Readers of Re-Imagine Menlo Park know how unhappy I am with the poor quality bike safety analysis produced so far by current The El Camino Real Corridor Study. After more than a year we have illustrations of possible bike lanes and bike paths on this primary vehicle artery (= highway) but no comprehensive treatment of the convenience and safety issues associated with these two options. You can read my recent letter to the city and city commissions about my concerns.

Bike safety is measurable and there are well-accepted metrics. So there is no need to rely on anecdotes, common perceptions or personal hunches. Here is an example of the nature of effort that is required in Menlo Park.

Route Infrastructure and the Risk of Injuries to Bicyclists: A Case-Crossover Study

Kay Teschke, Melody Monro, and Hui Shen are with the School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. M. Anne Harris is with the Occupational Cancer Research Centre, Toronto, Canada. Conor C. O. Reynolds is with the Liu Institute, University of British Columbia. Meghan Winters is with the Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada. Shelina Babul is with the BC Injury Research and Prevention Unit, Vancouver, Canada. Mary Chipman, Michael D. Cusimano, and Lee Vernich are with the School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. Jeff R. Brubacher and Garth Hunte are with the Department of Emergency Medicine, University of British Columbia. Steven M. Friedman is with the Emergency Department, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada. Peter A. Cripton is with the Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of British Columbia.

Objectives. We compared cycling injury risks of 14 route types and other route infrastructure features.

Methods. We recruited 690 city residents injured while cycling in Toronto or Vancouver, Canada. A case-crossover design compared route infrastructure at each injury site to that of a randomly selected control site from the same trip.

Results. Of 14 route types, cycle tracks had the lowest risk (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.11; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.02, 0.54), about one ninth the risk of the reference: major streets with parked cars and no bike infrastructure. Risks on major streets were lower without parked cars (adjusted OR = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.41, 0.96) and with bike lanes (adjusted OR = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.29, 1.01). Local streets also had lower risks (adjusted OR = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.31, 0.84). Other infrastructure characteristics were associated with increased risks: streetcar or train tracks (adjusted OR = 3.0; 95% CI = 1.8, 5.1), downhill grades (adjusted OR = 2.3; 95% CI = 1.7, 3.1), and construction (adjusted OR = 1.9; 95% CI = 1.3, 2.9).

Conclusions. The lower risks on quiet streets and with bike-specific infrastructure along busy streets support the route-design approach used in many northern European countries. Transportation infrastructure with lower bicycling injury risks merits public health support to reduce injuries and promote cycling.

Read The Complete Study

A personal note: This study did not evaluate a busy highway like ECR and I expect the accident rate for ECR would be higher than a typical urban street as there are many more public driveways per mile, dangerous places where bikes and vehicles frequently cross paths.

Date: April 20, 2015

To: Menlo Park City Council Members

CC: Planning Commission, Transportation Commission, Bike Commission, Transportation Division

From: Dana Hendrickson, Editor, Re-Imagine Menlo Park

I cannot decide whether I am more disappointed, exasperated or distressed about how the city is handling the El Camino Corridor Study. After more than a year and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars it has so far failed to provide the essential information needed to make good decisions about the future use of El Camino Real by bicyclists, motorists, pedestrians and public safety vehicles, and I fear it was never required. Despite this major problem three city commissions are relying on their own limited knowledge and experiences and inadequate information to interpret the potential impact of several alternatives and make proposals about new bike facilities and vehicle lane configurations. Why have they been put into this unenviable position? And why hasn’t anyone including a well-paid consultant raised red flags well before now? It is clear the two most important considerations – safety and convenience – have NOT been adequately addressed yet apparently the city council plans to make important decisions soon. I recommend that it not make any final decisions about El Camino Real and instead focus on ensuring the best ones are made and clearly explained to all Menlo Park residents. That means everyone needs better information.

• No one has determined there is actually a significant need for bike facilities on El Camino Real because no credible analysis has been done. What are we trying to accomplish? Who would benefit? How much of a difference would bike facilities really make? New bike facilities should be evaluated only within the context of our existing bike network, the 2005 Menlo Park Comprehensive Bike Development Plan (which may need updating), and other ideas identified in the Specific Plan.

• No one has determined whether the safety associated with riding on El Camino would be even close to the safety associated with riding alternative routes because no one has done this analysis.

• No one has determined the impact that more bicyclists riding on El Camino Real would have on the safety and convenience of motorists, pedestrians, and public service professionals because no one has done the analysis.

• No one has shown how bike facilities on El Camino Real ranks in importance re: other improvements to bike safety and convenience. Do we not have a prioritized list of our best ideas? Metrics for measuring their value and drawbacks? Policies for balancing conflicting interests? How about the cost of implementing them? What about the timeframe? How is possible the City has a 10-year old Bike Transportation Plan that no one on the study team or commissions even references? Does it need updating?

• With regards to the 3-lane alternative the city commissions and transportation division appear to have accepted the consultant’s counter-intuitive computer model projections with little skepticism and understanding of the uncertainty that surrounds probabilistic data? What are confidence levels in the expected values? Implications of the projections about traffic flows in nearby neighborhoods? Why does no one appear to see the value in acquiring actual field trial data?

So where do you go from here? The study has increased our knowledge but the necessary work is clearly not done. And If the City proceeds to make major changes to El Camino Real without having an excellent understanding of the likely outcomes it risks appearing irresponsible and possibly negligent when avoidable accidents occur. It’s not the time to assign blame; it’s time to get this work back on track before it’s too late I again invite you to contact me if you have questions. Like a growing number of residents I am eager to learn how you intend to proceed.

This post is a summary. Read the entire El Camino Corridor Study page for additional information.

Menlo Park is currently studying the addition of either bike lanes or paths along El Camino Real, and both would significantly impact the safety and convenience of ALL Menlo Park residents. While optimal decisions can only be made after all significant trade-offs are identified, sized and evaluated and weighed in a fair and balanced manner, the current study has not produced this essential information. The following “potential impact table” identifies the primary groups who would be effected and the impacts I intuitively believe would occur.

Download a copy of this letter

Last Update: April 4, 2015

April 2, 2015

RE: Concerns About The El Camino Real Corridor Study

TO: City Council Members & Planning Commissioners:

I would like to share my concerns about the EL Camino Real Corridor Study and its potential impact on the future safety and convenience of drivers, cyclists and pedestrians who use El Camino Real and the residents who live in nearby neighborhoods. The El Camino Real Corridor Study could lead to Menlo Park deciding to reconfigure vehicle lanes, add either bike lanes or separate bike paths, and reduce street parking. Unfortunately, the study is a poor foundation for making well-informed and well-reasoned decisions. It suffers from both too narrow a scope and questionable methodologies, and so far both the proposed alternatives and findings have been poorly communicated to the public. I urge you to re-evaluate this study and set it on a more meaningful path. I believe the study …

• Fails to strongly establish the need for cyclists to ride on El Camino Real. No analysis of cyclist (in)convenience has been done, and while many hardcore cyclists prefer bikes to cars ideology should not drive the City Council’s decision-making.

• Understates the dangers to cyclists, drivers and pedestrians of adding either bike lanes or separate bike paths to a heavily travelled highway that has about 60 spots where vehicles would naturally cross the paths of cyclists. And unfortunately, the illusion of safety would encourage cyclists of all levels to unknowingly and unnecessarily expose themselves to collisions and accidents. No other Peninsula city encourages riders on their sections of this highway.

• Understates the negative impact of encouraging cyclists and drivers to share this main artery on the flow of vehicle traffic and driver convenience.

• Understates the greater safety and similar convenience of encouraging cyclists to ride bikes near El Camino Real on either existing or planned bike routes.

My personal objective is simply to have a majority of well-informed residents make well-reasoned decisions that optimally balance the needs and wants of all interest groups, and I accept that each might prefer different alternatives, as we do not share all the same values and ideologies. Unfortunately, the current study does note provide a meaningful answer to the most fundamental question: Which design option for El Camino Real provides the best absolute and relative SAFETY and convenience for the majority of potential users?

I urge you to consider three actions:

• Evaluate the relative convenience of riding on El Camino Real versus alternative routes between LIKELY popular origins and destinations.

• Require a bike network design specialist like Alta Planning + Design to evaluate how bike facilities on El Camino would impact the safety of all users.

• Conduct a field trial that tests the impact of making El Camino Real three lanes in each direction for its entire length. (Note: this can be done without modifying the Ravenswood Avenue right turn lane.)

These actions would put residents in a much better position to make the right choices.

I welcome the opportunity to either explain or clarify any of my points at your convenience if you feel that would be helpful.

Best regards,

Dana Hendrickson

Editor, Re-Imagine Menlo Park

Download this post On an average weekday drivers make over 45,000 trips on Menlo Park’s short section of El Camino Real, and a majority of these drivers are simply passing through as they travel between origins and destinations outside our city, e.g., Palo Alto, Stanford Facilities + Shopping Center + Medical Center. El Camino Real is a HIGHWAY = Primary Vehicle Artery, after all, so it is performing the role it was intended. However, the large and growing amount of traffic will continue to create problems for Menlo Park that will only get worse given the huge amount of current development activity in Palo Alto, Redwood City and Stanford. Think about the current more than 800,000 square foot expansion at the Stanford Medical Center. So why not simply bury El Camino? That way, pass through traffic would almost “disappear”.

Bold Idea – Design Concept

• Force North-South pass-thru traffic traveling on El Camino Real underground via a one-mile tunnel that runs from just south of Middle Avenue to just north of Valparaiso.

• Transform the current El Camino to a wonderful surface park with popular amenities, bike paths and a few cross streets.

• Allow drivers to enter and exit the tunnel at each end and at Ravenswood Avenue. A mid-tunnel access would be located below grade (under the tracks and Alma Street.

• Extend streets across the park only at Ravenswood Avenue, Santa Cruz Avenue, Oak Grove, and Valparaiso.

• Build one-way single vehicle surface lanes on both sides of the park to handle local traffic. Also. provide a single line of parking on one side.

Great Benefits & Problems Solved

• Menlo Park would a beautiful park that include a variety of amenities, e.g., landscaping, fountains, seating, reflecting pool, sculpture, outdoor cakes, integrates downtown and El Camino.

• The park would integrate downtown Santa Cruz and El Camino Real making it easier for pedestrians and cyclists to travel between the two areas and the train station district.

• The pass-thru traffic handling capacity of El Camino Real would be significantly increased making this highway more efficient.

• Pass-thru vehicle traffic would not interfere with local traffic, especially important during commute times.

• Pass-thru vehicle traffic would be discouraged from crossing neighborhoods on either side of El Camino.

• Grade separation with Ravenswood Avenue passing under both the train tracks and Alma Street would greatly improve driver, pedestrian and cyclist safety at this crossing.

• Cyclists would gain another safe north-south bike route along or in the park.

Wouldn’t this be great?

What Would This Cost?

“Let’s start with something we know: the tunneling cost for the proposed extension of the Long Beach 710-Freeway: $6 billion for a 4.9-mile segment, which works out to $1.22 billion per mile.” (See source) And the park costs and surface infrastructure would be added to this figure.   

Post your comments on Nextdoor

Original Comment

By Tunbridge Wells, a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park, in The Almanac.  (March 24, 2015)

“What both Dana Hendrickson and Peter Carpenter are overlooking is that Menlo Park has adopted a Complete Streets policy:  Web Link and that Caltrans is also supportive of Complete Streets on its facilities:  Web Link El Camino Real, in its current state, serves only automobile traffic well. It is an important connector that despite being used by pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users, it does not do well by them. That needs to change. Despite their protests to the contrary, studies show that adding traffic lanes does not fix congestion, it just makes more of the same. Studies also show that adding bicycle infrastructure enhances safety not just for people on bikes, but pedestrians and also reduces collisions between cars. Roads are for people. El Camino Real existed before cars did.”

My Response

Mr. Wells, I have read the Complete Streets Policy adopted by the City of Menlo Park and do not interpret it to mean that El Camino Real must or should be included in our city bike network. Perhaps, we need an official interpretation from the City

Principles

“Complete Streets Serving All Users. City of Menlo Park expresses its commitment to creating and maintaining Complete Streets that provide safe, comfortable, and convenient travel along and across streets (including streets, roads, highways, bridges, and other portions of the transportation system) through a comprehensive, integrated transportation NETWORK that serves all categories of users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, users and operators of public transportation, seniors, children, youth, and families, emergency vehicles and freight.”

The policy focus is on a safe and convenient NETWORK for users. This does not mean that every street either should or must become a “complete street”. Nor does it imply that every street could become a complete street. It also seems to say that whenever either new street construction or major physical modifications are planned on an existing one “multi-modal usage” must be CONSIDERED but not required.

“As feasible, the City of Menlo Park should incorporate Complete Streets infrastructure into existing streets to improve the safety and convenience of users and to create employment, with the particular goal of creating a connected network of facilities accommodating each category of users, and increasing connectivity across jurisdictional boundaries and for existing and anticipated future areas of travel origination or destination.”

Please note the term “feasible”. I believe we can create a safer yet still acceptably convenient bike NETWORK without including El Camino Real. 

Bike/car accidents are rare on El Camino today because so few riders risk riding on it. I can imagine the public outcry if young or inexperienced riders were encouraged to do so by new bike facilities and one or two accidents cause major injuries to cyclists or pedestrians. There would likely be a call for the complete separation of cars and bikes. Does that sound familiar?

El Camino Real is THE main VEHICLE ARTERY in Menlo Park and our city should be focused on making it handle vehicles better in order to reduce existing and future congestion. I highly recommend that we not try to re-purpose it for greater cyclist usage. I would much prefer the explore expanding it to three lanes in both directions its entire length. Unlike Palo Alto we do not have additional major north-south arteries like Foothill expressway and Alma Street. Let’s implement a well-designed trial and see if additional lanes north of Ravenswood Avenue would provide significant benefits. Cars are NOT going away; let’s encourage them to stay on our arteries and collectors.

Download Post

View other comments in The Almanac Townsquare

I am an experienced cyclist who frequently rides 40 to 60 miles a week and would not ride on El Camino regardless of the type of bike facilities.  Nor would I recommend that inexperienced cyclists ride on this highway. The significant additional risk versus other available bike routes is simply too high.

Much of the discussion about the El Camino Real Corridor Study has centered on the needs of cyclists who maintain that ADDING bike facilities to this highway and REDUCING the number of vehicle lanes to two in each direction would make bike riding more convenient, Unfortunately, this is too narrow a view. Instead, our residents and City Council should consider the interests and well being of cyclists, drivers and pedestrians. Any major changes to El Camino Real will entail compromises, all SIGNIFICANT trade-offs warrant consideration, and personal safety is THE critical criteria. Our decisions also need to be well informed and well reasoned.

There about 60 spots on El Camino where cars would cross paths with cyclists riding in either bike lanes or bike paths and cars can be traveling fast when they exit the highway. This is a dangerous situation for both drivers and cyclists, and the latter bears the greater risk of personal injury. When either a driver or cyclist is not cautious or is distracted the risk of an accident or collision climbs dramatically.

If bike facilities were added to El Camino cyclists and pedestrians would mix at busy intersections; this is a dangerous situation for both EVEN IF separate crossing lanes are marked. Human behavior = cannot count on compliance and good judgment.

If bike riding on El Camino were a good idea Palo Alto would already provide this capacity. Both Palo Alto and Menlo Park have relied on the same “bike plan” consultant (Alta Planning + Design) and they have NOT recommended including El Camino Real in the two bike networks as a high priority.

Reducing the vehicle lanes on El Camino to accommodate bike facilities will likely increase congestion and generate more cut-through traffic in adjacent neighborhoods like Allied Arts. Today there are about 45,000 daily vehicle trips on El Camino between Sand Hill Road and Ravenswood Avenue. Where will these vehicles go if lane capacity is reduced by 33%? No one really knows. But the negative impact could be large and the risk high.

Finally, while I have heard a great deal about the general issue of cyclist inconvenience I have not heard any actual examples of routes that would be significantly more convenient if El Camino was included.  Menlo Park has a fine existing bike network, and many ways to make it even more convenient and safer without encouraging cyclists to ride on El Camino have already been identified.

Making bike riding a LITTLE more convenient for some cyclists who wish to travel between certain points in Menlo Park does NOT justify exposing all riders to GREATER danger and SIGNIFICANTLY penalizing drivers and our neighborhoods.