Please post info on how someone can sign the petition
please make the verification code larger

The problems caused at the Y are dangerous.

Likewise the traffic islands on Loma Verde and Colorado among others prevent anyone in the Oregon to San Antonio neighborhoods from east/west travel. The signs saying find alternate routes are an insult to our intelligence.

How dare they have signs saying temporary construction, find alternative route when there aren't any!

Shoving bicycles into contention with cars is stupid. Someone in the transportation department has some ideas they think will be great but guess what, they aren't. Stop wasting our money on this. I was driving on Ross and a mother and young child we're forced into the main traffic lane and as we came to the traffic circle they didn't know where to go. All the time with 3 of us in cars right behind them. There is nothing safer about this design. It is terrible.
Please stop wasting our money.

@senor blogger: Link to the petition:

Web Link

Those pinch-points forcing bikes out of their natural lanes at the edges of the road into the very middle of the lane of travel make this regular bicycle commuter extremely uncomfortable.

We are already at very high risk of injury or death because of our complete exposure to steel-encased motorized traffic. Couple this with too-small or no workable rearview mirrors, and the discomfort grows exponentially for those of us who actually understand that we cannot look both forward and backward at the same moment.

I find myself avoiding Ross Road completely, either via bicycle or car. If others feel as I do, the eventual result will effectively be a public city street turned private and problems for adjacent/surrounding streets as the traffic shifts away from Ross.

@senior nlogger, here's the link to the petition Web Link

It's mow up to 186.

How nice of Mr. Mello to acknowledge that he's gotten lots of communications about problems with the design and his continued failure to notify residents of projects which has been an ongoing project for at least 4 -- FOUR -- years since he tried to sneak through the Middlefield Road redesign without telling us about his plans for a bike lane and then did it again without telling us about the restriping project.

Please stop with the talking points, Mr. Mello. All City Councilmembers need to visit this neighborhood at 8am and 3pm to witness the hazardous mess. We are all voters and most of us are hopping mad about this!

Residents who did bring up concerns early in the process were ignored or overruled by the Bicycle coalition people - most of whom are NOT residents of this neighborhood.

This is a dangerous experiment using our children to beef up some professional resumes and portfolios. It has put the lives of hundreds of school children at risk - every day - as vehicles race around bicyclists to pass them before the next speed bump or choke point.

Please Stop, Look, and Listen to us.

I would like to see real numbers of traffic counts on Ross and Louis. It is ridiculous to think that traffic is being diverted onto streets with elementary school (Palo Verde) and commuter elementary school access (Ohlone).
Streets like Christine and Ames probably have more traffic also.

The before and after traffic counts to see where this traffic is being diverted is essential.

The bike improvement budget was/is at least $20 million yet I've read that less than 5% of Palo Alto adults bike to work. Even with a 100% increase in the number of adults biking to work that is still a large chunk of the budget that can't even find the funds to build a police station, or hire traffic enforcement officers.

I have to pointedly disagree with one comment that I see repeated on these threads.

People are complaining about bicycle traffic being in the middle of the lane in these situations.

For decades, I have ridden in the car lane when car traffic speeds are similar to bicycle speeds. It is safer. There is no danger of getting "doored". By riding in a straight line instead of weaving in and out, the bicycle path is more predictable for drivers. Bicycles need to move to edge when car traffic is faster than bicycle speed, but, when speeds are comparable, it is -safer- for bicycles to merge with car traffic. Try it!

I think the real agenda here is that some people want Ross to be (become) a arterial rather than a bicycle boulevard. I disagree. Louis is, and has been, the designated arterial through that part of the city.

I went through that area all the time. I think the new "safety installation" is the most stupid idea ever. What a waste of money.

I really believe those decision makers and designer have no clue about urban design traffic design. Roundabout only works on big streets!

@ Anon from Another Neighborhood

Have you regularly biked Ross Road since this project started? Most of us have teens who have biked Ross to school for years and are now very uncomfortable with the new design. There is a large church and the YMCA on this road so it is, and will always be a public street.

Before further insulting residents of this neighborhood, please bike the route between Colorado and Meadow a few times at 8am and 3pm.

Posted by Residents were ignores, a resident of Palo Verde

>> Before further insulting residents of this neighborhood,

How did I insult you? By disagreeing with you?

You may not be aware, but, for decades, bicycle safety advocates have stated that riding further to the left is safer:

Web Link

We think the changes make Ross Road much safer, as long as everyone pays attention to the road and not their cell phone and obeys the speed limit. Speeding drivers are the problem, not the road design.

As someone who drives those streets daily my opinion is that the new features actually make the traffic much more dangerous, they squeeze cars and bicycles into a narrower path creating more of a chokepoint and more of a potential for accident. I can't see any way that those features on those streets can be a positive addition in any way. Maybe somewhere else, but not in the Midtown area.

Actually, I think that it has nothing to do with speeding drivers, but here's my list. Just my thoughts.

Kids on bikes who ride in groups, sometimes on the sidewalk, often unpredictable as they cross into a driveway or "messing about".

Adult bikes who ride overtaking the slower bikes without too much thought thinking they are not the problem.

People exiting the Y not paying enough attention to the sidewalk as they are looking too far ahead at approaching bikes and don't stop twice.

Tuesdays with trash cans and trash trucks making visibility poorer.

UPS, FEDEx trucks driving to do their deliveries on a tight time schedule.

People unfamiliar (Uber drivers) who are encountering the problems for the first time.

Locals are either avoiding Ross or driving very slowly and cautiously.

[Post removed.]

The roundabout is still under construction with construction barriers and equipment in place, so that intersection is a little confusing right now. Construction is disruptive. Let's slow down and pay attention--as the law requires in construction zones..

I bike and drive on that street. So far, it works pretty well for me.

I like the project. Cars are driving at more moderate speeds and drivers don't have the unrealistic expectation (as used to be the case) that bicyclists will ride in the parking lane where we naturally encounter and have to swerve around lots of parked cars. This always was a dangerous thing to do. Bikes were previously "shoved" into traffic by parked cars. The new configuration encourages bikes to ride a nice, straight, predictable line--the safest way for them to see and be seen on a street like Ross. Just like on Bryant Bike Boulevard, bicyclists take the lane. Traffic volumes on Ross are low enough that cars can safely pass a slower moving bike. Motorists do have to yield to bikes at the narrowed spots with slotted speed humps. (That's the law.)

Formerly, cars would honk at kids (startling and intimidating them) when they took the lane to avoid parked cars. Bikes ALWAYS had to take the lane on Ross. There have always been cars parked all over the place in what many drivers seem to think was a bike lane but was, in fact, a parking lane with many obstructions to bikes in the form of parked cars.

I'm getting honked at less now that the road is well marked to communicate to drivers that I am supposed to take the lane, especially in areas around the Y that is always heavily parked on both sides of the street. I have had fewer stressful interactions with cars since they have slowed to the speed limit. I also observe that drivers are being more attentive--and that makes bicyclists and pedestrians safer.

As a driver, I've had no problems. If you drive the posted speed limit, the street (a school commute route) works just fine.

Lets wait until it is completed and we have some experience with it.
Drivers say now that it will be dangerous, but only if they keep driving the way they do now.
The reason for constrictions and bumps is TO SLOW THE CARS DOWN.
Bikes are to be encouraged to ride in the traffic lane (as done on Bryant) and not weave from curb-side to center of lane and back..
If cars cannot go that slow and cannot follow a bicyclist, then drive down another road (Louis).

Change is hard and others

Look at my post above.

First point. Uber drivers, Fed Ex drivers, UPS drivers, and others not familiar are the ones speeding, not locals.

Adding to traffic on Louis outside Palo Verde and near Ohlone, should not be desirable.

I drive and also bicycle. The "bulb outs" are bad already. It means the car will squeeze the bicyclist out.

The Meadow round around is pure INSANITY. There is no safe way for bicyclists to navigate that. We live in the neighborhood, and now we are taking alternate routes in our cars and on our bikes, and avoid Ross at all cost. They should have just shut the whole road down, it should accomplish the same goal.

I think the project is a $9 Million dollar mistake for the reasons many have stated. I signed the petition. The city should stop this and not do any more projects like this.

I hope the city council is listening. I hope this becomes an issue for the next city council election.

If another vehicle (this includes bikes) reaches the bulbout ahead of a car, the driver is required by law to yield if he is concerned there is not adequate space to safely pass. The vehicle that reaches the space first (whether it is a car or a bike) has priority and the other must yield. (A bike is considered a vehicle under the law.) Please observe the law, including speed limits...and be considerate.

The roundabout is under construction. Let's wait until it is complete and see how it works. Similar designs are safely used by bicyclists all over the world. I have safely biked a lot of roundabouts in Europe. Roundabouts reduce potential points of collision and improve road operations for all vehicles.

If you aren't sure how to navigate a roundabout, there is info on this page on th city's web site Web Link Click the Roundabout flyer.

I ride and drive Ross all the time. It is getting better, and will be even better when construction is done.

I note the comment about Uber and FedEx drivers. When Ross's status as a Bike Boulevard is propagated to way finding services, after it is done, this will change too.

I encourage bicyclists to ride in the lane all over town, make sure you have good mirrors and lights, and wear a helmet.

I look forward to completion of the Ross Road project.

Ross Road did NOT cost $9 million. Check your facts.

It doesn't make me happy, now, to be able to say "I told you so", but I did voice my opinions and concerns about the project in several posts in earlier articles. And now the results of a very bad idea are getting attention by both drivers and bicyclists...and many from parents of kids bicycling to school, under unsafe circumstances. The proponents, who pushed for the project, are probably satisfied that some of their goals have been achieved, but there are many that have not, and some that have actually backfired on them, and made Ross Rd less safe, for both drivers and bicyclists.

@Anon

"I think the real agenda here is that some people want Ross to be (become) a arterial rather than a bicycle boulevard."

I disagree with that and would like to know what information/data you have that supports that idea. Louis Road is, and always has been, the designated arterial through our part of town, down here in SPA...for decades. The Ross Road project just diverts traffic onto other residential streets to get more cars onto Louis Road.

I don't use Ross Road for anything anymore except for going to the YMCA. The project can claim success from that standpoint, if it wants to. When I occasionally used it coming back from Midtown, it was slow, with lots of stop signs, but it gave me a chance to drive through beautiful neighborhoods, and I'm an old guy so I'm not in a hurry to go anywhere. And traffic was well behaved, speed limits observed as far as I could tell, and full, or at least legal stops, observed at corners with stop signs.

@I like the Ross project

Well, well, well, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis, liking our project down here in SPA. "The roundabout is still under construction with construction barriers and equipment in place, so that intersection is a little confusing right now. Construction is disruptive. Let's slow down and pay attention--as the law requires in construction zones.."

My response: That project is near enough to completion for anyone to realize what it's all about, and the dangers involved, and what it will be, even when the construction barriers and equipment are gone.

I still want all of our CC members to saddle up and ride their bikes all the way down on Ross Road, from Oregon Expressway to the East Meadow roundabout, where I hope the ribbon cutting celebration/ceremony will be held. The stage should be right in the middle of the roundabout with regular traffic whizzing around that roundabout. The volume will have to be cranked up for Liz Kniss to be heard. I live close enough I might be able to sit out on my patio and hear her speak. Do I need to go out and shop for a bike at age 81? Please say 'no'!

Anything the city touches regarding "increasing safety" has been a disaster. Those islands on Loma Verde are a disaster (I almost ran over one) for cars and for bikes. The bike lane poles in front of Jordan are a disaster—they made one bike lane a two-way so bikes are supposed to ride in both directions within one bike lane. The danger is that cars driving towards Middlefield try to turn left into the Jordan circle and don't expect to see a bike to their left (crossing in front of them) when they are turning in. Moreover, when they leave the Jordan circle, they don't expect to see a bike to their right, trying to cross in front of them. The whole design defies common sense.

The bottom line is that bicyclers have to be really alert out there. Biking in the 70s-early 80s was so much easier with very little traffic in town. Even Embarcadero Road had no traffic lights at Paly/TC because it was unnecessary. Churchill had virtually no traffic either. The City Council members accepted donations from the developers so now they are allow the city to be overdeveloped. We are now a cut-through city for Menlo Park, Redwood City, etc. with drivers cutting through Alma, and from 101 to 280 via Charleston. PAPD claims our population of 60,000 swells to 200,000 during the day. But how many drivers are actually cutting through our city, not even working here? Scary.

The problem at the Y, in my opinion, is that for cars exiting onto Ross, there are really 2 stops in quick succession: First, stop for at the sidewalk, then at least pause and check once you are passing the bulbouts. Works like a double exclamation point. Drivers tend to say "Right!" and ignore one or both actions, particularly if they are in a hurry. That is a problem for pedestrians and bicyclists that will someday cause an injury.

The speed limit in Palo Alto IS 25 MPH. Bumps should be engineered so the driver can go at the limit or take foot off gas and coast over the bump comfortably. Traffic bumps on Ross Road are overdone as they are at other places such
as Lincoln. Drivers should not be required to use their breaks to go over speed bumps.

the Ross Road bumps and Greer Road bumps are ABSURD..............

Posted by jc, a resident of Crescent Park

>> Bumps should be engineered so the driver can go at the limit or take foot off gas and coast over the bump comfortably.

Why?

The purpose of the bumps is to make it awkward and uncomfortable to speed. While drivers "should" stay under the speed limit, they don't, and we use speed bumps instead of "enforcement". I don't particularly like speed bumps, but, apparently, we can't afford enough enforcement to get people to slow down on their own.

Wonderful! Now when I get my driver's license renewed there will be a roundabout question, I'm sure.

The roundabouts are a joke. There is going to be one at Ross and Moreno in front of my house too. Yesterday, some bozo ran right though the one on Meadow and Ross without stopping at 30 mph. What if a bicycle had been there? The things are just dangerous. In most places real roundabouts are larger than a planter in the middle of the street. These are a joke. If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.

It seems inevitable that someone on a bicycle will be injured or worse. The city will be sued. Everything will then have to be removed and restored to the way it was. It's the Palo Alto Way. Get a grant and make sure you spend it without any input from the people who pay your salaries. Force your "eliminate all cars" agenda down our throats.

This road work is creating problems for drivers and bycycles at a large cost to the city. Yes the leaders of Transportation Committee are responsible for creating his problem project, but they are selected by the City Council. The officers of Granite construction are the only persons who benifit. The real problem is the intention to destroy other streets in this city.

Keen grasp of the obvious is spot on.

Please show me the peer reviewed evidenced based research that shows shoving bikes and cars into the same narrow lane is safer.

[Portion removed.]

I oppose the recent road changes - doesn’t seem to make sense. I would sign a petition, but did not sign this one as it is on a website where I recall reading unacceptable TOS on a previous occasion when entertaining signing another change.org petition. Just a mention to the petition organizers. There are likely more of us out here who agree with you than the number who did sign this particular online petition.

@Fact Check, where can I find information detailing the expenses of the Ross Rd project?

Why not have a narrow passage through the bulb-outs that allow bikes to go straight but make the cars go around?
Other than that, the Ross Road measures are sensible and the complaints are just from folks who have a knee-jerk negative reaction to anything new but will get used to it in time and then it will be just fine.

The City staff is violating traffic engineering
principles and practices and common sense in almost everything they do all over the city. The staff is completely out of control. If the City Council does not put an end to this immediately and begin to reverse what has been done,a recall should begin of those Council members who do not
vote to do so. The City is setting itself up
for a lawsuit of criminal negligence as it stands.
The land use policies and traffic engineering
practices in tandem, with each feeding off the other, are a double-edged sword which is completely destroying the City.

275 folks have now signed the petition "Stop the "traffic calming" implementation on Ross Road in Palo Alto"

According to the city staff report each day there are 116 bicyclists trips vs. 2,700 vehicle grips. Their goal is to double the number of bicyclist trips. According to an in-depth study of how traffic features effect bicyclist safety that was conducted in Vancouver and Toronto, it showed that traffic circles increase bicyclists accidents: Web Link

It also showed that lane sharing did not reduce bicycle accidents. However, physically separated lanes did significantly reduce traffic accidents and bicycle lanes also reduce traffic accidents.

The real problem with Ross Road was it was not wide enough for bike lanes, but because cars parked partially on the sidewalk they left plenty of room for bicyclists. If the road had been either narrower (so no bulb-outs were needed) or wider so bike lanes could have been added, this project would have been less of a problem. Also, the YMCA contributes a lot of traffic making this a sub-optimal location as well. The changes will slow traffic but many believe will increase the probability of bikes being hit.

For the commenters who say as long as everyone pays attention, it will be fine, it's important to remember that safety needs be designed for realistic human behavior, not ideal human behavior.

As a footnote, I'm all for bike infrastructure done right but this is a project that left a neighborhood worse off.

The new 'improvements' appearing, and planned, for bike routes in this town are stupid. Sorry, I can't think of a better word. Josh Mello has claimed several times at public meetings that I have attended, and thus far with absolutely no proof that I am aware of, that the existing bike routes are unsafe AND the solution (to the undocumented problem) is the various street furniture things and the holy grail of street 'improvements', the traffic circle. Josh has stated that getting 'T-boned' by a car while on a bike is the great motivator of these improvements. The logic is, if you get T-boned by a car while on a bike, you will probably die. If however, you are hit at an angle, you are more likely to survive. Coincidentally, a traffic circle provided a suitably survivable angle for a car-cyclist collision. And, Josh says the traffic circles will improve auto flow across the bike lanes.

I find this whole rationale crazy. Adding obstacles, forcing autos, bikes and probably pedestrians into a narrow path, and encouraging rather than hindering auto cross traffic makes absolutely NO sense if the goal is to create safe bike routes. If anyone has data to refute that, please chime in. I have argued that enhancing the existing stop signs for auto cross traffic to have an additional sign stating that you are crossing a bike route, cross traffic does not stop (if that is the case), and add a white stop stripe on the pavement with a big 'STOP', would be a better, and almost certainly far less expensive solution. At least, something to try first before proceeding with tearing up streets. I can only assume that all the street furniture is resume padding for Josh and his staff. Look, see how many things we stuck on the streets of this town at a cost of 10's of millions of dollars.

By chance I ended up behind a fire engine responding to a call at the YMCA. With full lights and sirens, the fire truck turned on Ross from Loma Verde.

The Ross road designers should be pleased that they kept traffic speed well below 25, even for emergency services.

The bicycle route "improvements" do seem poorly thought-out and executed. But just as bad is the use of that ugly bright green paint and other excessive markings in residential neighborhoods. The green markings may be useful and appropriate in commercial areas but not in residential neighborhoods.

Does anyone know if there will be the green markings on the Ross Road plan or will they be spared that? How much paint, signs and road marks are in the plans?
'

@Resident: Those staggered green arrows like the ones on Heather Lane that no one pays attention to—that was former PA chief transportation officer, Jaime Rodriguez's idea. "Jaime Rodriguez, Palo Alto's chief transportation officer and the architect of the city's aggressive plan to build a wide network of bike boulevards has resigned after nearly five years at City Hall." He resigned in 2015 Web Link There was also something about a conflict of interest, that he also owned a street painting business, as I recall.

The new proposed Paly schedule has classes starting at 8:30 and 10:00. It may be a bit safer for them to bike at a later time, although 9:00 still seems to be rush hour. . .

I drive my son daily via Ross to Ohlone. I've noticed safer speeds on Ross since the construction was started. I haven't noticed the "chokepoints" referenced. If anything, it's making automobile drivers more responsible to take a look around as opposed to those that I would previously see driving 35mph+.

There are still distracted drivers, but overall I see this as an improvement. Go ahead and flame me now for disagreeing with he majority.

@Richard

Well it looks like the project got half of what the planners wanted, getting us car drivers off Ross Rd. But, when cyclists are avoiding it also, then their brilliant plan falls apart. It reminds me a lot of that restaurant Yogi Berra spoke about.

@Ross Dr Driver

No, I'm not going to flame you or make 'wise ass' comments, but am curious why your son doesn't ride a bike to school. And I am wondering how you drive Ross Rd without noticing 'chokepoints'? The forced blending of distracted drivers and often, careless, goofing off (no hands on the handlebars), and otherwise distracted cyclists, is a bad idea. I don't see how anyone can disagree with that, but that is the situation that has been created.

Green paint has been in increasing use for about 15 years. In the early stages, blue was also tried, but now, blue is recognized for marking parking &etc reserved for the disabled, and green is the new norm (since 2011). Palo Alto did not invent green paint for this purpose. Read all about it here:

Web Link

Presumably, the green paint would generally not be necessary if drivers generally recognized the right of bicyclists to ride to the left when required for safety. But, as we can see, even in this thread, not everyone recognizes that it makes sense for bikes to ride in the shared traffic lane at times.

A) As for Ross, it is still a construction zone. Let the workers finish and try it out then.

B) Some people complain about not being able to see the traffic islands at night. I find that very concerning. If you can't see the traffic islands, you should call Lyft or Uber or Yellow Cab. I mean that seriously.

C) For decades, bicycle safety advocates have recommended that bicycles ride in the main traffic lane when required for safety. (Link posted above.). This is not new, it is legal, and it is safer than riding closely along a row of parked cars. Of course, a segregated bike path is even safer, but, there is no place for such a north-south bike path anywhere through that section of Palo Alto. Bike boulevards are something of a compromise there -- a designated bike boulevard is easy enough for locals to get a few blocks, but, it is tedious or impossible to drive through for long distances.

Before these changes, someone posted (I haven't verified), 2700 trips on Ross through some spot. That must be a lot of cut-through traffic. After these changes, much of that traffic will be on Middlefield or Louis. I don't understand why a local would prefer 2700 vehicle trips per day down their street when they could have a bike boulevard instead.

As a cyclist, I take the center lane in this area. It's clearly the safest
since few exceptions aside, drivers actually are looking fwd at the road.
As a driver, it initially feels odd when a cyclist takes the lane, but it's something that feels quite natural once you've experienced it a few times. Now I intuitively wait for them to do so when I'm driving.

Drivers don't want to hit people, and they are not careening through space without control, smashing anything that might get in front of them.
No, what I have experience is that everyone lines up behind each other and we all mosey in line through it. That said, there will always be angry people on our roads with the only solution being don't slow me down and get out of my way, and that's exactly why they are angry. Those are the "Fringers" though, not the norm.

I predict that once the Bike boulevard is in place and residents enjoy the increase in property values, this chatter will grow quiet. Just as we did on Arastradero, we will adapt. Thanks to CPA for making Palo Alto Bike friendly.

I have been on Ross Rd Midtown since 1994. Know it well since the early
1970s.Even helped get the neighbors to put in Speed Bumps from Oregon Ex to Colorado Ave.
Very easy by the way to get 99% of all the neighbors to sign a petition
as average speed was close to 38 mph via the study by Palo Alto Traffic. Was simply dangerous for our families.
It was the City of Palo Alto that took 2 yrs to allow the
speed bumps in 1996-98.

AS TO the various new changes.
1) SLOW DOWN, I personally do not have any concerns with bikes and other
cars.
2) STOP ALL THE LARGE TRUCKS sneaking down the street to Midtown Shopping Center to drop off their goods at the local stores.
3) MAKE ALL THE BIKE RIDERS, especially the children after school RIDE SINGLE FILE. Incredible especially on Colorado Ave/Cowper. They ride double and triple, It is INSANE. Is like nobody/parents/schools is training their children or letting them know the dangers. They ride in the Car Lanes with ZERO CONCERNS. Hey we rode our bikes to Paly every day 1971-1973 10 speeds, ALWAYS SINGLE FILE....
4) As to neighbors losing a parking space outside their home from the new
red zones. I do share their pain. And wonder what we can/should do to improve on this?
5) My biggest concerns. SPEEDING ON ROSS ROAD!!!!!!!!!! 27-30 always still.
Mothers taking children to Ohlone.
Shoppers to and from mid town using ross as short cut
Neighbors going to work and from work
Amazingly IMO, the most consistant drivers observing the speed limit
since I have watched this event unfold in front of me. Teenagers and
College Students. I salute and thank you.

Putting what one wants (less delay, faster speeds) ahead of what others need (safety) is excessively selfish.

@Gale Johnson,

He's a special needs student.

The "chokepoints" haven't created more traffic or a less safe way for the morning cyclists. I haven't noticed one instance of things being less safe. I drive that route daily. I arrive on Ross via Meadow sometime between 7:50am and 8am.

As I stated before, I have seen less speeding overall, which is safer for everyone. If you are upset that the "chokepoints" are causing bicycles and autos to merge I might suggest that the drivers of the autos are being reckless. Why wouldn't the driver of the automobile just slow down a bit more and let the cyclists pass?

@Ross RdDriver

Thank you for your response and explanation. Now I understand your situation. I accept your observation that less speeding makes it safer. That makes sense.

I am more concerned for others than being personally upset, mainly because I have stopped using Ross Rd except to go to the YMCA. I've found workarounds just as I'm sure others have, or will. I now avoid East Meadow and the roundabout by taking Mayview to get to Middlefield Rd, and I can take Louis Rd to Ames Ave to Ross Rd to get to the YMCA. It just takes some adjustment and retraining.

Thank you Gale Johnson pointing out exactly what I have been thinking. Ross Road is putting extra traffic on Louis, on Ames, on Christine and in Gale's case on Mayview.

I suppose that those who live on Ross Road may possibly be happy that they have less vehicle traffic, but what about those who live on Louis, on Ames, on Christine and Mayview? Some of those east/west streets used to be quiet, safe streets. Now they are getting extra traffic. I suppose they will soon be asking for traffic calming measures to get traffic off their streets.

The ridiculous nature of this project is that the traffic is not disappearing. It is just going elsewhere. Perhaps the first major injury won't occur on Ross, but on one of these other streets mentioned above.

If someone is injured crossing Ames will that casualty be counted as a Ross Road injury or will that be buried in other statistical data which will add to the success of Ross bike boulevard?

And what about all those school children walking Louis to get to Palo Verde or Ohlone. If they get injured by a vehicle that is using Louis to avoid Ross bike boulevard? Will that injury also be ignored when it comes to the success of Ross improvements?

I am sick of this. The traffic is just moving elsewhere. Quiet side streets are now alternative routes for traffic. Is that making Palo Alto safer for residents? Or is that just moving deck chairs on the Titanic?

As a 45 year resident of our interesting city, I have experienced many of the issues mentioned. Yes, there was no traffic light on embarcadero and then someone was hit by a car crossing from Paly. At that time, the city seemed to be reactionary instead of exercising diligence and using common sense. When the traffic light was installed on embarcadero it, and the second one , was installed in a poor location. Why not install it where people were actually crossing or correctly install bridge access between T & C and the high school in the first place.

Now many traffic projects in the name of safety are performed in advance of an accident, but they seem too complex for our city. I hope the city officials take a step back and think about limiting the physical size of improvements .

A traffic measure which facilitates bicycle safety and the smooth flow of traffic should be the goal in this type of endeavor. Installing hazards on a road is a step backwards. We could pay for a traffic officer from PAPD with the budget for some of these measures.

Looking at Middlefield by Menlo Park, the traffic circle at Addison and the bike boulevard, the lack of visibility at Lincoln and Bryant, lack of traffic controls surrounding Addison, the insane center bumps along charleston, and the new features at Ross; I think the only thing that was done well was the set of speed bumps on Lincoln.. well a few of them anyways.

If it’s hazarfous, don’t install it. Keep it simple. Some of the SPA bike control measures are frightening. I’m thankful to the slcrossing guards every day. The thickness of the installation at Jordan (or whatever name we are given) are crazy. So much space is removed for what? It hinders everybody. Driving or walking on Cal ave between Bryant and Middlefield is traumatic enough for a day.

Painting a line with a picture of a bike at an intersection (I can think of a few of these) shows how poor some of the ideas are when put into practice. Most bicyclists ride to the side of the road WHEN the road is wide enough. I have seen people blindly following paint lines to cross from the side of the road to the middle BETWEEN cars going straight. It frightens me to think more of theee measures are happening.

For a thrill try to be the first car traveling towards univesity from SPA in the left turn lane from Middlefield to embarcadero when the light is red. If that doesn’t make you think twice about more changes then I’m scared to be on the road with you.

Thankfully, there are some sidewalks without too many cracks and it is possible to walk in parts of the city. Don’t try to get around in a wheelchair though.

Pllease stop spending time and money putting hazards on road surfaces. Save that money and build bridges or tunnels. Yes, it’s expensive. But it’s going to be necessary and it isn’t an uncertain waste:

I have been hit by a car while doing everything correctly and standing still in this city. I blame the diver not the road.

@Getting Grey, you make some excellent points. It's the city's unwillingness to address and/or admit mistakes that's so frustrating. Fixing the unnecessary Paly light took 8+ years and wasted a huge amount of everyone's time as we sat there waited for it to change with no kids there.

I asked a friend who worked for VTA who put a bus stop 3 car lengths in from a major intersection right after the city made it a single lane. Emergency vehicles are forced into incoming traffic and traffic gets unexpectedly stuck in the intersection -- both terrifying situations that duplicate the 4+ yr-old problems at the other end of Middlefield when the Jordan bike lane went in.

Was it the VTA's fault? Or PA's? Don't they coordinate? He laughed at me and said, "Of course not. It's the problem of big agencies and tunnel vision."

No wonder more than 440 people signed the petition! It's not just about Ross Rd.

[Post removed.]

forcing bicycles and motorists into narrowing areas will create more accidents.

I have already shifted my driving pattern to other streets, ultimately creating more traffic in new neighborhoods.

Simply adding cycling lanes to either sides of the wide street may have created the safety the planners were seeking.

The planners/council members obviously do not live in the neighbors involved and did not test or model the changes before spending $10 million of citizen taxes.

It's now up to 433 folks who have signed the petition to stop traffic calming on Ross Road.

[Post removed.]

I thought bike boulevards were meant to be safe and pleasant for cyclists. Ross Road has half a dozen stop signs and 14 oddly-shaped and badly-marked humps just between Meadow and Oregon. This looks like an attempt to discourage bike use.

The roundabout at Ross and East Meadow is the first real roundabout Palo Alto has built. It's big enough that drivers will have time and space to merge with other drivers, and it's designed to funnel all traffic to single file. I expect that this will work well for car and bicycle traffic once the yield signs are up and the stop signs are removed. The remaining question mark for me is whether pedestrian crosswalks will be moved far enough away from the circle that vehicles yielding to pedestrians don't always block the roundabout.

@Dan G
That is too often the case! CC members thinking and voting for what they think is best for us, the rest of us residents, living in our own precious and special neighborhoods, not their's, when they won't be personally affected by potential bad outcomes.

For those discussing whether about the relative safety of riding in the middle of a street with traffic moving at a speed comparable to a bicycle, I'd recommend looking at a very short video - Web Link - that shows what can happen if you try to stay on a sidewalk while riding a bicycle. It shows one of many ways in which a series of incidents can cascade into an accident or near accident. It is appropriate for a Ross Road discussion - the video is to scale with a street width of 38 feet, a bicycle speed of about 7 mph, and a vehicle speed of around 20 mph before braking at just under 0.5 g.

One reason for providing it is as an experiment to see if such videos would help shorten the discussion by avoiding misunderstandings where people end up arguing because they don't understand what each other is saying.

Web link seems to be a 12 second series of boxes moving and then kids misbehaving on bikes. I hope you aren't suggesting these types of stunts are happening on Ross. If so, I hope that they wear bike helmets.

With regard to the comment by "Resident":

1. The boxes represent cars. I used simple graphics to save effort, plus I can't draw well enough to create a realistic-looking car. The software can use images instead of
simple boxes, but I don't have such images available that I can prove are in the public domain. Even if I did have an image, I'd have to know the width and length of the vehicle shown in it. If anyone with graphics skills would like to provide some free, realistic drawings and the data to go with it. let me know!

2. What was shown was not a "stunt". It shows someone riding on a sidewalk at a leisurely pace and then reacting to a serious of events, in one case suboptimally and in the next, out of desparation. I live a short distance from Louis Rd and if you go out there at about 8 AM, you'll see a large number of children, sometimes accompanied by adults, riding bicycles to school. Some stay on the road and others use the sidewalk. You'll see people doing both almost anywhere in town. The bicyclist in the video was riding at about 7 mph, corresponding to a 9 minute mile for runners. I.e., it shows a slow bicyclist: 10 to 15 mph is more typical with people in good shape going faster.

3. If you want an example of what really should be called a "stunt", one time when I tried to cross Embarcadero at Bryant Street, I waited in the bike slot for the light
to change and just as I started to move, some guy riding a bicycle on the sidewalk at about 20 mph ran the red light and nearly hit me broadside. I managed to avoid an accident by braking very hard - enough that the rear wheel of my bicycle lifted off
the ground - I knew I could pull that off because I was still going too slowly to flip over the handlebars. When I told him he nearly hit me and had run a red light, he responded with a raised middle finger.

Bill, with respect, the live action group of teens on bikes riding on one wheel, no hands and whatever, are what I call stunts. Is this really what you were commenting on? I am very concerned.

@Anon

"You may not be aware, but, for decades, bicycle safety advocates have stated that riding further to the left is safer."

Since when is it safer to impede traffic?

Good article from the Atlantic that refutes the decision from the Palo Alto staff

"In the 1980s, when Northern European countries were building protected bike-lane networks, U.S. cyclists were being taught to bicycle in the roadway. And U.S. engineers were adopting the attitude that cyclists didn’t need infrastructure, just proper training.

The rationale for the protected bicycle lane seems obvious in retrospect: Most people don’t want to be “vehicular cyclists” sprinting at 20 miles per hour and mixing it up with cars and trucks.

Now, more and more cities in the US including New York and SF are building protected bike lanes. Riding in a protected lane offers an opportunity to relax, to trundle along at your preferred pace, enjoy city sights, and Zen out. The research shows that most people want that experience from biking.

This means that to get many more people biking—and therefore improve the environment and public health in American cities—protected bike lanes are a necessity.

(end excerpts from article)

Web Link

Bicycling on the sidewalk is fine as long as the cyclist recognizes that she never has the right of way over a pedestrian or a car, and behaves accordingly. This means not cutting off pedestrians, slowing down to pass them, and stopping at every intersection before crossing the street. It ruins a car driver's whole week when they run over a cyclist who darts out of a path where the driver can't see them and has no reason to expect them.

Posted by Rogue Trader, a resident of Green Acres

>> Now, more and more cities in the US including New York and SF are building protected bike lanes.

So, you must be happy then that Ross Road is now pretty close to that: a bicycle boulevard that most cars will only use for short distances, not for through trips across town.

@Resident

I provided a simple video using stick figures, and showing a slow, timid bicyclist who was riding on a sidewalk when a passenger door for a parked car opened, blocking the sidewalk. The bicyclist then entered the roadway to avoid the door (a better choice would have been to stop), but didn't realize that the driver's door could open unexpectedly too and that the driver might have trouble spotting a bicycle that suddenly entered the road. It shows how accidents sometimes happen when no one is being particularly reckless - you get multiple low probability events occurring in succession. Avoiding such outcomes is the reason expert cyclists behave like responsible and courteous drivers, letting faster traffic pass when it is safe but not when it would pose a risk of an accident. It shows why they stay clear of parked cars and ride in a straight line: accidents are far more likely if you have to swerve unexpectedly. Plus, you don't want to have to make sudden decisions as there may not be time to consider all the options and possible outcomes.

I've no idea where you would see anything resembling a "wheelie" (the term for popping the front wheel off the pavement), or even just riding with no hands on the handlebars, given a video illustrating a bicyclist riding at under 7 mph. Where teens come into it is anyone's guess as they typically ride much faster than that. Frankly, I've got to wonder if your real issue is that what the video shows doesn't fit the argument you'd like to make - that's the usual reason people start throwing in red herrings.

Bill

I looked once again at your video link. My apologies. Your very short video ends (I must have missed that the first time I was watching) and straight away the following video was a group of teenagers joy riding on the streets. On watching this the first time I hadn't worked out that this was not part of your video. It was just one of those untimely videos that YouTube links and follows automatically.

However, it does remind me that although the majority of Palo Alto bike riders do behave as we expect, there are still teenagers who ride bikes very differently to expected usage. As pedestrians, bikers and drivers, we have to use the road in a predictable and expected fashion to remain safe. That is for our own safety as well as other road users.

@Resident

One article I read (I forget which one because I've read so many) about 'calming' measures, stated it very clearly and succinctly..."for it to be safe, it takes ceaseless vigilance", and they were referring to both the car drivers and the cyclists. That is critical to make this Ross Rd project work. I drove on Ross Rd a few times while construction was going on (and before I gave up driving on it), and I saw several things that led me to believe that there will be problems with the project, at least early on, unless people become more vigilant, change their habits, and are successfully retrained on the use of all the features in the design: speed bumps with narrow slots for single file cyclists to pass through, islands in the middle of the streets, bulb-outs (on corners and in the middle of blocks...just for good measure, or for the heck of it, lol!), and roundabouts.

Below are my limited experiences on the 'new' and 'improved?' Ross Rd:

Case #1: I drove behind a couple cyclists riding side-by-side, until they got to a speed bump. They didn't attempt to go in tandem to get through the narrow slot, but rather, one veered off recklessly to go up onto the sidewalk and then make an abrupt maneuver to get back down to the street.

Case #2: Approaching the East Meadow roundabout from the YMCA, I saw cyclists on my left. They looked scared, or at least unsure of what to do...but I made eye contact with them, and with head nods and hand motions we agreed on who should go first. Accident avoidance worked.

Case #3: I approached the East Meadow roundabout while driving on Ross Rd towards the YMCA. I thought I was first to enter it, but a driver on my left was more aggressive, and thought he got there first. I was slow in entering, and thank goodness I stopped, because he was revving it up going around that circle faster than he should have been. He would have hit me if I was so convinced that I was first to enter the roundabout. I did my part...collision avoidance!

But, I'm tired of driving and having to play the major role in accident and collision avoidance scenarios.

Except for the risks and dangers to those still using Ross Rd, the project has been a huge success. From the comments, it sounds like many of us, car drivers, and some cyclists also (although the plan was designed for them) have given up on using Ross Rd. I will never have an accident on that street, as long as I can get from my house to Mayview Ave safely. It's just a couple hundred yards away, but, yes, I do have to negotiate that first island at the southern terminus of the project.

I am still curious, however, about what prompted this project to be initiated, planned for, and implemented in the first place! What parties were involved? Was it a petition by the residents, homeowners, and neighbors, on Ross Rd, demanding for it to be implemented? That seems strange since they are now the ones signing a petition to remove it. Or was it the prevailing thinking of the folks at city hall, to get cars out of town and off our streets, so we would become the cycling/cyclists capital of the world. Move over, The Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany.

I know I was trying to be a little funny there, but I'm serious when I ask if anyone can answer my question about how this all got started.

Gale

I get your points, but I must hasten to add that to your case scenario #3, on roundabouts you must always yield to traffic already in the roundabout. The stop signs are going to be removed, but it matters not who arrived at the roundabout first, traffic on the roundabout already has priority and all entering traffic must yield to traffic, bikes, cars, trucks, I suppose skateboards too, that is already on the roundabout.

They need to get rid of those stop signs soon as it is quite apparent that people, like Gale, are getting confused.

@Resident
Thanks, but I wasn't confused about how roundabouts are supposed to work. I used them in England, but they were big, and out in the country, not on narrow streets, like East Meadow. And the stop sign wasn't a factor.. It will always require drivers or cyclists to scan all the entrance/exit ports and make a quick determination of who got there first. That was the situation I tried to describe.

As others have commented, the greatest effect of these changes is not to reduce vehicle traffic, but to shift it to other roads (and therefore to increase the negative impacts on other people). I've watched the vehicle traffic on Waverley go up as the Bryant Street bike boulevard was changed, and the same thing appears to be happening in the case of the Ross Road bike boulevard.

I appreciate that City Staff is in a difficult position here, since they don't control policy. So long as the City Council encourages increases in both the number of residents and the number of commuters, without requiring equivalent investment in transportation systems that reduce the total number of vehicles, safety and efficiency and environmental impacts are all going to get worse.

The petition to stop tearing up our streets has more than 500 signatures now. The top city council member (Kniss) earned 9,714 votes in the last election. You can sign it here:
Web Link

I think the numbers are in ... tearing up our roads and pouring concrete obstacles that force children into traffic is a BAD IDEA. For those who haven't enjoyed the madness personally, here are some pictures:
Web Link

Those who appear to favor the project don't ride down Ross Road or East Meadow daily ... the gratuitous "things are better" is quite condescending from bike proponents who do not have children involved in the daily battle of school commute.

And I really don't want to hear the condescending "wait until it is done, you rubes will finally understand our master plan for your children's safety". Send YOUR kids through the absurd tortured concrete at the intersection of East Meadow and Ross Road twice daily before you tell me that the changes are beneficial. The city has created a death trap, and the city council is going to hear the explosion when somebody is hurt in this intersection. The petition has 520 signatures with no investment, and we are ANGRY that the city council does not seem to care. The heat is coming.

@George Jacquette, thank you so much for creating that petition and for creating the site described in your second paragraph. They give weight to our individual concerns and make it tougher for the city to dismiss our individual complaints and comments as isolated and hence easily ignored -- as they've been doing for years.

As you say, people ARE angry. Remember years ago when one poster here described his nightmares about trashing the Jordan Bike lane barriers?

Re future petitions, I'd dearly love to see one for FUTURE traffic calming projects and PAST ones like the ones we've dealt with on Middlefield Road for the last 4+ years and that are now being made even worse by the new striping and turn lane eliminations!

We have huge unfunded pension liabilities yet we're spending a fortune on this. Why>

The landscaping is now planted. Trees that are going to block view of the yellow bump sign when it matures and is in full leaf. They look like a tree in the middle of the street as you approach by car.

The landscaping in the Y entrance have already been squashed by tire tracks in at least one spot (although not particularly damaged). However, the kerb on this bulbout has been damaged, with several areas of damage.

The intersection on Loma Verde still has a warning sign for temporary construction and choose another route. Unfortunately, the only alternative route for me to drive from my home to Middlefield avoiding Ross Road would be Oregon or San Antonio. Really?

Posted by Palo Verde Walker, a resident of Palo Verde

>> The landscaping is now planted. Trees that are going to block view of the yellow bump sign when it matures and is in full leaf. They look like a tree in the middle of the street as you approach by car.

I've lived in this town for many decades now. At some point, I will give up driving. When I can't see the pavement, or, the street dividers, perhaps the time will have come.

I can hardly wait until self-driving cars make passengers of all of us. Currently, the US has about 37,000 deaths per year. Self-driving car projects are working towards < 4000 deaths per year eventually. I can hope. In the meantime, Uber and Lyft can help.

I saw someone driving their car day before yesterday, while I was walking. The driver clearly could not see because the windows were too fogged up. Must we all give up walking and bicycling because people drive negligently? Which brings me back to traffic law enforcement. There is speeding -- 29 in a 25 zone -- and then there is being reckless. Every single day I see people driving 40-50 mph in 25 mph zones, and, running stop signs. And, I don't mean at 2 mph. Where is the enforcement?

>> The intersection on Loma Verde still has a warning sign for temporary construction and choose another route. Unfortunately, the only alternative route for me to drive from my home to Middlefield avoiding Ross Road would be Oregon or San Antonio. Really?

Greer, Colorado, and Louis won't work in some combination until the construction is finished?

Just so you guys know, change.org petitions (or any internet-based survey) = zero results. I signed it myself, but a real paper petition is where you're going to get the attention of any government, federal, state or local.

I see some folks are still using the "still under construction" talking point - there's no construction left between Colorado and the Y. It's a mess.

Drove through it yesterday 3 times, no issues.
Just drove through about 20 mins ago, no issues.
I truly think people have lost the ability to control their cars.
Commute drivers are the issue, and seems to me only during a set number of hours each week day.

For those confused about roundabouts, the rule is that the vehicles or bicycles in the roundabout have the right of way over those entering it. It doesn't matter who gets there first. Once in it, the car or bicycle ahead has the right of way over cars or bicycles that are behind. It's important for everyone to understand these rules: otherwise traffic will back up as drivers go through an "Alphonse and Gaston" routine: "After you, Alphonse. No, after you, Gaston."

For the design to work safely with yield signs at the entry points, you need some obstructions to force drivers to follow a curved path so that they have to enter the roundabout at a low speed. Those obstructions have to be there before the yield signs can be installed.

If you want to see how a completed roundabout works, there are several on Campus Drive at Stanford. If you take Galvez (the continuation of Embarcadero Road) to Campus Drive, you will reach one roundabout. A left turn onto Campus Drive will lead you to two more roundabouts. There are lots of vehicles and bicycles going through these, particularly late in the afternoon, and people seem to be able to handle it without any problems.

Anyone arguing against the installation of a roundabout on Ross Road at East Meadow should explain why you would see problems on Ross Road but not Campus Drive.

I am not confused about how roundabouts work. Even so, the roundabouts on campus make me nervous when I must navigate one on my bicycle b/c they funnel bicyclists into the same traffic stream as cars. Right of way somehow seems unimportant when it is me + my little bike v any size vehicle. Trucks are the worst. My solution is to find alternate routes whenever possible.

What's perplexing about this is that the very people who seem intent on driving us out of our cars are the ones making bicycling more perilous. In what universe does that make a whit of sense?

[Post removed.]

@Bill Zaumen. the Stanford roundabouts are completely different in their design and implementation, other than being roundabouts. I have no problem traversing them. No one here is confused about how roundabouts work. Many of us have used -real- roundabouts in other countries. The Ross/Charleston obstructions are simply that -obstructions- that are not safe and need to be removed.

@Me 2, Alas, you are probably correct about on-line petitions but I, for one, am going to use this project, and other CC abrogations of duty, like the anti-idling ordinance, to vote the responsible parties out of office.

@ Huh boi

Yesterday was a Sunday. Try it again tomorrow at 8am or 3pm. The commute times are when our children are attempting to safely bike to and from school while everyone else is driving to school or work or to Zumba at the Y.

It really seems like all the defenders of this project don't live in the neighborhood or don't have their own children biking on Ross Road.

@Residents were ignored
You beat me to it...asking the same question. Yeah, we seem to hear a lot of opinions from people on the other side of town...the northerners...those on the other side of Oregon Expressway who only come down and bike on our streets on weekends, for pleasure rides, with very little commuter traffic and student traffic to contend with! And to compare Stanford's real roundabouts with our little 'circle' roundabouts doesn't wash. I, even though I said I wouldn't do it again, drove on East Meadow and used the 'circle' today. I, also, had no problem at 3:35 PM. Kids were long gone from bike rides, home from school, and it was too early for commuters to be a problem. I saw no one in the circle...had it to myself...so of course I loved it....and I didn't have to stop.

@Rick: I presume when you wrote "Ross/Charleston" you meant "Ross/East Meadow" because Ross Road terminates at Louis Road, not Charleston. The roundabout design can be found at Web Link and appears to have the usual features: specifically deflection of traffic at the entrance points to force drivers to slow down (constrictions help as well). Visually at least it resembles some roundabouts on the Stanford campus, although some at Stanford have two lanes merging into a single lane before reaching the roundabout. Your claim that "no one here is confused about how roundabouts work" is simply not true: one person seemed to think that the person who arrives first has the right of way. The rule is actually that a person in the roundabout has the right of way over a person entering it. I.e., the entry points work like 'T' intersections. Also, calling the design the "Ross/Charleston obstructions" is an example of the use of loaded language.

The last I heard, the city is going to change the stop signs to yield signs after all the other features are complete. That's for a good reason: without the curb extensions, drivers on East Meadow would be able to go through the intersection at whatever speed they wanted. Left to on their own, some drivers go very fast on East Meadow. One case from personal experience: many years ago, on a Sunday morning, after returning to the U.S. after an international flight with the usual jet lag, I drove down East Meadow to go to a restaurant. There was basically no traffic, except for one other driver who decided that my jet-lagged 25 mph was too slow for him. He passed me at a good 50 mph on my right: he used a combination of the bike lane and parking area. There was no traffic in the other direction, but he couldn't be bothered with passing on my left like faster drivers would typically do.

@Annette

Thanks for commenting on your campus roundabout experience. If the intent of this project was a punitive measure to wean us car owners off driving our cars and force us to bike or use transit instead, then it isn't going to work. The same number of cars will flow through our neighborhoods, just flowing over different spillways around the Ross Rd dam. I was a EE major but I loved the CE class I took on Fluid Dynamics.

Palo Alto Online threads tend to be hyperbolic, very loose on facts, and bullying. This thread is a great example.

PA Online, please eliminate the nasty commentary. I appreciate your researched, edited articles. Please eliminate the soapbox for nastiness.

Posted by Totally Cyberbullied., a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis

>>Palo Alto Online threads tend to be hyperbolic, very loose on facts, and bullying. This thread is a great example.

>>PA Online, please eliminate the nasty commentary. I appreciate your researched, edited articles. Please eliminate the soapbox for nastiness.

If you see posts that are bullying, please report them using the "Report Objectionable Content". Likewise for anything obviously full of fake news. As for hyperbolic, well, this is a bulletin board. People come as they are.

@Bill Zaumen: Yes. sorry, Ross not Charleston. If you think the Stanford and Ross roundabouts are at all similar I'm not sure what to say. If we had a Stanford style roundabout at Ross I would have no complaints whatsoever. However there isn't nearly enough room for that. Any confusion about roundabout etiquette will go away if and when the stop signs are removed. I note that in Mountain View the roundabouts installed on Farley are still a fours way stop a decade after -that- foolishness was installed.

I do suggest that if you have someone impatient behind you that the correct course of action is to pull over and let them by. They may be driving recklessly but it is better to let them work it out with the police somewhere else than risk them involving you in their upcoming accident.

And yes, I'm using loaded language because the road furniture is NOT SAFE and I do not want it in my neighborhood. Neither do the 530+ people who signed the petition to stop the project.

Rick, I have family members that have lived in the Rex Manor section of Mtn Vw for 25 years. Farley works great! Please don't go telling other folks about their neighborhoods if you don't want them talking about yours.

@Rick: The roundabouts are similar because they follow the same design principles: yield on entry (which will happen once the construction is complete), deflection on entry (to keep speeds low), and a radius of curvature small enough to keep speeds low when in the roundabout. Furthermore, I rode a bicycle through that roundabout twice this evening. The first time, around 6 PM, two cars arrived at the same time. The one to my left arrived from the opposite direction a bit before I did, but there was ample time for me to safely enter the roundabout. The car to my right waited until I went through. Nobody seems to have any problems negotiating it (otherwise they would have stopped or crawled through it at under 10 mph). The second time I arrived just before another person on a bicycle. There were no conflicts - everyone handled it just fine. Frankly, my personal experience with this intersection does not agree with what you are claiming.

Your driving suggestion, "if you have someone impatient behind you that the correct course of action is to pull over and let them by," is simply wrong for the case I described: I was driving at the speed limit when some idiot going 50 mph in a 25 mph zone came up from behind me and passed me on my right side by illegally using the bike lane. If I had pulled to the right when I saw him, as you seem to suggest, I'd have been in an accident: he assumed I would be going in a straight line. Furthermore, this occurred on East Meadow between Louis Road and Ross Road, after I had turned onto East Meadow from Louis Road. Given the short distance, how long do you think it would take a person driving at 50 mph to come up to a person driving at 25 mph? The only way to detect such an event before it occurred would be to look continually in the rear view mirror instead of checking it every so often. Did it occur to you that, when driving a motor vehicle, you kind of have a responsibility to actually look where you are going?
Also, did it occur to you that drivers who think they are on a slalom course expect the "poles" (other drivers in this analogy) to not move sideways?

Finally, on my return trip this evening, I went through some of the constrictions on Ross Road at the same time as car going in the opposite direction. It worked just fine. Neither of us had to stop or move sideways. I was in one of the slots to expedite bicycle traffic as well.

@ Bill Zaumen: the Stanford roundabouts allow passage of traffic at not much slower than the posted speed limit. The Ross roundabout is designed as a bottleneck with barely enough room for cars to enter and requires drivers to make acute turns. They are nothing alike in function and your statement that they are similar in form is disingenuous. 500+ residents want the Ross “improvements” stopped and removed. Palo Alto has $50 million in deferred maintenance and we shouldn’t be spending money on dangerous “street furniture” that residents explicitly do now want.

@Old Steve: I lived on Hacket for 14 years. I am qualified to comment on the stupidity of Mountain View “roundabouts” that are also four way stops.

I drive my kid to school everyday on Ross to Ohlone and this bike blvd construction was the worst idea ever. the roundabout at meadow and ross is ridiculously narrow. the flower beds on the edge of the road force bike into the car lane is another stupid idea. and the time it took to finish this tiny projects. It is almost been going on for more than 9 months! please stop wasting our money. the project manger who is supervising this should be fired.

and @Bill Zaumen, not sure what your anecdote about the reckless driver is supposed to demonstrate. I assumed that your "my jet-lagged 25 mph" was a tacit admission that you were obstructing traffic (while going the speed limit). If this guy/gal blew by you at 50mph and you didn't even see them coming up behind you that is obviously different.

@Rick, We can agree to disagree on Farley then. I drive it at least 3 times a week, and I love it. As to removing the new Ross construction because 500+ sign an online petition: You do realize that is throwing good money after bad, since somebody will get paid to remove all the stuff. The time to stop projects is before they start, but that requires showing up in person at City Council meetings and such. Not just at project community meetings either, but when Council votes are taken to approve bidding documents.

“that requires showing up in person at City Council meetings and such.“

This is the problem. Often, I cannot attend a Monday meeting with the hope that a certain topic will be addressed by a certain time, and the near certainty that the council members will ignore my comments. They have agendas, but they also have “agendas.”

What we need is an automated and orchestrated leash on the staff that prevents them from this kind of creative exploration against local desires.

I agree that a small amount of attention and resources should be aimed at creative exploration, but it should have strong local support before anything is actualized.

And, there is plenty of nuts and bolts city activity that should be done well but is not being done well.

@Old Steve, OK, I'm curious. What do you love about the Farley "roundabouts"? What benefit do the center obstructions add beyond the already existing four way stops? Farley, in my experience, was never a racetrack since Rengstorff & Shoreline are much better through routes.

And with Ross, it is not throwing good money after bad to remove a threat to the health and welfare of the residents. Regardless of who screwed up during the planning and approval process it is time to make it right, even if that costs additional money.

@it's too late, right you are. Not everyone can waste 5 hours sitting at CC council meetings. That's why petitions like this are so important because it's been way too easy for CC and staff to dismiss and ignore our comments and complaints whether by phone, email or snail mail.

For years staff's outreach efforts for projects like this have been atrocious and we're all suffering while wasting huge amounts of money on poorly designed and implemented projects.

Posted by Rick, a resident of Adobe-Meadow

>> and @Bill Zaumen, not sure what your anecdote about the reckless driver is supposed to demonstrate. I assumed that your "my jet-lagged 25 mph" was a tacit admission that you were obstructing traffic (while going the speed limit). If this guy/gal blew by you at 50mph and you didn't even see them coming up behind you that is obviously different.

Do you think that driving 25 mph on Meadow is "obstructing traffic"? Wannabe NASCAR drivers are not needed on streets with bicycles, bicycle lanes, pedestrians, elementary and middle schools, churches, library and park access, & etc.

What I find most odd about the complaints is when people refer to street dividers as "road furniture" which they are in danger of hitting. I have no trouble seeing this "road furniture" and I have to wonder what else people are having trouble seeing.

Since the topic of the Farley roundabout in Mountain View has come up I will say that I have used this and the first time I came across it I was confused. As a very experienced roundabout user I found this an extremely well designed roundabout in a good location apart from having stop signs. I had never come across a roundabout with stop signs before and my instincts on roundabouts making me pay attention to traffic already on the roundabout made me see the stop signs as unnecessary. Yes sometimes in Europe roundabouts have traffic lights as well, but these are only on big multi lane roundabouts at major intersections, not in residential areas. The good design of the Farley roundabout is that it is not excessive in size and the sidewalks do not bump out to hinder progress of traffic.

@Anon, Road Furniture/Street Furniture is a term of art, not a derogatory comment.

Obstructing traffic is what it is called when one vehicle impedes another regardless of the posted speed limit. That's why law enforcement suggests moving out of the way of aggressive drivers and letting the police deal with enforcement. If someone is irritated enough/enraged such that they pass you on the right at a reported 50mpg on a 25mph residential street I, personally, would not want to engage with them. YMMV. And, yes, I would be the first to applaud the police pulling the drivers license of that reckless driver.

Ross Road works for me.

@Rick:

First, stating that the Ross Road roundabout and Stanford roundabouts are similar is not "disingenuous" given that I explicitly stated what the similarities are. As to your comment that drivers have to go through it slowly, so what? If it was left as it was, you'd have a four-way stop. What do you think the legal speed at a stop sign is? In fact, when there are multiple cars and/or bicycles at this roundabout, people will get through the intersection faster than if it was a four-way stop as a roundabout tends to reduce the amount of queueing (there's less time spent figuring out who should go first).

Regarding the passing incident, I was indicating why the stop signs are not being taken out until the roundabout is complete. If there is a straight path through it, some character would go through it as fast as possible, assuming there were yield signs. With a few individuals going at very high speed (I cited one case of 50 mph) and who would probably drive through a yield sign at that speed, a collision would not be pretty. Once the cars scattered off each other, you'd have a good chance of one stopping half way into a a bedroom of an adjacent house.

I mentioned that I was jet lag merely as an indication that I was being extra cautious. Also, when I saw the driver in my rear view mirror, he was already merging into the bike lane and was a couple of hundred feet behind me. Following your suggestion would have caused an accident. Going at the speed limit, BTW, is not "blocking traffic" when you are in the right-most lane you can legally use, unless 5 or more cars are queued up behind you and passing is not possible and there is a place for you to pull over. Passing in the case I described was possible. If the driver I described wanted to pass, he could have at least done it legally by passing to my left: there was no oncoming traffic. There usually isn't much traffic on a Sunday morning.

Quite frankly, your idea that people should get off the road for the benefit of some scofflaw is, to say the least, completely out of line.

@Rick and @Anon:

Rick was jumping to conclusions. In fact the reckless driver in question did not accelerate to 50 mph to pass. Rather, he was driving at 50 mph and simply chose
the bike lane rather than using the other traffic lane, which did not have any
traffic in it, to pass. He didn't change speed. There was no indication that he
was angry, at least not at me. He was, however, reckless. Fortunately a kid did not shoot out of a driveway into that bike lane under the assumption that cars don't go there.

I think I'm about done with this. 599 people have now signed the petition to stop this dangerous and pointless project.

I invite anyone who has been led to believe that the Stanford and Ross intersections are at all similar to go look for themselves. They were built with different goals in mind and have vastly different impacts on traffic flow.

Further, on my walk this very morning I watched a car attempting to navigate the Ross/Meadow obstruction slam on it's brakes to avoid hitting a school-bound bicyclist. The bicyclist was at fault, but the central obstruction was what put the two in contention.

Law enforcement universally recommends yielding the road to people driving erratically or dangerously.

Imperfect school-bound bicyclists noted above are KIDS - who may be rushing to school to lock up their bike among the 400 other bikes in the bike cage, stop at their locker, and be in class by 8:15 to avoid a tardy - maybe even while thinking about a late assignment or a school crush.

Imperfect Drivers are ADULTS with a fully formed pre-frontal cortex (we hope) who have places to go, too.

Why are they being forced together at 8am with the expectation of perfect behavior?

Residents did attend a couple of early meetings and were ignored or outgunned by organized bicycle coalition folks. Flyers that were provided to residents were mostly text and did not illustrate the project as it is being implemented.

Stop blaming residents who are fearful of the drivers who do exhibit bad driver behavior crushing one of our children or one of their friends. Imagine the morning traffic once that happens and all these pesky bicyclists crowding out drivers on the Bike Boulevard are being driven to school.

STOP SPEEDING......
Especially Mom's taking kids to school in SUVs
Especially YMCA members shortcutting to go to gym
STOP RIDING BIKES 2 abreast. DO IT SINGLE FILE.
Especially on Colorado between Cowper and Middlefield.
What is going on with kids today. Is completely wacko....
Been biking around palo alto since 1970. Today,
cars to many, too fast, and never rode two abreast in the street
even in high school!!
STOP SPEEDING. 90% of your concerns will be solved. Go 20-24mph.
Oh and stop large trucks short cutting Ross Rd to midtown.
III

Posted by residents were ignored, a resident of Palo Verde

>> Why are they being forced together at 8am with the expectation of perfect behavior?

I would prefer a dedicated network of bicycle paths so that cars and bikes are never in the same locations. But, Euclidean Geometry being what it is -- we are not going to have perfect separation of cars and bikes. Geometry is why cars and bikes are being forced together.

I, too, would also prefer major, dedicated bike routes allowing separation down to the small residential street level. Anybody want to volunteer to have their house torn down to create such a route? Didn't think so. Palo Alto is already built up. We have to share the streets with ourselves, noting also that many among us who ride bikes, and walk, also drive.

When I am a car driver, one of my goals is to avoid hitting bikes and pedestrians. Even when the bikes and pedestrians don't have "perfect behavior". Another goal that I have is get between my source address and my destination address reasonably quickly. One goal that I -don't- have is to "drive fast". The place to "drive fast" is the freeway, not residential streets. At times, I find myself driving near schools, surrounded basically by bicycles on all sides. Then I have to drive extra carefully. Share the road.

If you think I am pontificating -- you haven't adjusted your thinking to the new reality that you as a driver -must- be more attentive than you would like. You have to be able to adjust to different conditions on residential streets, and, freeways. As a driver, you can't be on mental autopilot all the time. Cars don't own residential streets like they own freeways. Get over it.

@ Anon

with respect to driving behavior, you are preaching to the choir. The drivers we are most concerned about are not posting on or reading this thread. People who are still commenting here are doing it because they are conscientious community members who care - regardless of their position on Ross Road.

The system has to work for the UPS drivers, Y members, SUV-driving parents, landscape crew, the Roto-Rooter van, c construction and remodeling crews, etc. Most of the issue with this project is with those drivers in mind. They are not going away.

Let's see. Talking about dedicated bike lanes. Of course we can't magically find space for that to happen but we can think about what we are doing when allowing developments to occur.

Here's one example. Before the new Mitchell Library was built there was a fairly safe method of getting to JLS, Fairmeadow and Hoover through Mitchell Park. The design of the old library parking lot, the layout of the buildings, etc. was a great deal safer than the present parking lot at the new library. Now the kids on bikes have to ride through a busy lot with cars backing out into two way traffic. Why was the parking lot designed with bikes in mind. for two way traffic where kids were known to use the parking lot as a safe route to school. Surely the parking lot would have been better designed with a dedicated and separated bike path, with a one way design so that cars backing out only had to check with approaching traffic in one direction. The layout now is not so safe for bikes.

If we can't even get new developments and parking lots designed with bike safety in mind then wasting money on something like Ross Road will not take up the slack.

The petition now has 620 signatures. Does the fact that 620 residents see the intersection as dangerous increase Palo Alto's liability when someone is eventually injured or killed there? Any lawyers care to hypothesize?

Who, or what groups at city hall will be responsible for acting on the petition, or at least reviewing and responding to it? I have a hunch very little will be done. I think the thinking will be 'Let's just wait and see. The natives are restless now, but once they use Ross Rd with the changes, they'll adjust to them and the furor will die down'. Good luck to those CC candidates when they campaign in that neighborhood. There are two people on our current CC who can attest to the fact that 620 votes is very critical. A little over 100 votes was critical 4 years ago. The bike lobby might have felt like winners when the project was approved, but it might not turn out that way.

Resident above is right about the horrible redesign of the Mitchell Library lot. Does staff ever simulate their designs before embarking on their costly implementations?

@Gale Johnson, the city announced on Next Door that they'll have meetings about plans to launch a similar design on Arastradero / Charleston. People are already upset that the city plans to "upgrade" the Bryant bike lane so it more closely resembles the Ross Road version.

Is the city listening at all and when/if will they respond to the Ross Road concerns?

[Portion removed.]

I live on Ross.
My whole family has biked on Ross for years. My three kids have used Ross and Meadow to get to school via bike for years. None of us thought that biking on Ross was difficult in the past. All of us hate it now. I drove a carpool of JLS kids on a field trip this week and they were all talking together about how awkward, confusing, and scary their route to school through our neighborhood is now. They were asking me as an adult to explain this project to them because they think it has made biking harder. (And much of the actual construction has ended so this is not just "Well, construction is never pleasant.")

While I enjoy biking, I am not a fast cyclist (and neither are most children). "Old" Ross Rd was wide enough and uncluttered enough that cars and bikes could both use it easily. There were plenty of stretches along it where a car driver could SAFELY pass a bicyclist without either being in danger, during non-school-commute times. Now that there are so many obstructions in the road, the cars that park along it are much more crowded and we have lost the wide spaces that used to make biking on Ross easy.

I will also state for those who are opinionated about the project without living near it - Ross like many of our roads is a very different experience M-F 8am or 3pm-ish than it is at any other time. If you are biking or driving along it at 11 in the morning when everyone else is at school or work, it is very quiet. Still even then, a slow cyclist like me would prefer that a car driver is able to gently go around than be stuck behind me biking at 7 miles an hour.

Also, I am very irritated by the proponents of this massive unneeded project that say that the simple and economical use of speed bumps was not an option because "people don't like speed bumps and neighbors complain about the noise". This project obviously does employ speed bumps along with volumes of concrete. Why could just the speed bumps be used without all the extras? Because then it could't be labeled as "a Bike Boulevard" and added to a glossy map? It could still be easily biked on without the glamour designation.

Old Ross Road was NOT broken. It didn't need this level of horrendous "improvement". A few speed bumps to moderate the speed of drivers would have sufficed. Now non-professional bikers are terrified of this road. The spandex crowd may love it, but they are not the majority.

AND, we still don't have a bike bridge crossing 101 in the south of town. If the goal of this project is to increase bike commuting, why wasn't that project which would benefit so many more people given priority and funding? This project may DECREASE the number of regular consistent bike commuters = school children as they are driven to school rather than biking through a confusing, difficult path.

If new traffic conditions require extensive "education" to get people to comply with them correctly, how can they possibly be an effective idea? There is NO WAY to educate the entire public. (I'm not happy to say that. It's just true. Have you looked at a public recycling bin and seen how much inappropriate garbage is in it? How long have we been trying that education project?)

Thank you, George, for starting the petition. We need you.

Wow! And thanks to 'Old Ross Rd WORKED'

And it did! Where is all the evidence that it was unsafe and that such a drastic project had to be implemented for 'calming"? There is none! The bike lobby won round #1. Well said in your post, and brilliantly written, and I wish you would have written it and spoken up sooner. I had another experience today coming back on East Meadow. I know, I've broken my promise not to use East Meadow anymore, in addition to Ross Rd. I'm holding to that Ross Rd promise, however. Right after the Middlefield Rd light changed to green, there was some street project going on ahead that forced kids on bikes to merge with us cars into one lane to get around that project. Now that was a setup for bad things to happen...and it seemed like some of those kids were racing to beat me there. Fortunately, everybody survived! It takes a combination of smart and alert drivers and cyclists to make this project work. Sometimes we have both, but many times we have neither. Plus, we have licensed drivers (licensed years ago and able to pass the road test then) that shouldn't be driving anymore. That written test, and all the waiting in lines at DMV's is a joke.

I hope all of our city hall staff and CC members read your post. It gives such clarity to the real problem with the project and includes your own personal experiences. Plus, you added your own good biking habits. You are a very sane and responsible biker, and a survivor. I applaud you.

@Gale, Middlefield wasn't "broken" either before the Middlefield/Jordan bike lane project 4+ years ago. As Resident said re Mitchell Park, "Now the kids on bikes have to ride through a busy lot with cars backing out into two way traffic," this is still happening on Middlefield except you;ve got 2 schools, parental traffic and 4-way traffic on Oregon.

Residents and Jordan parents and school groups all objected to no avail. And now we've been stuck with the new restriping etc. near Embarcadero/ Walter Hays.

As with Ross, extensive "education" was needed before Jordan would even let the kids use it. Cars and bikes are still messing up, driving down the bike lane, cars forced to back up to let larger vehicles turn from onto Middlefield because there's no clearance. Search the PA Online archives for details.

Saw a bus trying to navigate the E Meadow / Ross circle. Hilarious.

@Rick: First, both the Stanford roundabouts and the Ross Road roundabouts were actually designed with the same goals in mind: to improve the flow of traffic at those intersections and to improve safety for bicyclists. The reality is that both have a fair number of inexperienced bicyclists who regularly run stop signs, but generally try to avoid collisions with vehicles. In both locations, the roundabouts work better in that respect. They really are similar in design: a radius of curvature in the circle that encourages safe speeds and a deflection on entering the roundabout to slow drivers who are approaching it. The ones on Ross Rd are smaller, but that is merely because of the size of the streets - Ross Road is far narrower than the streets intersecting Campus Drive at its roundabouts. The ones on Ross Road could have been made as large as the one's at Stanford, but doing that would require buying some of the adjacent properties, and the owners would almost certainly complain if forced to sell.

Your claims about some incident this morning need more justification: it is not clear how the circle at the center of this roundabout would cause a conflict between two road users.

You claim about law enforcement is not applicable to the case being discussed. It applies to things like tailgaters who honk and flash their lights because they can't get by otherwise. If some clown thinks the road is a slalom course, and that the cars on it are the poles along the course, you don't want to get off the road because you don't know which way this character will swerve. If you don't believe it, try skiing a slalom course and then see how you do if they start moving the poles sideways while you are in the middle of it.

I imagine if the Y members and staff were interviewed and told about the petition, there would be a lot more signatures too!

I am accustomed to driving around roundabouts every day, on Lytton, on Bryant, etc. I like them, they feel safe, they slow you down, and you usually don't have to stop.
But the one on Ross Road looks bigger and more intrusive, more aggressive.
How does the size compare? Is it bigger or is it my perception?

Let's hear from the kids! They are the heaviest users during the week, going to and coming home from school. Adults are the ones who make decisions to implement things like the RR project, but now that it's in place, the reality of it is felt by many, but especially kids on bikes. There is anecdotal evidence in some of the 'comments' that kids are in fear when they ride their bikes through 'pinch points' and around 'the circle'. City staff and CC should host meetings, at the schools, to get direct feedback from students.

Please read Web Link where the City Spokesperson appears to dismiss the Ross Rd. petition BECAUSE Mr. Mello helped to write the bike lane standards instead of even acknowledging the petitioners' efforts and promising a review of the standards.

I think a city-wide petition is needed because it's too easy for the city to play divide and conquer and ignore us on a neighborhood basis,.

@Gail
I did attend early meetings about this project. And I said that I saw no reason for extensive change on Ross Road. But that was not a valued point of view.

I am sorry that I didn't continue to "fight the good fight" on this as it made it's way to approval.
Given the city's track record on getting things accomplished - south PA 101 bike bridge? - I thought the odds of them actually making progress on this silly project were low.

Boy! am I sorry now. And I wish the whole neighborhood had been alerted better sooner.

FOLKS - in addition to signing the petition, please send your own comments directly to the city council and the transportation committee.

Sunday afternoon.

There are now a couple of construction cones in the middle of Ross/Christine intersection. Were these put there by the city or local residents?

There's some discussion on Next Door about the fact Ross and the other traffic reduction projects were ordered by the City Council and that Mr. Mello & company were just following the CC's orders.

It would be nice to know more about how all these projects came about.

Biking Ross Road both ways and trying out the traffic circle from all four approaches on a Sunday, when I could get a traffic-free look at the project design, I felt sympathy for drivers and bicyclists uneasy with the changes but positive about the benefits we'll see when construction is complete and users become familiar with the new traffic flow.

I took the Town Square suggestion to try Ross Road at 8 am on a school day last Monday. I was surprised by the light traffic I experienced on that particular morning. I'll keep sampling from time to time to see if it was an unusually low traffic day.

Clearly there's a lot of bicyclist and driver training that will have to take place as users experience the completed project, but the design makes sense to me.

Regarding traffic circles, I haven't noticed any mention of the traffic circle at the intersection of Park Boulevard and Stanford Avenue. Does that mean it's working ok?

"Regarding traffic circles, I haven't noticed any mention of the traffic circle at the intersection of Park Boulevard and Stanford Avenue. Does that mean it's working ok?"

Neither that traffic circle nor your reading are working OK. It has been the subject of so many complaints over the decades that the city thinks its purpose is to occasion complaints and deems it a huge success. Most people short circuit it as best they can. Noobs get the worst of it.

@Roger Overnaut

From your comment, I gather that complaining about traffic circles is a longstanding tradition in PA. I didn't know that. Thanks for the feedback. Could you explain what a Noob is, though, why does that traffic circle hurt them in particular? Much obliged.

Since the horse wants to be beaten yet again: if anyone has been led to believe that there are similarities between the Stanford and Ross roundabouts - simply go look for yourself. This isn’t an internet dress color debate. It is black and white. Ross is dangerous. 650+ people are concerned and the City is shining us on.

[Post removed.]

I remember getting vast amounts of signatures on petitions for stuff we wanted in grade school: No homework, candy vending machines, shorter school days...I'm sure the school took those petitions just as seriously as the council members are taking these "One for everything in life" online petitions.

The roundabout is not the only issue.

I witnessed an almost accident at the intersection of Ross and Loma Verde. It is also very apparent if you investigate the planter obstacles outside the Y that many cars have hit the kerb, causing damage, and there are tire marks in the dirt of these planters even after the landscaping has been done.

The roundabout is only part of the problem. It still has construction bits and pieces as well as signs and stop signs. The bulbouts on Ross, the islands on Loma Verde and Colorado all appear finished with the landscaping done. Y members have presumably been using the new design for several weeks as well as local residents.

I am more concerned about out of town traffic and commercial style vehicles such as various trucks and Uber drivers, getting confused. I doubt very much that navigation maps will avoid Ross since it is still a through street. From my knowledge of such things, unless there is actually a barricade these maps will still use Ross. Perhaps someone with more knowledge may know the answer to this, but I doubt if out of town traffic will stop using Ross.

I am also very concerned about what is happening to the other streets that is getting all the extra traffic. I can see that some Ross residents might be pleased to have less traffic, but what about the residents on other streets who were not expecting increased traffic by drivers avoiding Ross. Louis, Ames, Christine and other cut through streets must be finding it more difficult to back out their driveways and more traffic on Louis can't be good for the two schools.

Has anybody researched these streets?

@resident: I can tell you that Gailen has become my go-to route to getting to the store. Sorry Gailen residents, complain to the CC for making Ross and Charleston impassible.

@Bill Zaumen,

“like tailgaters who honk and flash their lights because they can't get by otherwise. If some clown thinks the road is a slalom course, and that the cars on it are the poles along the course, you don't want to get off the road because you don't know which way this character will swerve. If you don't believe it, try skiing a slalom course and then see how you do if they start moving the poles sideways while you are in the middle of it.”

I understand that you were jet lagged. If you lose situational awareness, put on your emergency flashers and graduallly slow to a stop. The public road is not a ski slope. If an idiot wants to hit you, they are going to do that, otherwise there is usually something you can do to remove yourself from the situation without making it worse.

“Clearly there's a lot of bicyclist and driver training that will have to take place as users experience the completed project“

This is from a supporter of the project.

Damage done by first timers driving in a residential neighborhood with kids - and the usual unpredictable distractions - is not mitigated by lack of required training.

Drivers should not require special training in order to drive safely on public roads.

What perspective allows as reasonable that “after experience and training on this particular intersection it should be fine?”

Is it your contention that drivers should approach every intersection (after all, an intersection might have changed since the last time used) with the thought that to drive safely through it, they need experience and training on it?

Posted by Telling comment, a resident of Greenmeadow

>> Drivers should not require special training in order to drive safely on public roads.

If your comment is regarding roundabouts/traffic circles yet again, then, yes, drivers unfamiliar with them will have to learn. Most of us are self-taught and don't need special training. Traffic circles, familiar in other locations, get a lot of negativity in California for some reason. I've traversed a number in some subdivisions over near the delta -- Brentwood? Mountain House? I forget, but, some developers like them. You are going to see them in more locations as time goes on, so, yes, please learn how to use them:

Web Link

The State of California says:

Web Link

I do wish people would cease writing as if all roundabouts were identical. WE are petitioning to have one specific roundabout removed because it is poorly designed and dangerous. Working roundabouts exist, just not this one and possibly any additional ones created by the same designer.

I took another look at the Ross obstical just now. It does have “mountable curbs” and it looks like people have already been mounting them.

"From your comment, I gather that complaining about traffic circles is a longstanding tradition in PA."

New here, I gather. Not traffic circles per se, poorly planned/executed infrastructure in general.

"Could you explain what a Noob is, though, why does that traffic circle hurt them in particular?"

In coder geekspeek, a noob is a newbie, a novice to the current context, like yourself in the Palo Alto culture. Traffic circle noobs attempt negotiating traffic circles by following the signs, rather than cutting across in the manner of experienced traffic circle navigators.

Amusingly enough, I happened to notice on Google Earth that the Robert E. Lee statue on Monument Avenue in Richmond, VA is in the center of a roundabout built in or before 1890. Coordinates 37°33′30″N 77°28′04″W .

I think the big problem is that we really don't have "roundabouts" I've lived with them in MA and they were all hundreds of feet in diameter. They let cars smoothly merge into the circle, transition to the point of departure.

Just google roundabouts and see what you get.

Roudabouts are NOT dropping a circle of blocks into an existing intersection and claiming "problem solved"

Now, if you want to remove 12 homes ( home on each corner and the homes adjacent to them on all sides ) at each intersection and make real roundabouts lets do it.

/marc

A friend said she hit a bulbout at the the 'circle' when she was driving at night in the rain. Her tire marks are there to prove it. She lives on Christine Drive, but she said she will not use Ross Rd anymore. Another victory for the bike lobby. She doesn't like being stuck behind a 'pace' bike going 5-7 mph.

I saw a pedestrian crossing East Meadow at the 'circle' and she didn't use the marked crosswalk, but walked IN the 'circle' instead. Now, I know there is no rule for pedestrians merging with cars and bikes in the 'circle'. Are there any plans to educate people on using all the various traffic calming features on Ross Rd?

The weekend experienced adult recreational bikers love the project. I get that and I can understand why. It's the weekday cyclists and drivers who have the problems, school kids and commuters.

Many drivers do not like following a "pace biker" pedaling 5-7 mph. Is anyone surprised by that? Drivers may follow for a block, but then will make aggressive passing moves that endanger the bike rider who is usually a KID. Walk Ross road and you will see this daily during commute times.

My 12 year old said he has been passed by a vehicle while biking IN the traffic circle. It is chilling to hear this from your child. No amount of education is going to protect them from a mistake by an impatient driver.

And it has been said before, the cars are not disappearing. They are moving to nearby streets. We push our kids into bikes to alleviate the traffic created by building new office after office. Why does this city have to keep growing?

Write to the city council, please: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org

The prep work for the roundabout at Moreno and Ross has started. Look at the painted circles and see that this is going to be another obstacle for a different subset of our kids riding to Jordan and Paly, as well as Ohlone and possibly El Carmelo.

Moreno is a very useful street for traffic leaving Walgreens parking lot.

Once again, the local residents near Moreno may not have experienced the Meadow roundabout and will also have to learn how to use this new oversized obstacle on a narrowed intersection.

Re barriers in general, I was on Ravenswood in Menlo Park heading toward El Camino east of the RR tracks yesterday where they have fixed metal barriers separating east & west lanes. 2 emergency vehicles with their sirens blaring tried to get through. A train had just gone through so traffic was packed more solidly than usual.

We all tried to move right but couldn't move much Some vehicles went up onto curbs or into driveways. One big SUV that went WAY up on a curb almost flipped back into traffic.

Bottom line: our "planners" should think before adding more barriers when traffic is increasing.

@Rick: I know this may be a difficult to understand, but if you are driving at the 25 mph speed limit on a street, and a vehicle is approaching you from behind at 50 mph, and you spot that vehicle in the rear view mirror while it is (a) a couple of hundred feet behind you and (b) starting to merge into a bike lane to pass you, then it is not a good idea to try to merge into the bike lane as well. Is that really so hard to understand or are you being purposely obtuse?

It is rather telling that you would blame people who are actually obeying the law while apparently giving a free pass to a reckless driver who would drive at 50 mph in a bicycle lane rather than passing on the left as most people would.

And furthermore, why would you come up with your "lose situational awareness" garbage when the text clearly indicated that a driver was spotted via a rear view
mirror well in advance? He passed with enough clearance that there was no chance of a collision. The point was that he was going at 50 mph in a bike lane, and if he'd do that, what do you think he might do if the stop signs were removed before the road constrictions were in place?

Finally, I mentioned being a jet lagged only as an indication of why I was driving at the speed limit with no inclination to go any faster. On a Sunday morning when there were only two vehicles on that stretch of the road, it is perfectly reasonable to drive at the speed limit. Do you really have a problem with that? If so, please do not drive.

Posted by Marc, a resident of Midtown

>> I think the big problem is that we really don't have "roundabouts" I've lived with them in MA and they were all hundreds of feet in diameter. They let cars smoothly merge into the circle, transition to the point of departure.

Marc, I've seen both kinds of roundabouts. The big kind where it is understood that in the right lane, you exit to the right immediately, and, if you are in the middle, you have priority to go around and exit where you want. Then there is the small kind with something in the middle. My point regarding Monument Avenue was just that roundabouts are ancient, they've been used in the US for a long time, and, as I have seen them in Eastbay areas, they are already making a comeback here in CA. They are not all alike, and, we all have to get used to the different kinds.

The proper response for a small one in a residential area is to -slow down-. Hearing those words seems to bug some people, even people who don't necessarily drive that fast, but, don't like varying their speed or steering around something (apparently). I'm beginning to think that -street furniture- should be part of a driving test: if people find it too annoying to pay attention to the -street furniture-, then maybe those people should take Uber or Lyft. Because in a world of pedestrians and bicycles, you can't just be in autopilot.

A huge amount of money has been diverted to this project with little actual resident input on the dollar value spent vs value of finished project. It is time for the city to publish their budget priorities so that we can vote on what is happening in this city with our money.

@Marc: At least when I was there, some time ago for graduate school, what you are referring to were called "traffic circles". They were quite large as you described. The term "roundabout" was introduced because the design and right of way rules are different, and the proponents for this design did not want them to be confused with traffic circles.

For traffic circles as defined in Massachusetts, cars enter at about 50 mph and the car entering the traffic circle has the right of way. Accidents are typically high speed crashes as a result. There are some smaller versions in some cities, with correspondingly lower speeds, but in all cases you are not expected to have to slow down on entry. Rumour has it that some MIT students once set up some traffic cones to divert traffic from multiple streets into a traffic circle somewhere in Cambridge. With the cars entering the traffic circle having the right of way and the typical "me first" behavior of a "Boston driver", the inevitable happened: no one could get out and as a result, no one could get in either. Naturally the gridlock spread.

For a roundabout, the vehicles in the roundabout have the right of way - the "yield on entry" rule - and there is no lane striping without the roundabout. The radius of curvature in the roundabout is small, and the design requires a change of direction on entry, in order to keep vehicular speeds low. It is supposed to be safer than an intersection with four-way stop signs where most drivers use a "California stop" instead of a real one, and a few ignore the stop signs completely.

@Bill Zaumen, My comment about situation awareness was a general PSA around how to deal with erratic/hostile/dangerous drivers. I no way advocate for 50mph drivers in a 25 mph zone. You just seem rather distressed by the interaction you had with that driver and keep coming back to it. If you are happy with the way you dealt with the situation, then I am happy.

As of this moment 727 people have signed the petition protesting the Ross "improvements" that were foisted upon us. It is not entirely clear to me why you are such a big cheerleader for something that has a negative effect on the health and welfare of the locals forced to traverse it. We are a pretty cosmopolitan crowd. Many of us have seen and navigated novel traffic topologies both here and abroad. From that perspective, this specific one in dangerous and no amount of lecturing/educating is going to change that fact. In a situation like this you don't want to be "dead" right.

Traffic engineers can, and do, design features that increase the chance of accidents and injuries. Just because a "Traffic Engineer" designed it does not mean that is safe. History is rife with examples of such poor design.

. . .and that includes paying attention to the psychology of the drivers, not just the physics of the road.

Anecdote: I lived for a time in Washington state. The powers the be erected a automatic sign that flashed the speed of the drivers going by on I-5. The sign clearly was capable of displaying three digits worth of speed information. . .

@Rick: if you are posting a general "PSA", you generally don't reply to an individual.
Your comment that "You just seem rather distressed by the interaction you had with that driver and keep coming back to it," is the sort or rhetoric that should have gone out of style in high school: it was *you* who kept harping on it and I was merely pointing out what you missed or misinterpreted. As I said, the point was that decisions about when to switch from the temporary stop signs to yield signs have to account for such drivers - i.e., the worst case.

Your statement about being a "cheerleader" indicates a lack of reading comprehension on your part. I merely described how roundabouts work. My opinion on such issues is that if people don't like them, they should just say they don't like them. They shouldn't pretend these things are a risk to life and limb when that isn't true - at least not any more so than a four-way stop and likely less. There can be lots of reasons for not liking them. For example. some people might prefer stepping on the brake pedal than turning the steering wheel. If that's the case, just say so: our traffic engineers can do a better job in terms of keeping the public happy if people tell them their real issues rather than raising bogus safety concerns.

Finally, just because you claim that 727 people have signed a petition doesn't mean they will care about the issue 2 months from now. When the traffic light at Bryant Street and Embarcadero was installed, there was a very vocal group of people opposing it. After it went in, people realized that it worked just fine and everyone or nearly everyone forgot about it.

@Bill Zauman:

@Bill Zauman: Are you the Bill Zauman who is/was on the Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee?

For the record, I am retired, not a member of any advisory group, and am just interested in the safety of the neighborhood that I walk and drive in every single day.

He has been laughing at us.

And here we go...

Opinion: Roundabouts spark outrage and 10 more are on the way Web Link

The Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee may be hoist on their own petard. 1000 angry voters times 11 new roundabouts is more than enough to change elections.

"Finally, just because you claim that 727 people have signed a petition doesn't mean they will care about the issue 2 months from now."

No one's "claiming" anything; you too can see the petition with 731 signatures -- for just ONE street. Imagine the numbers if it were a city-wide petition.

Re forgetting, unlikely when we have daily reminders of the dangerous and costly implementations and how residents' input has been ignored. The tone and variety of the comments here and elsewhere should be a clue that the issue isn't going away and has been simmering for a long time. Some comments show the issue's reaching a boiling point,

Many of us well remember the sneaky attempt 5 years ago to make busy Middlefield another bike boulevard -- a move that was rejected 15 years ago when traffic was so much lighter. We were mobilized by an alert neighbor since the city failed to notify us. Sanity prevailed because the outrage was deafening over both the sneakiness and all the problems in the costly 3D Model and glitzy PowerPoints opposed by parents, teachers groups and residents alike,

A few months later we got stuck with the confusing and dangerous Jordan bike lane incorporating the very same problems we'd identified. This year we got the new restriping at Embarcadero to which we'd also objected 5 years ago.

We're unlikely to forget since we're treated to the sight of cars trying to drive down the bike lane and the terror of getting stuck in the middle of Oregon when a car unexpectedly backs up trying to turn onto N. Cal Ave. and cars forced to back up to let in cars because of poor clearance.

This year the problematic restriping has given us new treats: cars getting stuck in the middle of Embarcadero when a bus stops a mere 3 cars lengths before another busy intersection and cars backed for blocks due to the elimination of the dedicated right turn lane onto Embacadero despite the fact there are many more drivers in the combined through and right turn lane than in the left one that got a turn arrow.

So nope, with all these daily reminders, we're not likely to forget.

So, this should be like Castilleja with lawn signs up and down the affected corridor and beyond. We stopped an in-progress program to remove rolled curbs in Mountain View so we should be able to stop Palo Alto’s takeover by Critical Mass Lite :)

This could be fun. What was the margin of victory for every city council member inn the last election?

How much would 2,500 lawn signs cost? I’ll split it.

I’m new at this. suggestions?

Here's the website for the folks who organized the Casti lawn sign drive. PNQLnow.org They even have lawn sign gallery.

For those of you reading the hardcopy edition of today's PA Weekly, there was a wonderfully impassioned letter to the editors entitled "Bizarre Traffic Design" on page 18 by Sharon Geahan on how perilous the barriers at the north end of Middlefield are and the near-miss accidents due to the barriers that send cars into the wrong lane due to poor clearance.

She concludes by asking, "What is the City;s assessment of these bizarre traffic interventions?"

An excellent question!

If anyone knows how to link, to a current letter to the editor, please provide a help provide a link.

This morning was my fourth 8 am look at the Ross Road/East Meadow traffic circle and best by far because I met four others there, with different takes on the project, who had come to make their own inspection of the project. I appreciated the opportunity to have some give and take over what we're seeing together. There hasn't been much traffic any of the morning times I've been there, so I went back at 5 pm in hopes of seeing more of the dangerous conditions described in this thread.

I did a 20 minute motor vehicle and bicycle count between 4:55–5:15. A total of 132 motor vehicles (less than 7 per minute) and 10 bicycles (.5 per minute) passed through the intersection. Pretty sleepy scene overall.

When I asked a pedestrian about this she suggested coming back around 3 on a school day to get a better picture of what people are concerned about. That's my assignment for next week. If you have the time, you might go down and check it out if you haven't already. I think the online discussion will be better if more of it is experience based.

@Starspring, here's their contact form Web Link They're very helpful.

Here's one way to get to the above-mentioned letter. Scroll through the PDF version to page 18
Web Link

The round about at East Meadow and Rosd does not work. It was an afterthought. Roundabouts work in huge cities where they were designed in the first place.You know the ones,three lanes wide. The one placed on Ross can not even accommodate a UPS truck let alone a city bus.

Another case of overeducated under intelligent.

Just sayin'

Thanks for the pointer folks!

Despite the mealy mouthed protestations to the contrary, this is NOT a roundabout/traffic circle. It is not a poorly designed attempt to smooth the flow of traffic, it is deliberately designed to disrupt automobile traffic. It is just an expensive speed bump. If and when the Ross/Louis obstruction goes in traffic will be congested for hours during the commute like it is on the Charleston/Arastradero corridor. Luckily a skip loader can fix these problems in a couple of hours if we find the will to do so.

I’m thinking the lawn signs should read “this circle brought to you by” followed by a list of the CC members who voted for it. Anyone have that list of names, or do I have to go dig for it?

Here's another idea. The publisher has said that the Town Square moderator can connect TS participants if we request being connected to specific participants if we give mutual consent to sharing our emails. I hereby give mine.

Sounds good. Moderators, can you connect me to Online Name? I think I’ll report my own post as objectionable content to get their attention. :)

As an alternative idea to connecting interested parties, may I suggest starting a thread on Nextdoor for interested parties and link it here, or start a Facebook group for those opponents of the Ross Road project - a good name would be Ross Road Project opponents - and also linking it here.

There are many threads about this on Nextdoor.

It would mean that people could get together without identifying their Town Square monikers.

I for one would not be interested in giving the moderator here my contact information.

@StarSpring, you have to contact the Town Square moderator directly, not just post here. I look forward to chatting.

@Resident, doing it on Next Door as well is a good idea but it won't work alone for a city-wide petition since Next Door has a quirky design feature whereby you can only see the X number of neighborhoods near you, not the entire city. The number of neighborhoods used to be 10.

For example, given my location near Embarcadero, I can't get anything about Cal Ave, University Ave or other areas of interest to me like the 2 local dog parks we frequent. You'll often find disjointed conversations there since "borderline" neighbors miss the context and you find they never saw all the posts being discussed.

PS: There's an "Email Town Square Moderator" below each post.

Posted by StarSpring, a resident of Adobe-Meadow

>> Despite the mealy mouthed protestations to the contrary, this is NOT a roundabout/traffic circle.

After a little bit of browser search time, I found various information on different options for the design of >> mini-roundabouts << which are becoming increasingly popular in the US. The most popular kind apparently is fully or partially traversable by larger vehicles.

"A mini-roundabout has a smaller diameter and central island than a full-size roundabout. Mini-roundabouts are typically used in low-speed urban environments where there is not enough space to build a larger roundabout. In a mini-roundabout the central island is designed so that larger vehicles can drive over it, if necessary, and the splitter island on the approach and exit roads typically is not raised. Mini-roundabouts accommodate pedestrians well because of the short crossing distances and very low vehicle speeds on entering and exiting approaches. Developed in the United Kingdom, mini-roundabouts are used in many countries around the world and are increasingly being built in the United States."

Web Link

Web Link


Because they are increasingly popular in the U.S., and, Palo Alto has more mini-roundabouts in the pipeline, there will undoubtedly be a lot more talk about them. One statistic I found is that after people get used to them, about 1/3 of people still don't like them, while 2/3 like them. Perhaps we should have a thread, "Mini-Roundabouts", to collect all the discussion, and, references to research?

@Anon

"Perhaps we should have a thread, "Mini-Roundabouts", to collect all the discussion, and, references to research?"

Good idea -after- we stop this construction project. The time for discussion is -before- letting a construction project for millions of dollars in a City that has unfunded obligations and is continually crying poor.

@Anon,

Are you Bill in disguise or another member of the Bicycle coalition? Once again I ask the readership to verify for themselves what we are being told here. Bill refused to address the huge differences between the Stanford roundabouts and the obstruction that was built at Ross/Meadow. Anon's link to urban roundabouts shows relatively spacious traffic circles that perhaps 2/3 of people might indeed like. I would like them myself. However, I repeat, they are -nothing- like the Ross/Meadow obstruction and much more like the Standford roundabout. Go. Look. For. Yourselves!

"Are you Bill in disguise or another member of the Bicycle coalition?"
Paranoia will destroy ya.

The Ross Roadians are hysterical on this fine Friday :)
They need to be like a cow and Moooooove on. Enjoy the weekend all!

This link provides info on the Ross Road and Bryant Street bike line projects:

Web Link

If you follow the links at the bottom of the page above you can find where the roundabouts will be located on Bryant Street!

This is yet another ill-conceived city plan. Remember California Avenue? Anyone who will research the issue of roundabouts and bicycle safety will find that they increase the number of auto/bicycle accidents. (Look it up on Google Scholar; read the literature.) The city is ignoring the evidence and the opinions of the people who live in the neighborhood, wasting millions of dollars, and putting our children at risk. Like the mauling of California Avenue or the attempt to put high density, low income housing in Baron Park, they have no respect for the opinions of the neighborhood and little insight into the consequences of their actions. Please remember these actions when you go to the polls.

I have not been following. it the area still in construction or is it all finished and done?

There seems to be active construction near the intersection of Moreno and Louis. It is difficult for me to determine how many of the neighborhood streets the city intends to mess up. Given the danger of roundabouts to bicyclists and pedestrians, I am concerned about adding them so close to Ohlone Elementary.

Expect more per the approved plan. I think the city had lots of time for input prior to construction.

The traffic circle at Ross and E Meadow is crazy. In 3 weeks I had 3 near accidents as drivers went into the circle not paying attention to traffic in the circle. Ross road is the scariest street in town. To get to the Y, I drive through a lot more residential areas now to avoid spending time on Ross Rd.

I've had not one problem. I've seen some though. I drive at or below the speed limit though and the issues I see seem to be due to pushy drivers, inattentive drivers or speeding drivers. Slow it way down if things are happening faster than you can react.
Abilities do vary though.

Posted by tj, a resident of Mountain View

>> The traffic circle at Ross and E Meadow is crazy. In 3 weeks I had 3 near accidents as drivers went into the circle not paying attention to traffic in the circle. Ross road is the scariest street in town.

"LOL". You need to get around more. The same drivers who speed through there are speeding through stop signs while turning right without stopping at other intersections. Attributing the dangerous behavior of those drivers to the mini-roundabout is illogical. I've had near-accidents with aggressive drivers all over the city. What I don't see is a lot of "real" enforcement -- that is, citing middle-aged drivers in BMW's and Audis.

994 people have signed the petition: Web Link

This is a disaster. And depressingly, the political cost of admitting a mistake is still higher than the political gain of fixing it.

We expect better from _our children_.

Let's find the creative path to let our city officials fix the obvious mistakes. And then let's thank them for it.

If you'd like to join a public google group to discuss this more, and what we might do to fix it, search for "ross road" in google groups, or send an email to ross-road@googlegroups.com.

I'm finding things significantly better over the past few weeks. It's refreshing. I'm a 2x daily driver if qualification is needed.