Comments for Nov. 30 BPAC Meeting

[Chris Parry]

Are any of you planning to submit comments to BPAC in advance of the Nov. 30 meeting?  I've been working on a draft comment, and haven't submitted one of these before.  Could I run the draft by y'all for feedback (see below)?

To: bp...@mountainview.gov 

From: Chris Parry

Subject:  Nov. 30, 2022 BPAC Meeting, Agenda Item 6.2

I’m a longtime Mountain View resident (Waverly Park neighborhood), an avid bicycle commuter, and a parent of a sixth grader at Graham Middle School.  

I’m writing to submit comments on Agenda Item 6.2 for the upcoming Nov. 30, 2022 BPAC Meeting.  Specifically, I would like to request that BPAC and Mountain View Staff consider using a portion of TDA3 and Active Transportation Funds to augment Mountain View’s existing network of protected bike lanes.  From discussions with Mountain View city staff, I understand that the estimated cost for purchasing and installing raised rubber dividers and flex posts (e.g., the materials used for the protected bike lanes near Graham Middle School) costs slightly less than $100,000/mile.  Thus, there should be enough funds in the TDA3/Active Transportation Funds budget to create between 0 and 10 miles of additional protect bike lanes in Mountain View.

As discussed further below, I request that first priority be given to expanding the current plans to add protected bike lanes to California St.  I understand that under the existing 2022-2023 CIP, there are plans to add protected bike lanes on California St. from Showers Drive to Shoreline Blvd.  The TDA3/Active Transportation Funds could be used to expand coverage on California St. from San Antonio Road to Showers Drive, to create a continuous protected bike lane reaching locations in the San Antonio Shopping Center.

1. Justification

My suggestions are based on the following top-level goals for city streets:

   1. All Ages and Abilities.  Streets should be designed such that bicyclists of all ages and abilities feel comfortable and safe riding to any destination in Mountain View.

   2. Vision Zero.  Streets should be designed to prevent all fatal and severe collisions.

Many of the preferred bicycling routes in Mountain View today are Class 2 bike lanes, often along roads with fast moving traffic.  These routes are great options for experienced adult cyclists, but not ideal for children and inexperienced cyclists.

To make Mountain View roads safe for cyclists of all ages and abilities, it would be better to have a network of continuous, uninterrupted protected bike lanes running throughout the city.  Using prefabricated dividers and flex posts (such as what is currently installed near Graham Middle School) seems like a cost effective way to quickly install additional protected bike lanes.

There are many streets throughout Mountain View that would benefit from protected bike lanes.  In this email, I focused on California St. because there are already plans in place to add protected bike lanes from Shoreline to Showers Drive, and this project would be even more effective if it ran all the way to San Antonio Road (to fully connect the San Antonio Shopping Center).  

But as funds become available, there are many streets in Mountain View with Class 2 bike lanes and fast-moving vehicular traffic.  Most of these streets would be safer and more accessible to cyclists of all ages and abilities if they were upgraded to Class 4 lanes with some sort of physical barrier between cars and bicyclists.  Likewise, there are a number of roads on the Safe Routes to School maps that could benefit from protected bike lanes (e.g., E Dana from the Stevens Creek Trail to Sylvan Park).

By using prefabricated dividers and flex posts, the City could significantly improve the current network of bike lanes in a cost effective manner. 

Regards,

Chris Parry

13321 Franklin Ave.

[i]

I think Option 3(b) is similar to what you are recommending:

> Conversion of existing buffered Class II bike lanes to Class IV protected bikeways by installing flex posts on La Avenida, Macon Avenue, Maude Avenue, Phyllis Avenue, and Whisman Road;

If so, it may be worth mentioning in your comment? And if not, perhaps contrast.

My quick calculations of the streets named is

La Avenida - 2,600ft
Macon - 700ft
Maude - 900ft
Phyllis - 2,500ft

Total about a mile and a quarter, so would use up less than a third of available funds using the numbers you gave.

I would guess staff listed these streets explicitly because they know these streets have space to install flex posts, whereas other streets they may feel are too narrow. I would fully support adding California to the list.

--
Topics posted to this list are visible to the public.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SVBC Mountain View Team" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mountainview...@bikesiliconvalley.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/bikesiliconvalley.org/d/msgid/mountainview/58b5ecd1-9755-4e9c-9b08-953ad0ee4045n%40bikesiliconvalley.org.

[Chris Parry]

I saw 3(b), but there seem to be two issues with how it is framed: (1) The description describes flex posts, but no dividers.  So there does not seem to be any physical barrier between cars and bikes.  (2) The listed streets are scattered throughout the City.  It was unclear why these particular streets were chosen or what portions of these streets the City has in mind.

I was also concerned about items 2.a-c.  If there is a $1.5M funding gap for existing projects underway, that seems pretty alarming.  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/bikesiliconvalley.org/d/msgid/mountainview/d8751cc4-4d76-1305-34a6-8418e41bac31%40gmail.com.

[Serge Bonte]

Personally, I'd rather see the funds used for existing projects in the first 2 sections before adding new ones (which would more than likely -lack of funds, lack of resources...- push back existing critical projects).

One note about projects in Section 3, they're all for bikes and none for pedestrians. Personally, I think there needs to be better balance between the various modes of active transportation :)

Serge

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/bikesiliconvalley.org/d/msgid/mountainview/F38C73DF-7494-4403-ACEF-3649E6DCED64%40gmail.com.

[Bruce England]

Yes, I made a similar point to Chris the other day re desire to see some ped focus through whatever decisions are made for the TDA funding.

Cheers,
Bruce 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/bikesiliconvalley.org/d/msgid/mountainview/CAKj%2B2WyK5EFK5O23e26VHROGs7OyNbq_pvy1kuvLDqDye6OV6g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Serge Bonte]

The new transportation dashboard just released by Mountain View illustrates that imbalance.

In contrast to the bike dashboard, the PED dashboard shows ZERO (yes zero) projects to improve walking in Mountain View: no count of new crosswalks, better marked crosswalks, sidewalk repair, sidewalk enlargement, sidewalk gaps filling, enhanced traffic light cycles, no right on red near schools..... nada. 

[Chris Parry]

That doesn’t sound correct.  I know that the Grant/Sleeper crossing is a project in the works 2.c.  And many of the other items listed in 2.c also look like pedestrian upgrades.

[Serge Bonte]

Forgot link to dashboard

https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/420a990280a74a9fa879c44e5a675884/page/PED/

[James Kuszmaul]

Serge,

I haven't interrogated the exact state of that dashboard, but I would hesitate to read too much into it until staff has presented it, with any necessary context, at the BPAC meeting. I can think of multiple projects (the Grant/Sleeper crossing, the Castro Ped Mall, the Shoreline bike/ped bridge, some plans for bulb-outs/improved curb-cuts planned as part of some repaving programs, potential sidewalk gap closure as part of the Miramonte work, just off the top of my head) that would reasonably be called pedestrian projects or which have significant pedestrian benefits.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/bikesiliconvalley.org/d/msgid/mountainview/CAKj%2B2Ww2sZqYkm6KWkHWeV%3D0WYHKAqeWOv511nGaXmw3a-yLVg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

James Kuszmaul

[Serge Bonte]

Got it. I'm certain other projects exist . imo their absence from the dashboard illustrates a chronic imbalance in focus and priorities.

[Bruce England]

I agree with Serge. It's essential for our tools and other resources to reflect the full scope of what's being done and what's planned to help ensure we're pointed in the right directions. I understand this tool is a work in progress, but having Serge's point on the table will help emphasize the need.

Cheers,
Bruce 

[April Webster]

I think the easiest way to figure it out is to take a look at the CIP and go through the description of the projects.

The breakdown for the last CIP planning year is attached. I'll get around to updating this for the current round in the new year.

Cheers.

April

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/bikesiliconvalley.org/d/msgid/mountainview/CAOh0-R0f8-i6N0vg%2BwrH%3Dg1mQkaC-AaFRt7UFVQxm_Qz0-qGgw%40mail.gmail.com.

[i -]

Is it normal that so many projects have funding gaps?

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 28, 2022, at 3:57 PM, April Webster <apri...@gmail.com> wrote: