Original Message to Bike Commission Chairman
December 16, 2016
Hi Bill (Kirsch):
As promised here is a draft of a report that analyzes various designs for Menlo Park east-west bike corridors.
My primary assumption is the City needs at least one crossing at northern, central and southern intersections on El Camino Real.
I also personally believe a central location is the highest priority as it will serve the most resident bicyclists, and it requires only minor physical modifications to streets and sidewalks and a simple bike path. Moderate bike traffic already travels on Menlo and Ravenswood, and the lane sharing with vehicles should be eliminated as it is unsafe and stressful for both bicyclists and motorists.
An initial public version of this report will be distributed in mid-January after I return to the U.S. and have had sufficient time to review and discuss feedback from the bike commission.
I request that you provide written feedback with special attention to the following:
1. Clarity and accuracy
2. Fairness
3. Identification of both technical and political challenges and concerns
4. Recommendations for improving the individual designs
I welcome this opportunity to work with you and the other bike commissioners.
Any questions at this point?
Best,
Dana Hendrickson
Re-Imagine Menlo Park
Bike Commission Response
January 18, 2016
Dana-
Thanks for all your hard work and good thinking in putting your bicycle plan together.
My comments:
Valparaiso/Glenwood – the speed limit on Valparaiso is 35 mph, which means traffic regularly travels 40 or faster. Combined with no buffer and the high volume of traffic, this makes for a very uncomfortable and dangerous route for a bicycle corridor. I would not recommend this route. The Bicycle Commission is going to recommend that speed limits be reduced in Menlo Park in many locations, including this corridor. If the speed limit was 25 or 30 MPH on Valparaiso, we would have a much safer and more comfortable corridor for bicycles.
Menlo/Ravenswood – this is a key east-west corridor as you have identified, and needs major work to be made safer for bicycle access. I think your idea of two-way bicycle a lane on Menlo and elsewhere are good ideas, but the politics, cost and complication to install makes them a non-starter.
On Menlo Ave in particular, the number of conflict zones with motorists could make a two-way bicycle lane dangerous. Plus, cyclists coming west from Ravenswood would have to make their way over to the south side of Menlo Ave. I can’t see this design getting any traction with the City. The off street two way bicycle path from Alma to Laurel is also a good idea, but again the cost and politics I believe make this a non-starter as well. The Bicycle Commission has discussed (but has taken no action) a possible trial on Menlo Ave during school commute hours where parking is prohibited on the south side during the morning commute, and on the north side during the afternoon commute. The Bicycle Commission will continue to explore ideas with the City working within the constraint of the existing roadway.
Two-way bicycle lane through the parking plazas. This strikes me as very unappealing due to the conflict with parking cars. I do not think this idea would gain any traction with the City. I personally would rather cycle on a narrow road (University between Santa Cruz and Menlo Ave) rather than being directed through parking plazas. Also, the idea of making cyclists dismount and walk this section I believe would not gain traction with the cycling community.
As I mentioned when we met, the Oak Grove bicycle corridor is crucial to meet the needs of an expanding Menlo -Atherton High School student body (adding 750 students over the next several years) and the mandate for the school to reduce vehicle trips. The route will also serve Encinal and Hillview, as well as Menlo School and SHS. Students already ride this corridor in its current unsafe condition.
Again, thanks for your efforts. Happy to talk further.
My Response To Bill
January 21, 2016
Hi Bill:
Thanks for taking the time to review and comment on my proposal for a new Menlo-Ravenswood Bike Corridor I submitted to you and the Bike Commission in Mid-December.
I will briefly address the primary concerns you have raised and will share our respective viewpoints with other residents who are interested in how Menlo Park intends to GREATLY improve our community bike network.
Again, I welcome opportunities to continue to bike network topics with you and the other members of the Bike Commission. After our last meeting I feel we have similar objectives but very different priorities and reasons for them.
1. You have expressed a strong belief that the Menlo Park City Council would not support a Menlo-Ravenswood Bike Corridor for three reasons: costs and complexity and the Menlo Park political environment. I confess that I do not understand the basis for these judgements because they are counter-intuitive for me and you have not provided relevant facts, assumptions and your reasoning. However, I will offer some general responses.
While the implementation costs of the Oak Grove and Menlo-Ravenswood bike corridors have NOT been estimated, I would be surprised if the difference would be large enough to become an obstacle. For example, the El Camino Real field trial is estimated to cost between $300,000 and $1,300,000 – an extremely wide range – and I am unaware that the City Council has balked at these figures. I recommend the City simply estimate the costs for both so Menlo Park residents can fairly evaluate and compare them.
Complexity can be viewed from different perspectives. For example, complexity can refer to the challenge of building a bike facility and to how a bicyclist views the bike facilities. I believe the design I proposed is NOT significantly more complex than the one for an Oak Grove Bike Corridor judged from either perspective. The bike path and protected bike lanes in the Menlo-Ravenswood Bike Corridor proposal are simple elements combined in a straightforward manner so construction and usage would not be complex. It also appears that the number of bike turns, stops and bike-vehicle “conflict zones” are actually greater in the Oak Grove proposal and this is indicates more deals and complexity.
I do not know how to address your concern about political palatability. I believe residents expect our city to fairly and transparently evaluate all promising solutions and believe my proposal merits this treatment and trust – perhaps naively – that the City Council will meet this reasonable standard.
2. I do not believe a dangerous number of bike-motorist conflict zones would be created by a two-way bicycle lane on Menlo Avenue as bike lanes on the south side of Menlo Avenue do NOT cross any streets. On the other hand, there are MANY crossing intersection in the Oak Grove Bike Corridor design.
3. Bicyclists traveling west on Ravenswood could easily access the two-way protected bike lanes at intersections at either Laurel or Alma. Today they must unsafely and uncomfortably share busy lanes, a situation which is clearly dangerous and unacceptable.
4. Unfortunately, there are no wonderful solutions for connecting bicyclists from the Santa Cruz-University intersection to either an Oak Grove or Menlo Avenue Bike Corridor.
The Bike Commission proposes that vehicles traveling 20-25 mph share a single vehicle lane with bikes traveling 10-15 mph on Santa Cruz between this intersection and Crane. This is not a desirable situation as bicyclists would likely either properly “yield the lane” to motorists and ride unsafely alongside parked cars or “take the lane” and impede motorists.
There are a number of ways to make a connection to Menlo Avenue. Bicyclists could share the short vehicle lane on University between Santa Cruz Avenue and Menlo Avenue, share the sidewalk by walking this section, use the bike lanes I suggested in two parking lots or simply use the same Santa Cruz option proposed for the Oak Grove Bike Corridor. Several options could be provided so bicyclists could choose the ones they prefer.
4. The Ravenswood-Menlo Avenue vehicle corridor is currently the most popular east-west route for bicyclists and I believe they deserve a much safer and more comfortable riding environment.
5. I have already shown that a bike corridor on Menlo-Ravenswood would provide a greater number off cyclists access to popular Menlo Park destinations than one Oak Grove, including access all schools that require students to cross El Camino Real.
6. I remain unconvinced that an Oak Grove Bike Corridor would serve Menlo Park residents better than the combination of Valparaiso-Glenwood-Laurel-Encinal and Valparaiso-Glenwood-Laurel-Ravenswood bike corridors. The primary requirement is the upgrade bike facilities on Valparaiso and/or reduction of the speed limit as the other streets already have bike lanes.However, I have not seen any attempt to propose a viable Valparaiso design.
7. Finally the Oak Grove Bike Corridor would eliminate more than three times the street parking spaces than the Menlo-Ravenswood Bike Corridor, and together with the El Camino Real field trial more than 300 spaces would be removed. I doubt that residents will accept this negative impact.
Bill, I look forward to further constructive discussions about how Menlo Park can make the best investments in its community bike network as soon as possible. Like you, I believe Menlo Park should have a world-class bike network; hopefully, before the end of 2017.
Best,
Dana Hendrickson