Monthly Archives: February 2015

El Camino Real Corridor Study: Do Not Sacrifice Bicyclist Safety

This entry was posted in Uncategorized on by

bike family

Download this post.

– Latest Update: March 8, 2015

– Original Post: February 22, 2015

Note: I am a 30-year Menlo Park resident, an experienced cyclist, and a frequent local driver who rides neither in busy urban settings nor on highways unless  it’s practically unavoidable.

Background

During the Specific Planning process Menlo Park studied ways to improve its bike network in and around El Camino Real and our central downtown business districts, and this work benefited from significant resident input. However, the City is currently conducting an El Camino Real Corridor Study that appears to be totally out of synch with general – not bike enthusiast – resident expectations. Read my post The Future Of El Camino Real to understand my perspectives on this study.

This post focuses more tightly on the need to provide safe and convenient options for both inexperienced and experienced cyclists.

Option 1 – Build A Bike Lane or Separate Path on El Camino Real

El Camino Real is a state highway with heavy vehicle traffic crossing or turning at intersections where there would be either bike paths or lanes.

  • Southbound : Thirteen intersections including three arteries and three collectors.
  • Northbound: Eight intersections including two arteries and three collectors.

Option 2 – Keep Cyclists In Bike Lanes that are largely on Residential Streets

An alternative bike route that used Alma, Greenheart, and Garwood Street would cross fewer vehicle lanes of all kinds.

  • Southbound and northbound: Ten intersections including one vehicle artery and four collectors
  • Southbound: Vehicles DO NOT cross bike route at four intersections (Willow, Sherwood, Waverly and Burgess)

Important Details

.

El Camino Real Vehicle Arteries And Collectors
Screen Shot 2015-01-22 at 5.34.16 PM

Menlo Park Bike Network (Specific Plan)
North South Bike Route

Intersections Where Cyclists Riding On ECR Encounter Vehicle
MP ECR Vehicle Circulation

Intersections Where Cyclists Riding On non-ECR Route Encounter Vehicle
Bike Lanes Alma+

Considerations

  • A bike network should be viewed as a system for safely routing cyclists with a sensitivity to convenience.
  • Experienced cyclists will always pick safety over convenience when selecting a bike route and inexperienced cyclists should never be trusted to make the correct decision.
  • Most bike-car collisions occur either at intersections – regardless of signaling – and mid-block where vehicles cross paths with cyclists when either entering or exiting public areas, e.g., parking lots, gas stations, retail malls.
  • In some circumstances either walking or riding a bike for a short distance on a sidewalk is safer than riding on a street, and it’s not significantly less convenient.
  • Riding on residential neighborhood streets is generally safer that riding on highways and urban streets as the latter has busy intersections, mid-block side “pull-ins and pull-outs”, and cars either entering or leaving parking spaces opening car doors.
  • I believe projections for vehicle and bike traffic volumes and circulation paths are extremely unreliable. Both expected and ranges of possible outcomes must be carefully considered when potential outcomes are significantly negative.
  • Palo Alto is one of the most progressive bike communities in the country and it has chosen NOT to build either bike paths or lanes on El Camino Real. This city has more experience with biking issues and a much better understanding of bike circulation challenges and solutions than Menlo Park. A case study of the Palo Alto Bryant Street Bike Boulevard is available at www.bikesafe.org

My Recommendations:

  • Menlo Park should NOT add either bike lanes or bike paths to El Camino Real as these facilities are much less safe for riders of all levels than bike lanes on convenient alternative streets. El Camino Real is a busy state highway with more than 60 intersections and mid-block driveways where vehicles would cross paths with bikes, and most do not have any traffic signals nor stop signs
  • Two safer north-south alternative bike facilities can be provided on the east side of El Camino Real between Encinal Avenue and Sand Hill Road.

–       Laurel Street, Burgess Drive and Alma Street (existing)

–       Alma Street, Greenheart connector, and Garwood Street (proposed)

  • Menlo Park should require Greenheart to provide a temporary bike route across its property until a permanent connector is built.
  • Two safer north-south alternative bike facilities can be provided on the west side of El Camino Real between Middle Avenue and Valparaiso.

–       University, Live Oak and Crane (existing)

–       Fremont Avenue (proposed)

  • Menlo Park should require Stanford to provide a temporary north-south bike route across its property until a Middle Avenue-Alma connector is built under the train tracks. An alternative would be a dual use sidewalk built on the east side of ECR between Cambridge and Ravenswood.

Summary of Arguments For & Against Bike Facilities on El Camino Real

 

CLAIM #1 More bike riders would use El Camino IF it were safer.

My Assessment: Bike-vehicle collisions occur most often when the two objects cross paths even when suitable signaling is provided, and adding pedestrian to the mix increases the risk to all parties. Busy intersections are particularly dangerous especially whenever EITHER cyclists, pedestrians or drivers are distracted, misjudge either their own capabilities or the actions of others, daydream or simply act impatiently. Mid-block points where vehicles enter or exit the highway are also dangerous. Inexperienced cyclists are the most vulnerable as they can easily be distracted, misjudge situations and feel safer than they really are. Unfortunately, bike lanes and paths reinforce this illusion. Bike lanes and paths on mostly residential streets offer the greatest opportunity to create safe environments for cyclists, vehicles and pedestrians.

El Camino is a MAIN artery with three minor arterial connections, three collectors, and five additional intersections. Plus, about sixty mid-block vehicle driveways serve local businesses. Together these represent about seventy potential collision points.

In contrast, the bike lane that already exists on Alma between Creek Drive and Ravenswood Avenue could be (a) extended to Oak Grove, (b) connected to Glenwood via a connector on the Greenheart property and (c) lengthened by adding bike lanes on Garwood. This route would cross one minor artery, two connectors and less than ten business “driveways”, and none involve a MAIN artery (El Camino Real).

I personally would not recommend that friends or family members of any age or experience bike on El Camino regardless of the bike facilities.

CLAIM #2: El Camino is more convenient than either existing or planned biking alternatives.

My Assessment: I believe this statement is NOT meaningful. Whether one bike option is more convenient than another depends many factors, e.g., the distance between a rider’s points of origin and destination, the abilities of the rider, the number of required or potential stopping points, and the number and length of time delays at stopping points. The existing Menlo Park bike network includes many popular north-south and east-west bike lanes and routes, and the City plans on adding more facilities when the Greenheart and Stanford projects are built. Adding a bike lane on University between Middle and at least Robles Avenue is worth exploring as is the alternative of creating bike lanes on Fremont between Middle and Santa Cruz Avenues.

Cyclist should never expect to ride safely on ALL available streets nor always the entire distance between their origins and destinations. For example, it is safer and not much less convenient to walk a bike a short distance on a sidewalk from the nearest side street to a store on this highway.

 

Additional Information

Menlo Park Comprehensive Bicycle Development Plan – 2005 – Alta Planning + Design

Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Plan (2003)

(Palo Alto) Bryant Street Boulevard Case Study

It’s Time To Eliminate Unnecessary Traffic On El Camino

This entry was posted in Uncategorized on by

Download this post

“After three decades of lobbying, negotiation, and litigation, the (Sand Hiil) road was finally completed to El Camino Real in 2001. Only the existing portion from just north of Alameda de las Pulgas to just south of Stanford Shopping Center was widened to four lanes; the new extension past the shopping center was built only as two lanes.” – Wikipedia

What’s Wrong With The Current Intersection At Sand Hill And El Camino Real

When you read the traffic circulation section of the Specific Plan you immediately notice that there is no treatment of the major El Camino Real intersection which lies just south of the Menlo Park-Palo Alto border.

This is a big omission because the existing configuration UNNECESSARILY causes Palo Alto Alma – Sand Hill Road traffic to travel twice (a) through the intersection and (b) on El Camino Real between Sand Hill Road and Cambridge. Effectively, Cambridge Avenue becomes a virtual pivot point for a traffic loop and the short length of El Camino Real part of an ingress and exit to and from Sand Hill and Alma. Effectively, the u-turn at Cambridge Avenue and a short length of El Camino Real are parts of an artificial traffic loop. Also, the traffic coming from Alma must cross multiple lanes of ECR to reach the left turn at Cambridge, and at peak traffic times this can be extremely unsafe and difficult. If a westbound driver either cannot safely reach this left turn or the left turn line is too long, she likely continues and either makes a u-turn back to Sand Hill at Middle Ave OR turns left and travels west on Oak to reach Sand Hill Road. This configuration already contributes significantly to current Menlo Park traffic congestion on a stretch of El Camino that is expected to carry much more when the 500 ECR development is completed.

This connection was controversial when built, and it will become a much bigger problem when Stanford completes its development at 500 ECR in Menlo Park. Palo Alto fought against a direct connection between Alma and Sand Hill, and Caltrans yielded to its demands. While Menlo Park clearly had skin in the game it lacked any authority to stop this decision. Why Caltrans accepted this odd solution remains a mystery to me. There is substantial traffic flowing through this intersection.

I estimate about 2700 vehicles per day based on the traffic volumes provided in the ECR Corridor Study. (The difference between the traffic at Sand Hill Road and Middle Avenue which likely represents vehicles reversing direction at Cambridge Avenue.)

 

What Menlo Park Should Do About This Problem

Since Stanford must perform a project-level Environmental Impact Report for 500 ECR, Menlo Park should require Stanford to study the expected impact of the current configuration and a direct connection between Alma and Sand Hill Road. It should also require Stanford to study the impact of making the narrow two-lane section of Sand Hill Road between El Camino and Arboretum four lanes wide.

 

The Future El Camino Real – Bikes Or No Bikes?

This entry was posted in Bike-Friendly Traffic on by

Ravenswood Corner

NOTE: Download the revised version of this post.

View comments on the Nextdoor neighborhood network.

Also view the post How To Make Menlo Park More Bike-Friendly.

On February 19 the City of Menlo Park held a community workshop to update residents on the status of the El Camino Real Corridor Study.  “This study is reviewing potential transportation and traffic safety improvements to El Camino Real between Sand Hill Road and Encinal Avenue.” I strongly encourage Menlo Park residents to become informed about this study and express their views as the choices our city makes about future lane configurations on El Camino Real will dramatically impact the safety of cyclists and convenience of drivers.

View my impressions of the workshop by downloading an update of this post.

Current Situation – Vehicle Traffic on El Camino Real

El Camino Real is a state highway that runs through Menlo Park and serves as the primary north-south vehicle route that parallels Highways 101 and 280. It is heavily traveled because of the large number of workers who commute through Menlo Park who do not have alternatives like Foothill Expressway and Alma Street in Palo Alto, and there is no convenient east-west access to both 101 and 280 from El Camino Real between Page Mill Expressway and Woodside Road (Highway 84). The average daily traffic at the north end of El Camino is 34,600 vehicles; at the south end it is 46,700 vehicles.

 

Existing Vehicle Lane Configurations

To better understand the impact of the three alternatives one needs to know what vehicle lane configurations exist today and the different classifications for bike routes. 

Current North-South Bike Routes on El Camino Real and Nearby

Few cyclists ride on El Camino Real in either Menlo Park or in adjacent Atherton and Palo Alto as there are no separate bike lanes. Likely less than 50 riders use this route today, and there is no reliable estimate of the number of riders who would ride on El Camino Real IF a separate bike lane were built in Menlo Park.

Cyclists currently have a number of north-south routes close to El Camino Real.

  •  They can travel on Alma Street from Sand Hill Road to Ravenswood and Oak Grove where they can either return to El Camino Real or use nearby Laurel Avenue to reach Encinal. And from Encinal return to El Camino Real.
  • They can travel from Sand Hill Road to Laurel Street (via Alma) and continue to Encinal. And from Encinal return to El Camino Real.
  • While traveling on El Camino Real between Encinal and Watkins is less than ideal, there is little parking along either side. This is a plus for cyclists.


Bike Lane Classifications

Class I Bikeway (Bike Path) provides a completely separate right-of-way and is designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with vehicle and pedestrian cross-flow minimized. 

Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane) provides a restricted right-of-way and is designated for the use of bicycles with a striped lane on a street or highway. Bicycle lanes are generally five (5) feet wide. Adjacent vehicle parking and vehicle/pedestrian cross-flow are permitted. 
Class III Bikeway (Bike Route) provides for a right-of-way designated by signs or pavement markings for shared use with pedestrians or motor vehicles.

Specific Plan & El Camino Real Corridor Study Bike Routes

The Specific Plan proposed two different north-south options for adding bike lanes to El Camino Real, and both would reduce the number of vehicle lanes to two in each direction for its entire length.

Three Alternatives In El Camino Real Corridor Study

 

Alternative 1:  Make El Camino Real three-lanes in both direction and create a mostly Class III bike route that parallels El Camino and relies on Alma Street. This route

is one recommended in the Specific Plan.

•            Sand Hill Road to Ravenswood via Alma Street – Existing Class II

•            Ravenswood to Oak Grove via Alma Street – Planned

•            Oak Grove to Glenwood via Greenheart property – Planned

•            Glenwood to Encinal via Garwood – Planned

•            Encinal to El Camino Real – Planned

•            El Camino North to Watkins – Planned Class II

 

Alternative 2:  Adds a single Class II/Minimum Class III bike lane to each side of El Camino Real for its entire length. Vehicle traffic would be reduced to two lanes in each direction. This alternative is recommended in the Specific Plan.

 

Alternative 3:  Adds a Class I bike lane to each side of El Camino Real for its entire length. This includes a physical separation between bike and vehicle lanes. This alternative is not recommended in the Specific Plan. Rather, a Class II bike lane is recommended.

My Personal Views:

I strongly prefer leaving El Camino Real “as is” and creating a safe and convenient bike route that stays off this multi-lane highway. Cyclists can have a convenient and safe north-south route that parallels El Camino and largely relies on nearby Alma Street, Garwood Street and a connection through the private Greenheart property at 1300 El Camino Real. The City can revisit the option of expanding ECR to 3 lanes in each direction once the Greenheart and Stanford projects are completed and start with a six to nine month test.

  • Highway 82 already carries about 35,000 daily vehicles north of Ravenswood and about 45,000 on the south end. If the north end of El Camino Real were 6 lanes there would be about 6000 vehicles per lane per day; and at the south end about 7500 vehicles per lane per day.
  • Additional traffic will be generated by the planned Greenheart and Stanford multiuse developments, and the actual impact will no be known until these are completed four to five years from now. Together the two projects will add about 700 new residents and 1500 new workers. Beyond this, new developments already underway in Redwood City and on the north side of Stanford University campus will create additional “pass through” traffic.
  • The total number of cyclists who would actually ride on El Camino Real for any significant distance would likely be small (100 to 125 per day???) does not justify throttling thousands of vehicles.

  • Once a pedestrian/bike crossing is build under the tracks near Middle Avenue cyclists will have another convenient route to Alma Street. Until then, Menlo Park should encourage cyclists to share the sidewalks on El Camino Real between Sand Hill Road and Ravenswood, especially on the east side where there is little foot traffic.
  • Finally, few cyclists ride on El Camino Real in either Atherton or Palo Alto so a Menlo Park bike lane would be an anomaly.


 

 

Put Downtown Parking Underground

This entry was posted in Uncategorized on by

Peter Carpenter – January 2015

It would be a tragic mistake if Menlo Park chooses a short term solution (one parking lot) to solve a small part of a long term problem (a more vibrant downtown).

Take all the public property including all the parking lots, all of Santa Cruz Ave and all the cross streets between ECR and University and Menlo and Oak Grove and put it into a design competition to create a totally walkable, bikable, playable, shopable surface area with ALL the parking underground. This total publicly owned land is incredible valuable and developing it in three dimensions could provide an exciting opportunity that would attract capital and encourage the current downtown property owners to either find ways to connect their current buildings to this project or allow their properties to be acquired by the City via eminent domain (which has great tax advantages to the current owners) and then placed into the pool for the new integrated design.

All it would take is vision, leadership and courage.

Guest Opinion: The REAL Reason For More Downtown Parking

This entry was posted in Uncategorized on by

Lee Duboc – February 7, 2015

Fellow residents,

More of you responded to my January 7th email (Re-Imagine Santa Cruz Ave) than to any email previously sent, and 90% of you wanted to see CHANGE.

Well, unless we have more parking, there will be no change. Here’s why:

  • Physical changes to downtown stores require building permits —even for fairly minor changes.
  • Getting a building permit requires bringing much or all of the structures up to current safety codes—which is good–and needed.
  • However, to cover the significant costs involved, like providing access for those with disabilities; adding indoor sprinkler systems; providing new water hookups; and rewiring; etc, the properties must have an incentive to expand, mostly by adding a second or third story.
  • BUT according to zoning codes, they cannot add square footage without providing more parking; and here’s the catch, they have no room on their properties for that.
  • And of course, if we populate downtown with better stores, more restaurants and new tenants, and we create an upbeat milieu, parking will become critical.
  • Without more parking, expect Santa Cruz Ave to remain stuck as it is.

Happily our planning commission and Mayor Catherine Carlton support the idea of creating more parking in our downtown area.

(And) hopefully, we will have a constructive and realistic discussion about increasing the number of parking spaces in our town.