Purpose: It is not easy to make decisions that require trade-offs between competing interests, what the Menlo Park City Council now faces, as it considers a field trial to evaluate the Oak Grove- Crane-University Bike Project ( OCUBP ). Such decisions are particularly challenging when a minority of residents might benefit at the expense of a larger group, in this case bicyclists at the expense of motorists who drive and park on affected streets and residents who live there. That said, residents always expect their city leaders to demonstrate care, wisdom and fiscal responsibility and to acquire the information needed to make the best possible decisions, generate maximum community support, minimize misunderstandings and avoid potential backlash. Since the upcoming field trial is a critical step in the evaluation of this bike project, I have wish to share some perspectives and recommendations about the field trial and concerns about the trial metrics proposal posted on the City website on Thursday March 23, 2017. My overall conclusion: the proposed trial metrics will NOT produce the information the Council needs to assess the value and impact of either the trial or actual project. I welcome the opportunity to discuss these ideas BEFORE a final trial plan is approved and intend to actively survey residents before, during and after the actual trial our entire community can benefit from valuable feedback. (I note that the trial plan now includes a community survey towards the end of the trial - but based on prior history have little confidence in the city s ability to effectively collect resident feedback re: city bike projects) My Current Outlook 1. This bike trial (and project) will likely have little impact on bicyclists who want to cross El Camino as it is not a significant improvement over the options that already exist, especially the nearby combination of Valparaiso, Glenwood and Laurel bike lanes. The fact that neither Santa Cruz nor Middle Avenues directly connect to the new bike lanes on Oak Grove will remain a big deterrent. New bike lanes on University will improve the comfort of riding bikes there and perhaps increase the number of riders to downtown. Motorists will generally dislike the changes due to less convenient parking options and new traffic delays, especially on Santa Cruz and possibly near Station 1200. These problems although not likely large will remain a constant source of irritation. The field trial as currently conceived will fail to demonstrate the likely positive and negative impacts of a permanent installation as the scope and methodology as reflected in the proposed trial metrics are too narrowly defined. After spending over $300000 on this trial, the community (including the Council) will generally view the results as either inconclusive or disappointing. Having already invested this significant amount it will be pressured to either continue the trial or complete a permanent installation. (The total price tag is currently unknown) in hopes that bike usage will eventually increase. Meanwhile, valuable city staff resources will have been diverted from more important projects, both a waste and demoralizing. When the Council approves the final trial plan, it owns this project regardless of whether individual members strongly support it, or not. Unfortunately, they appear to have become willing passengers on a train heading for a mishap with only the bike commission at the controls. Why does this happen? Dana Hendrickson March 26, 2017 1
Central Concern Recommendations For Oak Grove Bike Project Field Trial Based on the field trial metrics in the latest staff report dated March 28, 2017, the trial will likely NOT produce results that will demonstrate that this project will improve access to key destinations in the City, including schools, the downtown, (as well as) connecting residential neighborhoods, where improved access means greater bike safety, utilization (convenience) and comfort. More specifically, trial results will NOT show that the project will 1. Provide greater safety and convenience than the existing bike lanes on Valparaiso, Glenwood, Laurel, and Ravenswood (east of Laurel). 2. Provide benefits that significantly outweigh the negative impacts (harm) that other street users will experience. 3. Provide greater safety and convenience than a promising alternative that would install 2- way bike lanes on the south side of Menlo Avenue and a totally separate bike path parallel to Ravenswood from El Camino to Laurel. Basis For Concern 1. It is impossible to test the effectiveness of a bike trial when the project itself does not have clear, specific and measurable objectives, goals, metrics and thresholds for expected benefits and potential negative impacts. What does the Council want the results to be? How will it know? Neither questions has been satisfactorily answered. 2. I do not understand how the Menlo Park can conduct an effective field trial for this project when the Council does not know how bicyclists currently use Oak Grove AND other east-west streets to cross El Camino. Predicting and measuring the trial (and project) impact is impossible without this information. How many bike trips occur today? What are the most popular bike destinations and where do bicyclists now prefer to cross El Camino? How many of these are students? Once again like in the El Camino Corridor Study - the council is evaluating a major bike network improvement on a piecemeal basis, an approach inconsistent with contemporary bike network design philosophies, principles and methodologies. Why? This approach is not defensible (See Appendix A Current El Camino Crossing Patterns). 3. The current field trial metrics are inadequate in both scope and methodology as they do not adequately measure safety, convenience and comfort. SAFETY concerns motorists and bicyclists, as no driver wants to experience any type of accident that harms a bike rider. Since actual collisions represent only a small fraction of vehicle-bike conflicts and accidents this data, is not a reliable measure of safety. Why hasn t the City asked Alta to evaluate potential safety problems at the redesigned Santa Cruz-Crane intersections and at the three adjacent busy intersections (Garwood Way, Merrill, and Alma) near Station 1300 and the train station? Are new traffic controls or signals planned? California is considering legislation that would make it legal for bicyclists to NOT obey stop signs. What impact will this have on bike safety at these two locations? Also, sharrows provide no safety on busy streets where must share lanes much faster vehicles and there are few places where bicyclists could move aside to allow motorists to safely pass. (See Appendix B Bike Safety) Dana Hendrickson March 26, 2017 2
Does Alta really believe sharrows significantly improve safety at these locations? Also, note that vehicles regularly use six busy entrances and exits to public parking lots on these sections of Crane. How will the city determine that the claim of greater convenience is valid when alternative routes bike trip counts are not taken at all places where bicyclists currently cross El Camino, especially Valparaiso, Glenwood, and Ravenswood. Note: the Council has wisely decided not to add any type of bike facility to Santa Cruz between University and Crane but this will greatly limit the appeal of Oak Grove for bicyclists who use Santa Cruz, including Hillview students. (See Appendix C - Project Destination Attractors) While bike lanes would improve rider comfort on University and Oak Grove, the sharrows on Crane will not due to faster vehicles, busy driveways and street parking. If this project is expected to improve bike safety, comfort and convenience more students should ride bikes to Hillview Middle and Menlo-Atherton High Schools yet the trial metrics due not include actual bike counts at each school. What about the other destinations labeled as attractors in the trial proposal? How will increased bike usage to these places be measured? 4. How does the Council intend to measure and evaluate the negative impact this project will have on motorists, i.e., lost parking and increased traffic delays? Motorists will encounter two new stop signs on Santa Cruz in each direction and will be delayed even if no bicyclists are present. Additional motorist delays will occur near Station 1300 with the introduction of the Garwood Way extension and Station 1300 users. 5. What specific policy and criteria does the Council intend to use to decide whether the benefits of this project outweigh its harm and costs. For example, how will the Council decide the future of this project if the trial demonstrates modest benefits for bicyclists and modest harm for others who depend on the effected streets? A wasted investment but simply hope things will get better in the future? 6. The impact that the construction of Station 1300 will have on Oak Grove and trial schedules, results, and bike-motorist safety has not been adequately explained. Bike Commission assurances are insufficient. What does city staff believe? Why conduct a trial before this project is completed and actual traffic volumes and patterns are known? 7. The City appears ready to invest about $3000,000 to complete a field trial without a reliable estimate for the total cost of this project including probable modifications. Why not develop an estimate that includes contingencies for additional traffic controls, especially near Station 1300?. a. Feasibility study: $38,000 (spent) b. Field trial plan & implementation (estimate): $263,000 c. Needed to complete project: unknown Dana Hendrickson March 26, 2017 3
Additional Concerns About City Bike Project Planning 1. On both the El Camino Real Corridor Study and this project the Council used bike network consultants to perform technical feasibility studies and project designs but not comprehensive need and impact analysis, areas where they excel and Menlo Park lacks expertise. And consequently, potential projects are not intelligently prioritized and individual projects (and trial plans) lack the specific objectives, implementation strategies, goals, metrics and well-defined thresholds for benefits and costs the Council needs to confidently evaluate field trial results. AND the Council continues to struggle to make good decisions because they along with the entire community lack essential information and left unprepared to deal with a barrage of anecdotes and emotional appeals from individuals who also lack the appropriate expertise. 2. The Council has failed to adequately evaluate the most promising opportunity to improve east-west bike access across El Camino in the next 5 to 7 years, an innovative combination of bike lanes on Menlo Avenue and a bike path near Ravenswood that would be safer and more convenient than the planned project. This east-west bike corridor is recommended in the General Plan, Specific Plan and existing Comprehensive Bike Development Plan and an innovative off-street bike path would bypass the problematic section of Ravenswood between El Camino and Laurel. However, the Council has refused to fund a study of the merits and feasibility of this alternative project and instead offered untested objections, e.g., this intersection is too dangerous, Ravenswood has too much vehicle traffic, and new bike facilities should not be undertaken before the uncertainties surrounding future high speed rail and associated track crossing designs are eliminated. I believe a professional consultant could produce a safe bike solution, and fortunately, any bike corridor built now would offer tremendous value and be easily modified to accommodate future changes to Ravenswood. It appears the Council is locked into evaluating a single project and immune to considering promising alternatives. This would not be viewed as a responsible approach in business and non-profits. 3. The small bike commission CLEARLY exercise more influence over the Council s bike network development decision-making than can be justified given its activist bent, frequent displays of anti-motorist attitudes, unrealistically high expectations about the proper role biking should play in our city s transportation plans and investments, and clear lack of bike network design knowledge. During 2016 Bike Commissions senior members express the following views: The bike lanes on Valparaiso are unsafe and should not to be considered legitimate elements in the Menlo Park community bike network The bike lanes on Middlefield are unsafe and should not to be considered legitimate elements in the Menlo Park community bike network The bike lanes on Alma are unsafe and should not to be considered legitimate elements in the Menlo Park community bike network The proposed bike access to Middle Plaza should be shifted from Middle Avenue to Cambridge Elimination of a future Menlo-Ravenswood bike corridor Dana Hendrickson March 26, 2017 4
My Recommendations 1. Policy. The city needs a clear policy for determining whether a bike project is a good one. There are several potential field trial outcomes. (a) The benefits are significant; harm exceeds an unacceptable threshold (b) The benefits are significant; harm is acceptable (c) The benefits are insignificant; harm is unacceptable (d) The benefits are NOT significant; harm is NOT significant The trial does not support a new bike project if either (c) or (d) occurs. So the trial policy should establish the framework for deciding how to make the trade-off when both benefits and harm are significant, (a). 2. Specific Objectives: The primary challenge is to define project specific objectives and goals. These will shape the scope of the trial, the methodology used to collect and analyze data, and the intepretation of results. Achieve the following specific objectives: (Candidates) a. The project generates a significant increase in the total number of daily bike trips that cross El Camino. b. Oak Grove bike lanes experience significant and significantly more daily bike traffic. c. University bike lanes experience significant and significantly more daily bike traffic. d. The bike project does not create safety problems for bicyclists and motorists. e. The bike project does NOT generate an unacceptable motorist delays or inconvenient parking The trial plan should clearly establish specific metrics AND criteria (goals and thresholds) for measuring benefits and harm and determining whether they are considered significant. Dana Hendrickson March 26, 2017 5
3. Scope: This project is expected to improve the perceived safety, convenience and comfort of crossing El Camino just north of downtown Santa Cruz. Since there are other popular crossings, the trial should measure The increase in bike usage on Oak Grove The total increase of bike usage at all popular crossings, at Oak Grove, Valparaiso, Santa Cruz, Ravenswood-Menlo, Robles-Ravenswood and Middle-Ravenswood AND changes in crossing patterns Changes in bike usage on University between Middle and Live Oak AND bike usage patterns between University and nearby Fremont The increase bicyclists that ride on Santa Cruz between University and Crane The trial should also measure the impact of Lost street parking on all street users Different scenarios for restricted parking on University and Oak Grove Different intersection configurations at Santa Cruz Crane on bicyclists and vehicle traffic => delays and safety, e.g., yield versus stop signs? 4. Safety Collision data is an inadequate measure Alta should advise the Council on the safety of its intersection designs (Santa Cruz- Crane, near Station 1300) and use of sharrows on Crane The trial should monitor these places with cameras. 5. Data collection Conducted before, during and at the end of the trial Include quantitative data and qualitative feedback Should capture street usage patterns during different times of the day and year Minimize sampling errors. Be credible and defensible 6. Usage Data collection locations See Appendix E My Recommendations. Motorist Delays Travel delays on Santa Cruz between University and Crane as each vehicle in a line must stop at new signs even when bicyclists are not present. Travel delays on Oak Grove between El Camino and Crane as each vehicle in a line must wait for more bikes to cross Oak Grove at Crane Dana Hendrickson March 26, 2017 6
Lost Parking Impact Monitor streets and nearby parking plazas Survey nearby businesses Survey nearby residents APPENDICES - Appendix A - Current El Camino Bike Crossing Patterns Page 8 Appendix B Bike Safety Concerns on Crane And Santa Cruz Page 11 Appendix C Current Field Trial Objectives Page 14 Appendix D Field Trial Data Collection Plan Page 16 Appendix E Usage Data Collection - My Recommendations Page 17 Dana Hendrickson March 26, 2017 7
Appendix A - Current El Camino Bike Crossing Patterns Project supporters claim that bike access will be improved to about twenty destinations on either side of El Camino Real (See Appendix A). In order to evaluate the potential impact of this project it is first necessary to understand how bicyclists currently cross this highway. Bike lanes now cross El Camino only at the north end (Valparaiso-Glenwood) so many bicyclists have found more convenient places to traverse this highway. 1. Valparaiso-Glenwood. This popular route has bike lanes that extend from the Alameda to Laurel, which extends north-south from Encinal to Willow. Laurel has bike lanes. 2. Oak Grove. Some bicyclists cross El Camino here but not clear how often. 3. Menlo-Ravenswood. Many bicyclists cross the El Camino intersection in both directions; others travel only in the eastbound direction where there is a narrow bike lane along Ravenswood between El Camino and Alma. Note: Cyclists travel between Santa Cruz and Menlo using either University or a combination of its west side sidewalk and Fremont Park. 4. Ravenswood-Merrill-Santa Cruz-Doyle-Menlo. Westbound bicyclists who are comfortable riding on Ravenswood and Menlo frequently use this short detour to avoid the complex El Camino intersection where bike lanes disappear in the right turn lane. 5. Robles-Parking Lots. Bicyclists often avoid the Menlo-Ravenswood intersection by crossing El Camino at Roble and passing through the parking lots to the sidewalk near the tracks. Reverse travel is also common. 6. Middle-Ravenswood. A small number of bicyclists traveling eastbound direction on Middle cross El Camino, ride north a short distance on El Camino, and then turn right into the driveway next to Big 5. They likely cross at Roble on return trips. The Valparaiso-Glenwood route generally appeals to bicyclists with trip origins and destinations north of Santa Cruz and Ravenswood. The Menlo-Ravenswood route generally appeals to bicyclists with trip origins either on or south of Santa Cruz and south of Oak Grove. The Robles-Ravenswood and Middle-Ravenswood route generally appeals to bicyclists who usually ride through the intersection of Middle and University. The City does NOT know how many bike trips occur at each of these El Camino crossings. Dana Hendrickson March 26, 2017 8
Appendix A (continued) - Current El Camino Bike Crossings Map Bicyclists who use Middle and Santa Cruz usually cross El Camino at Menlo or Roble. In the latter case they bypass the Ravenswood intersection by traversing the parking lots behind the office buildings at 800 and 1000 El Camino.
Appendix A Project Bike Lanes and Bike Routes (Red Lines) Map Overlay Will Oak Grove bike lanes appeal to bicyclists who ride either on Middle given the long detour, or on Santa Cruz given the lack of safe and comfortable access direct connection? Dana Hendrickson March 26, 2017 10
Appendix B Safety Concerns on Crane Street Bikes and vehicles will share single lanes on Crane between Menlo and Santa Cruz and between Santa Cruz and Oak Grove. The vehicle lanes are narrow and there are few places bicyclists can safely allow vehicles to pass Opening doors on parked cars can injure bicyclists Many bicyclists are uncomfortable riding in the center of a lane when traveling more slowly than following vehicles even though encouraged by sharrows (note: recreational bike speeds average 10 mph or less) There are many busy parking lot entrances/exits on Crane with reduced visibility due to street parking on both sides. o Four between Santa Cruz and Oak Grove o Seven between Santa Cruz and Menlo Dana Hendrickson March 26, 2017 11
Appendix B Safety Concerns at Re-Designed Santa Cruz - Crane Intersections The complex configuration of two offset sections of Crane joined by a keep clear zone and bounded by two new stops signs on Santa Cruz in each direction will likely confuse and challenge bicyclists and motorists. Both Santa Cruz and Crane experience heavy vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This commercial area has many street-side distractions. Note: California is now considering a law change that would permit bicyclists to NOT always stop at stop signs. Dana Hendrickson March 26, 2017 12
Appendix B Safety Concerns at Oak Grove-Garwood Way- Merrill Alma Intersections Station 1300 will add vehicle, bike and pedestrian traffic to Oak Grove, Alma and Garwood Way (now Derry Lane), and more bicyclists and pedestrians will cross paths with more vehicle traffic at each intersection. A field trial conducted before Station 1300 is operational cannot gauge its impact. Dana Hendrickson March 26, 2017 13
Appendix C Current Field Trial Objectives The City Council needs to identify the specific measurable objectives this project so the field trial includes appropriate metrics and data collection strategies. So far, only vague reasons have been offered in support of this bike project.. Improving east-west bike connectivity (Specific Plan). Improving bike access to 20 specific destinations claimed as attractors in the field trial proposal (December 2016). Improving the availability (convenience) of safe routes to schools. Providing bicyclists a greater share of city streets. Dana Hendrickson March 26, 2017 14
Recommendations For Oak Grove Bike Project Field Trial Appendix C Current Field Trial Objectives (Draft-February 2017) continued Many of the identified attractor destinations are located on Valparaiso and Santa Cruz but neither is connected to the project bike facilities. Double red lines => New bike lanes on Oak Grove and University ( Blue lines => Bike route signage and street markings on Live Oak and Crane Dana Hendrickson March 26, 2017 15
Appendix D Field Trial Data Collection Plan Dana Hendrickson March 26, 2017
Appendix E Usage Data Collection - My Recommendations Menlo Park has no data on how bicyclists use city streets and in particular how they cross El Camino. Investing in new bike lanes should not be done in a piecemeal fashion. Each opportunity should be judged by how it contributes to the overall value of the entire bike network. Bike Usage I recommend that the City count the number of bikes at in Menlo-Atherton High School and Hillview Middle bike storage areas and bike trips at the following locations: 1. On Oak Grove @ Crane use the different approaches to the Oak Grove bike lanes 2. On Oak Grove @ El Camino use Oak Grove to cross El Camino 3. On Oak Grove @ Alma use Oak Grove to access Alma 4. On Oak Grove @ Laurel use Oak Grove to access Laurel bike lanes 5. On Oak Grove a@ Middlefield use Oak Grove to access Middlefield 6. On Santa Cruz between University and Crane use downtown Santa Cruz to connect to Oak Grove bike lanes 7. On Santa Cruz between Crane and El Camino use Santa Cruz to access downtown destinations 8. ON Santa Cruz @ - use to cross El Camino and bypass Ravenswood intersection 9. On Menlo at El Camino @ cross El Camino at the Ravenswood intersection 10. On Menlo at Crane @ use Menlo to Access downtown 11. On Crane at Menlo 12. On University between Middle and Live Oak use new University bike lanes 13. On Live Oak at University use live Oak to bypass Menlo-University intersection 14. On Fremont between Middle and Santa Cruz use Fremont to bypass University 15. On Robles @ El Camino use Robles to cross El Camino and business parking lots in order to bypass the section of Ravenswood between El Camino and Alma 16. On Middle @ El Camino use Middle to cross El Camino and business parking lots in order to bypass the section of Ravenswood between El Camino and Alma Dana Hendrickson March 26, 2017 17