News

Bike plan runs into opposition from East Meadow residents

Planning commission cautiously endorses protected lanes for cyclists

A cyclist bikes past Ramos Park on East Meadow Drive in Palo Alto on July 14, 2021. Photo by Magali Gauthier.

Months after the City Council enthusiastically endorsed the creation of bikeways on a well-traveled stretch of south Palo Alto, the $1.7 million effort has run into a tricky obstacle: opposition from residents who don't want to lose 80 on-street parking spots for the new bike lanes.

The project includes a protected bikeway along East Meadow Drive, between Alma Street and Fabian Way, as well as bikeways on both sides of Fabian Way. It also includes widening the existing multi-use path along Waverley Street between East Meadow and Charleston Road, along the western edge of Mitchell Park.

Most elements of the project — including the changes to the Waverley path and Fabian Way — remain broadly popular to this day. But there is a notable exception.

Dozens of residents who live on the eastern portion of the East Meadow Drive segment have come out against the city's plan for their blocks, one that would require the removal of about 80 parking spaces to make way for protected bike lanes.

On Friday, more than 30 residents held an impromptu meeting at Ramos Park with the city's planning staff to express their concerns. Dozens also submitted letters and testified in front of the Planning and Transportation Commission on Wednesday night to oppose the creation of the protected bikeways in their area.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Palo Alto Online for as little as $5/month.

Join

Many of the project's critics suggested that the solution proposed by staff and consultants is worse than the problem, which some claimed doesn't really exist. Chuck Wilson, who lives on East Meadow, said all three of his children biked to school along the stretch for years and called the bike lanes on his street "some of the widest in the city." He also said that the removal of parking spots on the south side of East Meadow, near the entrance Ramos Park, would require the park's many young users to cross the busy street to get to the park.

"Their parents park on the south side so their kids don't have to run across the road," Wilson said. "Removing the parking for the south side means that all these kids that go to Don Ramos Park will be running across the road."

George Greenwald, who lives on Ortega Court, near East Meadow Drive, similarly opposed the project, noting that the creation of wider bike lanes could force residents and their visitors to park farther from their homes.

"The inconvenience to the neighborhood, in our collective opinion, far outweighs the disruption to our neighborhood by making changes based on the unproven assertion that there is a safety issue," Greenwald wrote.

For the city, the sudden surge of opposition creates a difficult dilemma. The project in 2016 received a grant of more than $900,000 from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. It also received a vote of confidence in January, when the council unanimously supported proceeding with the bike improvements and directed staff to perform further community engagement.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

But at the same time, planning staff, council members and many community members acknowledge that south Palo Alto residents have painful memories of the city's recent misadventure with Ross Road, where a long-planned streetscape project became a neighborhood flashpoint after the installation of an unpopular traffic circle on Ross and East Meadow, along with other street furniture along Ross. The city subsequently acknowledged its mistakes, modified the project and vowed to do a better job in reaching out to residents for future bike projects.

Commissioner Cari Templeton said that it's hardly a coincidence that the locus of opposition to the latest south Palo Alto bike project is coming from the area closest to Ross Road.

"This neighborhood was very recently affected by a major transportation project," Templeton said. "And there's probably some lingering emotional feelings about this and a commitment perhaps among the neighbors to make sure they're never caught by surprise again."

In this case, however, accommodating the critics along one portion of East Meadow could upend the entire south Palo Alto effort. Chief Transportation Official Philip Kamhi said the VTA grant requires bike lanes along the entire route, consistent with the proposal in the city's application. If Palo Alto opts to take a different direction, the transportation agency would likely withdraw its funding, he said.

"They're going to take this money and give it to another community that wants to do something similar to this and has potentially the support to do so," Kamhi said. "Without being able to provide a buffered and protected bike lane throughout, I don't think we'll have a grant-funded project."

A component of the new south Palo Alto bike plan is the widening of the Waverley multiuse path, which runs along Mitchell Park. Rendering courtesy city of Palo Alto.

The loss of VTA funding would represent a significant setback for the city's decadelong plan to enhance bike amenities in an area that serves Fairmeadow and Hoover elementary and JLS Middle schools and that is heavily used by Gunn High students and by visitors to Mitchell Park and the Taube Koret Campus for Jewish Life. Bicycling in the area has only grown in popularity, with the rate of JLS students who bike to school increasing from 48% to 70% between 2009 and 2019. The percentage of Gunn students who bike to school went up from 33% to 50% over the same period, according to transportation staff.

The road segment is identified as a priority in the city's 2012 bike master plan. And on Wednesday, transportation planner Joanna Chan pointed to a fall 2020 survey in which parents of elementary school students cited the lack of protected bikeway as the main reason for why they don't allow their children to bike to school. Shifting more people to bike would also align with the city's goals of reducing the greenhouse-gas impacts of transportation, which accounts for an estimated 65% of the city's emissions, Chan said.

"Projects such as this one support mode shift from vehicle trips to active transportation modes," Chan said. "It's a relatively low-cost and efficient strategy to reduce greenhouse-gas emission and reduce the barriers to bicycling identified by local parents."

Given the expected benefits, the planning commission agreed to push ahead with the proposed improvements, notwithstanding the criticism from residents on and near East Meadow. Commissioners noted that the stretch of East Meadow east of Middlefield Road represents just one of six segments along the proposed route. It is, however, the portion of the project area with the largest number of residential properties.

"I feel that we do have some expectation that more children will be able to bike independently when the biking facilities are more protected and safer," Templeton said. "I think it's really exciting that we have this opportunity to use funds from an external source to improve our city streets for bikers."

While the commission swiftly approved the addition of bike lanes to Fabian Way, the widening of Waverley Street and the addition of protected lanes between Alma Street and Middlefield, they proposed a more cautious approach for the eastern portion of the East Meadow segment. Ultimately, the commission voted 6-0, with Vice Chair Giselle Roohparvar recused, to back a motion from Commissioner Ed Lauing that endorsed the protected bike lanes and urged city planners to explore modifications so that fewer parking spots would have to be removed east of Middlefield Road.

The approved motion also directed staff to continue negotiating with the VTA in hopes that the agency will allow the city to use grant funding for the less contentious segments while the city considers other options for East Meadow east of Middlefield.

Commissioner Bryna Chang questioned whether protected bikeways favored by the VTA are really a "universal solution" for all segments of the bike route and underscored the need to continue to engage with the residents as the project moves ahead.

"I feel strongly that a lot more community engagement needs to be done to understand the nitty gritty of how things will need to be … implemented," Chang said.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Stay informed on important city government news. Sign up for our FREE daily Express newsletter.

Bike plan runs into opposition from East Meadow residents

Planning commission cautiously endorses protected lanes for cyclists

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 12:30 am

Months after the City Council enthusiastically endorsed the creation of bikeways on a well-traveled stretch of south Palo Alto, the $1.7 million effort has run into a tricky obstacle: opposition from residents who don't want to lose 80 on-street parking spots for the new bike lanes.

The project includes a protected bikeway along East Meadow Drive, between Alma Street and Fabian Way, as well as bikeways on both sides of Fabian Way. It also includes widening the existing multi-use path along Waverley Street between East Meadow and Charleston Road, along the western edge of Mitchell Park.

Most elements of the project — including the changes to the Waverley path and Fabian Way — remain broadly popular to this day. But there is a notable exception.

Dozens of residents who live on the eastern portion of the East Meadow Drive segment have come out against the city's plan for their blocks, one that would require the removal of about 80 parking spaces to make way for protected bike lanes.

On Friday, more than 30 residents held an impromptu meeting at Ramos Park with the city's planning staff to express their concerns. Dozens also submitted letters and testified in front of the Planning and Transportation Commission on Wednesday night to oppose the creation of the protected bikeways in their area.

Many of the project's critics suggested that the solution proposed by staff and consultants is worse than the problem, which some claimed doesn't really exist. Chuck Wilson, who lives on East Meadow, said all three of his children biked to school along the stretch for years and called the bike lanes on his street "some of the widest in the city." He also said that the removal of parking spots on the south side of East Meadow, near the entrance Ramos Park, would require the park's many young users to cross the busy street to get to the park.

"Their parents park on the south side so their kids don't have to run across the road," Wilson said. "Removing the parking for the south side means that all these kids that go to Don Ramos Park will be running across the road."

George Greenwald, who lives on Ortega Court, near East Meadow Drive, similarly opposed the project, noting that the creation of wider bike lanes could force residents and their visitors to park farther from their homes.

"The inconvenience to the neighborhood, in our collective opinion, far outweighs the disruption to our neighborhood by making changes based on the unproven assertion that there is a safety issue," Greenwald wrote.

For the city, the sudden surge of opposition creates a difficult dilemma. The project in 2016 received a grant of more than $900,000 from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. It also received a vote of confidence in January, when the council unanimously supported proceeding with the bike improvements and directed staff to perform further community engagement.

But at the same time, planning staff, council members and many community members acknowledge that south Palo Alto residents have painful memories of the city's recent misadventure with Ross Road, where a long-planned streetscape project became a neighborhood flashpoint after the installation of an unpopular traffic circle on Ross and East Meadow, along with other street furniture along Ross. The city subsequently acknowledged its mistakes, modified the project and vowed to do a better job in reaching out to residents for future bike projects.

Commissioner Cari Templeton said that it's hardly a coincidence that the locus of opposition to the latest south Palo Alto bike project is coming from the area closest to Ross Road.

"This neighborhood was very recently affected by a major transportation project," Templeton said. "And there's probably some lingering emotional feelings about this and a commitment perhaps among the neighbors to make sure they're never caught by surprise again."

In this case, however, accommodating the critics along one portion of East Meadow could upend the entire south Palo Alto effort. Chief Transportation Official Philip Kamhi said the VTA grant requires bike lanes along the entire route, consistent with the proposal in the city's application. If Palo Alto opts to take a different direction, the transportation agency would likely withdraw its funding, he said.

"They're going to take this money and give it to another community that wants to do something similar to this and has potentially the support to do so," Kamhi said. "Without being able to provide a buffered and protected bike lane throughout, I don't think we'll have a grant-funded project."

The loss of VTA funding would represent a significant setback for the city's decadelong plan to enhance bike amenities in an area that serves Fairmeadow and Hoover elementary and JLS Middle schools and that is heavily used by Gunn High students and by visitors to Mitchell Park and the Taube Koret Campus for Jewish Life. Bicycling in the area has only grown in popularity, with the rate of JLS students who bike to school increasing from 48% to 70% between 2009 and 2019. The percentage of Gunn students who bike to school went up from 33% to 50% over the same period, according to transportation staff.

The road segment is identified as a priority in the city's 2012 bike master plan. And on Wednesday, transportation planner Joanna Chan pointed to a fall 2020 survey in which parents of elementary school students cited the lack of protected bikeway as the main reason for why they don't allow their children to bike to school. Shifting more people to bike would also align with the city's goals of reducing the greenhouse-gas impacts of transportation, which accounts for an estimated 65% of the city's emissions, Chan said.

"Projects such as this one support mode shift from vehicle trips to active transportation modes," Chan said. "It's a relatively low-cost and efficient strategy to reduce greenhouse-gas emission and reduce the barriers to bicycling identified by local parents."

Given the expected benefits, the planning commission agreed to push ahead with the proposed improvements, notwithstanding the criticism from residents on and near East Meadow. Commissioners noted that the stretch of East Meadow east of Middlefield Road represents just one of six segments along the proposed route. It is, however, the portion of the project area with the largest number of residential properties.

"I feel that we do have some expectation that more children will be able to bike independently when the biking facilities are more protected and safer," Templeton said. "I think it's really exciting that we have this opportunity to use funds from an external source to improve our city streets for bikers."

While the commission swiftly approved the addition of bike lanes to Fabian Way, the widening of Waverley Street and the addition of protected lanes between Alma Street and Middlefield, they proposed a more cautious approach for the eastern portion of the East Meadow segment. Ultimately, the commission voted 6-0, with Vice Chair Giselle Roohparvar recused, to back a motion from Commissioner Ed Lauing that endorsed the protected bike lanes and urged city planners to explore modifications so that fewer parking spots would have to be removed east of Middlefield Road.

The approved motion also directed staff to continue negotiating with the VTA in hopes that the agency will allow the city to use grant funding for the less contentious segments while the city considers other options for East Meadow east of Middlefield.

Commissioner Bryna Chang questioned whether protected bikeways favored by the VTA are really a "universal solution" for all segments of the bike route and underscored the need to continue to engage with the residents as the project moves ahead.

"I feel strongly that a lot more community engagement needs to be done to understand the nitty gritty of how things will need to be … implemented," Chang said.

Comments

Keri
Registered user
Charleston Meadows
on Jul 15, 2021 at 1:15 am
Keri, Charleston Meadows
Registered user
on Jul 15, 2021 at 1:15 am

When will we Palo Alto residents and City Council prioritize bike safety over car convenience? Do we want our children to bike to school or do we want them to be driven to school? It's that simple. Parents are making the decision to allow their children to bike based on their perceived safety of their children. Do we support city-subsidized street parking over bike safety? I do not, and urge City Council to reject the idea that any house's occupants are entitled to parking privileges on any city-owned street.


felix
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 15, 2021 at 7:14 am
felix, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Jul 15, 2021 at 7:14 am

The issue of Ramos park users having to cross East Meadow to get to it is no small matter.


Palo Alto native
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Jul 15, 2021 at 9:01 am
Palo Alto native, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Jul 15, 2021 at 9:01 am

Bike Safety and increased biking over car convenience is a NO BRAINER. Palo Alto needs to live up to its ranking of one of the most Bike Friendly cities in the country. It is one of our unique features…..flat land, bike routes all through town, history of bike boulevards, large percentage of students biking to school. Ellen Fletcher was a leader for the bike friendly city that we are today. Let’s continue making bicycling more accessible over polluting cars/car convenience!


Andrew Boone
Registered user
another community
on Jul 15, 2021 at 10:28 am
Andrew Boone, another community
Registered user
on Jul 15, 2021 at 10:28 am

Such improvements for walking and bicycling should have been made by the City Council decades ago. Generations of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plans have set ambitious goals to develop a true multi-modal transportation system in Palo Alto, and now state Climate Change laws further mandate improvements. All we demand is to be able to use public streets safely - it’s absurd this is even an issue of political discussion - safe streets are a human right!


Bystander
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 15, 2021 at 10:47 am
Bystander, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Jul 15, 2021 at 10:47 am

Bike safety routes are important since so many children use them for school. It is also imperative to separate bikes and pedestrians. Walking into Paly from Churchill or on the footpaths in Mitchell Park (think feet hence footpaths) I have often had to get out of the way of a stream of bikes who seem to think they are more important than pedestrians. I hear the same complaint about bikes on the Cal Ave tunnel.

Keep bikes and pedestrians separate on these routes, please.


Smita
Registered user
Meadow Park
on Jul 15, 2021 at 10:55 am
Smita, Meadow Park
Registered user
on Jul 15, 2021 at 10:55 am

I second all of what Keri has stated above.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 15, 2021 at 11:05 am
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Jul 15, 2021 at 11:05 am

This whole issue started yesterday with a convesion to State Highway 82 - aka ECR - a commercial street. Thankfully that idea has gone down and now we are talking about residential streets. Let's make sure that all are reporting the correct approaches to how any city approaches these topics to make sure that they get off on the right set of requiremets to avoid confusion and turmoil.


Deborah
Registered user
Evergreen Park
on Jul 15, 2021 at 11:06 am
Deborah, Evergreen Park
Registered user
on Jul 15, 2021 at 11:06 am

So inconvenience to a couple dozen residents gets to take precedence over the needs of thousands of other Palo Altan's? I didn't know this route was being planned or about the brouhaha over the Ross Rd route/Ross-Meadow traffic circle, but I do know that the Ross Rd redo has transformed bikeability in that area. That new bike route is a godsend. I've been biking Palo Alto for half a century. This is something I know A LOT about.

The only valid complaint is the parking infant of Ramos, but it is a small one. I've been in and out of and past Ramos (on bike) 100 times in past year. I have not once seen parents in cars dropping off or picking up kids. That's probably pandemic influenced, but it's still not a huge problem nor does it seem like one that can not be overcome.


Alex
Registered user
Barron Park
on Jul 15, 2021 at 11:21 am
Alex, Barron Park
Registered user
on Jul 15, 2021 at 11:21 am

Aren't single family homes required to have garages? It sounds like the people complaining about protected bike lanes should use them or their driveways instead of parking on the street. Why should bicyclists subsidize your convenience by way of their safety? Absolutly disgusting entitlement.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 15, 2021 at 11:43 am
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Jul 15, 2021 at 11:43 am

Love comments from Barron Park. If you are in a downtown residential neighborhood you have sidewalks and structured streets. Barron Park does not have structured streets - it is more open. I go through there now checking out the houses which are beautiful - I an thinking now that I would prefer to live there rather then coming back to a structured set of streets which are now very cluttered. We are looking at overall clutter vs open, more freer streets. Big difference.


Andy
Registered user
Stanford
on Jul 15, 2021 at 11:55 am
Andy, Stanford
Registered user
on Jul 15, 2021 at 11:55 am

Interesting...everyone knows about the NIMBYS against homes. And, there's car NIMBYS who hate cars. I didn't know there were bike NIMBYS, too. LOL.


Evergreen Park
Registered user
Evergreen Park
on Jul 15, 2021 at 12:00 pm
Evergreen Park, Evergreen Park
Registered user
on Jul 15, 2021 at 12:00 pm

Wow. Way to empathize with people who actually live in an area and try to seek common ground. Apparently, as long as you don't live there, you don't care and your needs trump people who do live there. Not everyone can bike (some may be elderly, some disabled, some may not be physically fit, and heaven forbid, some may simply not want to bike everywhere they go). If these residents don't deserve street parking along their street, then maybe no Palo Alto resident does.

No one is saying that we don't need to make good bike lanes, but one could make an effort to work with residents rather than simply ignore their concerns. Ask the City to do unto these residents as you would want them to do to you. As in all things, plan carefully and be considerate.


Jay
Registered user
Mountain View
on Jul 15, 2021 at 12:07 pm
Jay, Mountain View
Registered user
on Jul 15, 2021 at 12:07 pm

NIMBYs and opposing development which would support thousands of residents. What else is new?


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 15, 2021 at 12:08 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Jul 15, 2021 at 12:08 pm

"Aren't single family homes required to have garages? It sounds like the people complaining about protected bike lanes should use them or their driveways instead of parking on the street. Why should bicyclists subsidize your convenience by way of their safety? Absolutly disgusting entitlement."

Gee, Alex, maybe you should read up on ADUs where the City is pushing people to convert their garages to accessory dwelling units with no provision for where the homeowners' cars or those of their tenants should go.


Jay
Registered user
Mountain View
on Jul 15, 2021 at 12:16 pm
Jay, Mountain View
Registered user
on Jul 15, 2021 at 12:16 pm

> make an effort to work with residents rather than simply ignore their concerns

Thats funny. Half of the concerns are never true and its always done with an ulterior motive. Every development project, every housing projects is always brought down because of this. There is a reason why the Bay Area has a housing/development issue which can never be solved in this lifetime


Novelera
Registered user
Midtown
on Jul 15, 2021 at 1:02 pm
Novelera, Midtown
Registered user
on Jul 15, 2021 at 1:02 pm

It's pretty obvious when a certain "constituency" manages to post comments en masse. The disaster on Ross Road happened not far from my house. I attended a long-ago meeting at the Mitchell Park community room where it was obvious how everyone who attended was opposed.

But, whaddya know, nearly all the comments on this story are all in favor of the proposed bike plan.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 15, 2021 at 1:30 pm
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Jul 15, 2021 at 1:30 pm
Deborah
Registered user
Evergreen Park
on Jul 15, 2021 at 4:28 pm
Deborah, Evergreen Park
Registered user
on Jul 15, 2021 at 4:28 pm

Once upon a time, as in the era when these south Palo Alto neighborhoods were built, you wouldn't dream of parking your car overnight on the street. Doing anything other than parking your car in the garage was considered slovenly and uncouth. My father, who is of this era, would rather die than park his car anywhere other than inside his garage. How parking on the street came to be viewed as a right I really don't know.


Jeremy Erman
Registered user
Midtown
on Jul 15, 2021 at 5:19 pm
Jeremy Erman, Midtown
Registered user
on Jul 15, 2021 at 5:19 pm

The sticking point here appears to be VTA's capricious and dictatorial attitude toward awarding grants. The City is apparently willing to compromise with residents along the controversial segments, but is afraid of losing VTA funding if they do.

I have heard residents, council members, and city staff talk about the difficulty of obtaining funds from VTA. Our local public transit agency likes to give money to projects that it considers "innovative," and doesn't like to spend money on other transit options, no matter how helpful they may be.

Thus VTA is willing to give Palo Alto $900,000 for expanded bike lines--as long as the City builds them according to VTA's vision--but won't give the City a cent to preserve its free shuttle program, nor was it willing before the pandemic to maintain regular bus service to Gunn High School despite pleas from parents and students.


William Hitchens
Registered user
Mountain View
on Jul 15, 2021 at 5:57 pm
William Hitchens, Mountain View
Registered user
on Jul 15, 2021 at 5:57 pm

Parking spaces are far more essential than dedicated bike lanes for the people who live on those streets. After all, owners pay taxes, and kids are just --- kids who wander all over our streets like ignorant fools. Property owners pay Palo Alto taxes, so property owners should have the say about what the City is trying to do to mess up their quiet streets.


Donya
Registered user
Barron Park
on Jul 16, 2021 at 6:17 am
Donya, Barron Park
Registered user
on Jul 16, 2021 at 6:17 am

The dedicated bike lanes are far more important than the parking spots. I bike by Ramos Park and do not see parents dropping off kids and parking there. So it is a minor issue.
People who use Ramos Park will find a work around if they can't find parking right adjacent to the park. Who knows, maybe they will bike.
Let's keep the whole community in mind instead of being against every little change.


JR
Registered user
Palo Verde
on Jul 16, 2021 at 6:51 am
JR, Palo Verde
Registered user
on Jul 16, 2021 at 6:51 am

E. Meadow east of Middlefield is already a super safe bike route, one of the best bike routes in the city. There is no need to change it. Meanwhile W. Bayshore is a death trap that is very likely to actually kill someone once the bridge opens. And Fabian could use some improvements. Spend money on roads that need improvements, not roads that are ALREADY good bike routes (no matter what the failed VTA said, the organization that is spending millions of dollars per day to NOT operate a light rail line).

STOP taking demands from VTA, who is more interested in making shiny maps than actual bike safety. START listening to people who actually bike on those roads.


Mary
Registered user
College Terrace
on Jul 16, 2021 at 8:04 am
Mary, College Terrace
Registered user
on Jul 16, 2021 at 8:04 am

>Donya: "I bike by Ramos Park and do not see parents dropping off kids and parking there. So it is a minor issue.

I drive up and down East Meadow almost every day and I often see many people park across the street to use Ramos Park, particularly when there is a youth sports practice or game. And I often see kids running across the street to the park as I approach, sometimes too close for comfort. On the other hand, I've never observed anyone on a bike riding down East Meadow in peril from a car. Just MY observations.

And about 20 years ago I did see a child hit by a car running across the street to Eleanor Pardee Park. His parent had parked their car across the street from the park and the boy was late to a little league baseball game. I'll never forget that.

As far as I'm concerned, it is NOT a minor issue.


Bystander
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 16, 2021 at 8:48 am
Bystander, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Jul 16, 2021 at 8:48 am

I would like to see better bike access to the new bridge over 101. Bayshore is not a good route. There is access along the creek to Meadow, but there is nothing the other way. It would be good to open up a path along the access under the powerlines from Loma Verde to the creek and then access to the bridge. There is a pathway behind the office parking lots and this right of way should become a recognized route to the bridge. There is a path to nowhere under the powerlines the other side of Loma Verde, but a path to the bridge would be much more useful.


Janet L
Registered user
Mountain View
on Jul 16, 2021 at 9:34 am
Janet L, Mountain View
Registered user
on Jul 16, 2021 at 9:34 am

"Chuck Wilson, who lives on East Meadow, said all three of his children biked to school along the stretch for years and called the bike lanes on his street "some of the widest in the city." He also said that the removal of parking spots on the south side of East Meadow, near the entrance Ramos Park, would require the park's many young users to cross the busy street to get to the park"

Can someone explain to me how biking on East Meadow's unprotected bike lanes is perfectly safe for school kids while at the same time, it's not safe for kids who are driven to Ramos Park to cross the street when there's clearly an adult present? It's not like the kids drove themselves.

How is the same street somehow safe for kids biking on it for say 10 minutes when it's not safe for an adult to lead kids across it for say 30 seconds?


Gnar
Registered user
Greenmeadow
on Jul 16, 2021 at 3:14 pm
Gnar, Greenmeadow
Registered user
on Jul 16, 2021 at 3:14 pm

Is this going to be implemented by the same people that royally screwed up Ross Road? The ones who looked at the "belt AND suspenders" idea of putting stop signs at a roundabout and thought, "yeah, that makes perfect sense"?

Palo Alto, you became a parody of yourself long ago.


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 16, 2021 at 3:52 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Jul 16, 2021 at 3:52 pm

Gnar's absolutely right.

The VTA's also a bad joke. Make them move their bus stops so they're MORE than 7 car lengths from major intersections. At San Antonio and Middliefield, the genius put a bus stop ONE car length from the intersection; I almost slammed into a bus that suddenly stopped when I was making my turn and looking left for oncoming traffic not a bus in front of me.

They've also got another dumb bus stop 4 car lengths south of Embarcadero on Middlefield. Guess what happens to the through and turning traffic when the bus stops for its required length of time?

"Parody" is one word. "Farcical" is another like Keystone Kops!


Bystander
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 16, 2021 at 5:39 pm
Bystander, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Jul 16, 2021 at 5:39 pm

Love Gnar's comment. Ross Road roundabout is belt and suspenders. Thanks for the laugh.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 19, 2021 at 5:51 pm
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Jul 19, 2021 at 5:51 pm

5:00 PM - a giant double decker white Google/Other bus was coming down Charleston crossing Middlefield. Charleston is basically a residential street with a number of schools from one end to the other. Charleston was constructed so that only one car can be in the lane - surrounded by concrete barriers. Why is a giant double decker bus allowed to be on that road next to schools?

FURTHER - IF we decide to create underpasses at Charleston, East Meadow then double decker buses will not be allowed. So what is going on here? The bus does not want to use San Antoinio. No one else does either who lives here - saturated by commuters.

Everyone is concerned with streets next to schools and commercial double decker buses are using them. There should be signs which limit the size and tonnage of vehicles using roads in residential zones next to schools.

East Meadow is a very wide street with good markings for bike lanes on both sides from Middlefield to Louis. Can everyone consider that portion DONE?


Stepheny
Registered user
Midtown
on Jul 20, 2021 at 10:50 am
Stepheny , Midtown
Registered user
on Jul 20, 2021 at 10:50 am

Menlo Park has a ban on overnight parking in the street. If Palo Alto's homeowners, ADUs, condo and apartment dwellers would just use their garages and driveways, it would help all of us! Not only would bicyclists have room to ride, but our whole community would feel more spacious. All those cars on sidewalks and streets -- we can and should do better.


Fr0hickey
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Jul 20, 2021 at 11:26 am
Fr0hickey, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Jul 20, 2021 at 11:26 am

You are never going to get kids to bike to school when parents are constantly worried about sexual predators roaming the streets. Every time you hear about a child abductor going to prison or being released after prison and not being put to death, parents are more determined not to let kids out of their sight.


Minimizing Entrophy
Registered user
Evergreen Park
on Jul 21, 2021 at 10:24 am
Minimizing Entrophy, Evergreen Park
Registered user
on Jul 21, 2021 at 10:24 am

For the people who think the area isn't unsafe as it currently exists, the level of distracted drives continues to grow to the point it will be an issue in the future. Ride a bike or being a pedestrian has never been as dangerous as it is now nd the problem will continue to get worse as more people are forced into it for financial or ecological reasons. The time of the car ruling is coming to an end.


Bystander
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 21, 2021 at 11:39 am
Bystander, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Jul 21, 2021 at 11:39 am

I recently drove along Arastradero/Charleston to come back from Foothill Expressway. Arastradero was a good choice. Charleston was not. It took me 3 green lights to cross at the tracks, nothing to do with a train, but just incompetent workers blocking lanes with no apparent work being done. It did strike me that Arastradero/Charleston is supposed to be a through route to Foothill Expressway and San Antonio is not ideal as it should be either. Page Mill, the other option seems to be far too much out of the way for south Palo Alto access to Foothill Expressway.

My other thought, is that since there are now so many streets where striping has been made for helping bikes, shouldn't now be the time where certain streets can now ban bikes. I have no objection of sharing the road with bikes on most streets, but there are certain streets where there are much better alternatives where they should be banned. Alma is one that comes to mind. With all the work done to promote biking on certain streets, banning them on others seems fair to me.

Copied from another thread.


Fr0hickey
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Jul 23, 2021 at 11:09 am
Fr0hickey, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Jul 23, 2021 at 11:09 am

I would not ban bikes on Alma. Banning something means you need a way to enforce it. Do you want to call police to arrest/cite someone on a banned Alma Street? Do you want police to be patrolling Alma Street for 'banned' bicycle riding?
The amount of traffic on Alma St itself and the unpleasantness of riding a bike without a road shoulder will make riders find other routes.


Native to the BAY
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Jul 24, 2021 at 11:42 am
Native to the BAY, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Jul 24, 2021 at 11:42 am

Our City Council and Top earning leaders have zero interest in building, nurturing and maintaining public / private partnerships . When grants, tax funding is offered by state or public agencies, City of Palo Alto wants total utter control w no accountability or oversight. GS : Since when is street / curb / parking treatments or ease of mobility elements called — by you, road furniture? Sounds antagonistic! that was a push button phrase used against Ross Road upgrades and round a-bouts by the so-called SIPO’s “software” engineers! Just got back from Europe where I drove and walked across hundreds of round-a-bouts. Fantastic flow and ease of travel and pass thru. Too bad we stumble and roll over many missed opportunities with ECR Cal Trans pedestrian upgrades, VTA bike expansion funding, State mandated housing increases — you’d think PA Godless, tech-software polluted brain (Neo-Facists) i.e. former “free” thinking single braided hippies, with bare feet, t-shits and jeans were at the helm?! Clue: They are.


Native to the BAY
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Jul 24, 2021 at 11:47 am
Native to the BAY, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Jul 24, 2021 at 11:47 am

Palopposition Altopposition.


padad
Registered user
Ventura
on Jul 29, 2021 at 10:34 pm
padad, Ventura
Registered user
on Jul 29, 2021 at 10:34 pm

Perhaps additional parking could be added to Ramos Park itself for people going to the park? That would alleviate some of the parking concerns and free up space for the bike lanes.


StarSpring
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 1, 2021 at 4:36 pm
StarSpring, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Aug 1, 2021 at 4:36 pm

@Native to the Bay,

If you just returned from Europe then you surely noticed that the (sic) round-a-bouts you noticed are -nothing- like the dangerous obstacles they are in Palo Alto and Mountain View. Largely Europe did it right. Too bad we miss those opportunities, as you say.

The Ross Road debacle was merely the Bicycle Coalition's drive to consume way more than their fair share of City Resources being exposed to public view.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.