MVCSP comments on the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program to City of Mountain View City Council Council Transportation Committee
Mountain View MVCSP
Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning
c/o Aaron Grossman
817 Montgomery Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
June 1, 2021
City of Mountain View City Council Council Transportation Committee
City Hall, 500 Castro Street
PO Box 7540
Mountain View, CA 94039-7540
Re: 5.2 Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Revisions
Dear Chairperson Lieber and committee members:
The Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning (MVCSP) appreciates the opportunity to respond to your discussion about Neighborhood Traffic Management Program revisions. We have reviewed the agenda item materials, and we have the following comments and questions we would like to share with you.
Can the Initial Inquiry and/or Petition by Residents steps be completed online as an alternative, at least in part? This would be more efficient in most cases, and it would reduce the use of paper, which we should be trying to do in general as much as possible anyway. For the same reasons, can Postcard Survey results be submitted online as well?
For lower speed threshold considerations, while lowering the threshold to 31 MPH from 32 MPH is fine, it’s a far cry from what we actually need; bear in mind that the City now has a Vision Zero policy, and lower speeds are key to our achieving these policy goals or even approaching them; for your reference from the policy: “Work to decrease traffic collisions involving fatalities or severe injuries (KSI collisions) by 50 percent by 2030 from a 2016 baseline of 15 collisions”. Also, if we are going to realize the goals of the anticipated Active Transportation Plan, we need to see all residential areas traffic speeds not exceed 25 MPH, whether posted for this speed or not. To this end, California needs to change their 85th percentile rules, but, until they do, cities need to be creative on how they achieve the necessary results in other ways (e.g., through driver education and traffic calming). Also, new traffic studies should be done routinely after traffic calming measures are completed in any location to help determine if lower speed-limit signing can be justified. Both the Vision Zero policy and the upcoming Active Transportation Plan must be cited in the NTMP documentation to remind all using the program that we have overarching goals to work toward.
For eligible traffic calming devices, we strongly request that green complete streets elements be considered among them. MVCSP holds the general position that our city should expand our existing complete streets policy in a green complete streets direction, and, accordingly, curbside trees should be considered the primary calming device. April Webster discussed this in an MVCSP comment letter on the Capital Improvement Program update at the May 25th City Council meeting (“Redefining Complete Streets as Green Complete Streets”). And it is covered as well in Mary Dateo’s GreenSpacesMV letter for this meeting on the Calderon bike lanes agenda item.
Incidentally, Sunnyvale recently added green street elements to Caribbean Drive:In the table covering the City Approval Process in the staff memorandum, we don’t agree with curbside trees decisions being made without an opportunity for open public comment. The choice of trees in locations adjacent to sidewalks and bikeways can impact those walking or biking through the area, and the public has an interest in seeing tree choices reflect native, drought tolerant, pollinator-friendly landscaping preferences for environmental sustainability reasons.
Where new traffic circles and bulbouts are implemented, we would like to see consideration for what is planted in them. Again, with a preference for native, drought tolerant, pollinator-friendly landscaping choices, and with possible community engagement for independent landscaping projects groups such as GreenSpacesMV are hoping to institute and promote in collaboration with the Parks Division and possibly also with the City Cool Block program.
Green elements can also include that those impose curves in the road, which can further slow traffic. For example:We wonder why curb radius reduction isn’t considered in the guidelines as a potential traffic calming device. Can you inquire about this during committee questions to Staff?
We support the Staff request for approving means for requesting additional City funding in cases where current funding is exhausted or is anticipated to be.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Bruce England
for the Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning
cc:
Lorenzo Lopez, City Traffic Engineer
Edward Arango, Assistant Public Works Director
Dawn S. Cameron, Public Works Director
Ria Lo, Transportation Manager
Kimbra McCarthy, City Manager
Heather Glaser, City Clerk
About Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning
The Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning is a local volunteer-based organization dedicated to making Mountain View as beautiful, economically healthy, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian accessible, and affordable as possible. MVCSP member interest and expertise covers areas such as housing, transportation, the environment, the economy, and beyond!
For more information, see http://www.mvcsp.org.
To contact us, send email to mvcsp...@gmail.com.
Mountain View MVCSP
Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning
c/o Aaron Grossman
817 Montgomery Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
June 1, 2021
City of Mountain View City Council Council Transportation Committee
City Hall, 500 Castro Street
PO Box 7540
Mountain View, CA 94039-7540
Re: 5.1 Calderon Avenue Bike Lanes, Mercy Street to El Camino Real, Project 20-47
Dear Chairperson Lieber and committee members:
The Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning (MVCSP) appreciates the opportunity to respond to your discussion about additional Calderon Avenue bike lanes. We have reviewed the agenda item materials, and reviewed materials for and listened to the audio for the April 29th community meeting, and we have the following comments we would like to share with you.
This project is very much needed. Improving the bicycling experience on Calderon will help fill a gap in the current bicycle network in Mountain View (as described in the draft AccessMV documentation). We praise Staff for their work on this project to date. This said, we do have some concerns and suggestions we hope you will consider during your deliberations.
Although there will be impacts on Calderon due to the removal of existing parking spaces, there is parking available on side streets, as John Cordes pointed out at the community meeting.
Three schools exist as destinations from Calderon (Landels, Bubb, and Graham). This should be heavily considered in all work done on this project and related projects.
Any parking areas should not be so narrow the bicyclists are vulnerable to door-zone areas. Otherwise, bicyclists might be injured or worse when car doors are unexpectedly opened ahead of them, or they might tend to ride far to the left in the bike lanes or even into lanes of traffic to avoid such issues.
Although Staff correctly states traffic calming and other treatments and considerations for reduced speed limits fall outside of this project, MVCSP holds the general position that all public and private projects should take advantage of work done on one project to complete related projects at the same time or as logical next steps. April Webster pointed this out in an MVCSP comment letter on the Capital Improvement Program update at the May 25th City Council meeting (“Taking an Integrated Approach”). She also discussed green complete streets in that letter (“Redefining Complete Streets as Green Complete Streets”). And it is covered as well in Mary Dateo’s GreenSpacesMV letter for this meeting.
Accordingly, traffic calming and green complete streets elements should be considered at the same time as this project or as soon as possible after. Following this, a new traffic study should be completed with the goal of reducing the speed limit along Calderon from 30 to 25 MPH. 30 MPH (and given that drivers often drive above the posted speed limit) is simply too high for that street (if for no other reason than three schools are destination points bicyclists access to and from there).
Calderon residents should be instructed to not place waste toters in the bike lanes. This might sound like an arcane point, but residents on North Whisman Road follow this practice, and the City has failed to compel them to change the behavior. At this location, let’s be sure the correction occurs right from the start.
Also worthy of consideration is installing wayfinding signs as appropriate understanding that bicyclists use Calderon as a means to get to and from a variety of destinations including the three schools, Sunnyvale, the Transit Center, and the Stevens Creek Trail. John Cordes suggested this at the community meeting.
In the staff memorandum under community outreach:
A statement is made about input on lack of spaces on side streets. What I heard was a member of the public pointing out that parking exists there, but it wasn’t cited in the presentation or materials for the meeting.
A statement on staff recommending no implementation of speed calming improvements. The details around this truly need to be discussed at your meeting. Traffic calming is actually key to making this project work successfully.
The discussion on losing needed street parking should not be a sole reason to reduce the number of those parking spaces. Street parking is a public amenity and is not a substitute for property owners’ need to accommodate parking on their properties.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Bruce England
for the Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning
cc:
Marichrisse Hoang, Associate Civil Engineer
Robert Gonzales, Principal Civil Engineer
Ed Arango, Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer