensit:m is a nice amenity, but unneeded, and would increase air and noise pollution" and neqatively impact Embarcadero Road traffic. ~e.idents: on Kellogg will be blocked in by increased traffic on Waverley and Bryant, especially if lett turns are prohibited from Bryant onto Embarcadero. Leave the bike route the way it is. Hove the traffic Bryant/Embarcadero traffic. signal at arJd close waverley/Embarcadero to Bryant to automobile Minimize changes in Professcrville. The substitute plan is preferable. T~e city should consider installinq a tenporary barrier to determine the impaot and acceptance by the neighborhood before proceeding with a permanent installaticn. 12~ !n order to prevent speeding on Bryant under either the preferrec1 or substi tl.lte pl ans, road bumps should be installed. They have been very effective in the Midtown neighborhood and pose no hindrance to hicyclists. 13 a The substitute plan (\iith barrier at Location !fA-) is superior. The preferred: plan calls .for an unusual roadway desiqn at Bryant/Embarcadero. 10 :'>'~!~J~:; .. ,.;. , I . ~; . "',-,.. ,~. .,.;.: ,>,., ;~ "'. "'::. c"