Menlo Park Council members—
I write to oppose many of the proposals in the Staff report concerning the Middle Avenue corridor “safety” project. I will try to group them by sub-topic below, and wrap up with some bigger picture experiences and cautions.
NEALON PARK-MIDDLE AVE SPACES
For some levity—and seriousness--here perhaps would be a better and more honest opening to the Staff report discussion of the Nealon Park-Middle Ave. parking problem to illustrate how things are off track:
“Unfortunately we didn’t get it right, even though many residents actually familiar with the area already spotted it. We failed to coordinate the design of the replacement Middle parking area in front of Nealon Park with the Middle Avenue Safety project, even though both were on the table at the time. We spent approximately $x00,000 on that mistake fully burdened. We now need soberly to view that in sunk cost terms from a business perspective and move on. To optimize parking correctly it really should be torn out and redone, again. Other solutions are bandaids and shift the problems elsewhere. Only with senior staff being forthright and admitting to it can we reset the conversation about what the real choices and tradeoffs really are. We have already spoken to responsible staff members about the problems and responsibility here, and expect council will want do the same for their own oversight.”
So chances of that happening? About the same as the used car salesperson/dad refunding the money in the classic movie scene from Breaking Away. Proverbial pigs will fly first…
Real world, specifically I firmly oppose the suggested change for the “back in” parking—both the configuration AND the reduction in space count. It drastically reduces previously available parking, which you wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars on already. Mismanagement in very plain and frankly appropriate English. The report should have spelled out the spending there—it only mentions general project spend. The purported solution itself is half-baked and not even thought out for questions/issues I can easily spot.
Predictable result: people won’t want to back in. And no, they won’t turn their vehicle in a multipoint 120 degree turn either to go in head-first from the westbound lane—how you probably think they will be coerced into complying to “have it our way.” WAY simpler—pull in head in (the “normal” way) from the OPPOSING eastbound lane…at a very comfortable 30 degree angle. Great—now we have routine cutting across opposing traffic at slow speeds in head-on situations, over and over each day. Oh, and in front of bicylists too. And when they pull out and want to go East, even more dangerous. Or if they even see yet more sign clutter and later try to correct their “mistake,” will they start executing a now 180 degree turn to get back to the SAME space in a now unnecessarily tough to park area--since human behavior is that parking space is suddenly their “God given right.”
Zero discussion of these very real-world scenarios. Yet, you are making a decision on this now? Part of the obvious problem on this whole project—scope lock on desired outcomes and brushing aside of many practical serious issues, and then it fails anyway. So, then what—when you otherwise figure out in 6 months that these scenarios really are the real world? Maybe 500 feet of yet more plastic road trash out there to isolate the lanes at the yellow line, and yet more endless signs? Menlo Park, City of Signs. AND, you divert police or parking officer resources to actually write tickets for non-intuitive parking? Or worse, some accidents? All crazy, half baked, not realistic on human behavior. Realize it now, not once committed.
Stop the madness. The report speaks for itself. The bike trips that have this whole project literally wrapped around the Shimano bike axle are approximately two hundred per day, TOTAL. The vehicle traffic is 35+ (THIRTY-FIVE!!) times that in the Nealon segment. Even pedestrian count exceeds it. The world will not be converting those to bike trips to any meaningful degree—it is called an “arterial” for a reason. Further, even the displaced parking and resident use added across those lost spaces across a day itself probably approaches the same as the total bike volume. This has really lost sight of big picture perspective.
ILLEGAL/IMPROPER USE OF SCHOOL SPEED ZONES; SECONDARY DANGEROUS EFFECTS
Stop violating the Vehicle Code and creating disrespect for legitimate school zones. The Vehicle Code is clear—within 500 feet of a school for 15MPH maximum. Start with, the signs on Middle cover an area WAY longer than 500 feet in either direction from a “school” center point. That is wrong, and illegal, by itself. Then, WHERE is the “school” even? I used to maybe give a little slack for the possibility the Church was being used as a pre-school, but even that is not clear if it qualifies legally for this type of speed restriction. Any other purported and non-obvious supposed “school”? I see this as frankly an abuse of the law by the City. You now have a printed report even admitting to it that is in circulation marking the zone (and not any schools…). Let’s get it in compliance with the Vehicle Code. And frankly stop INCREASING risks to children in legitimate school zones when people get conditioned to ignoring non-sensical signage like this. That’s the insidious risk—and one underpinning other things about this project too. Overdone and non-sensical approaches breed disrespect and non-compliance. Dangerously, that anesthetizes people to other situations when it should matter.
DISRESPECT OF PRIOR INPUT; IMPROPER USE OF SIGN IN LISTS
I also need to speak clearly that my prior input on this subject was disrespected. I went to an early meeting at the park one Saturday hosted by then members Mueller and Nash. A responsible city transportation person was identified as there (don’t recall name). Among other things, I spoke both in my comments to the faulty 15mph signage and with the staff in a side bar. It was all blown off. To be direct, the guy (who was polite) seemed to either not care or not know what was actually out there on the roadway. All that actually happened after that was yet another few MORE 15MPH school zone signs ultimately appeared. The obviously excessive signage was previously only in one direction (far down toward University), which I pointed out at the time is also illegal under the Vehicle Code. Meantime, our councilmember Nash circulated a “sign in sheet” for the meeting in general. Former district representative by the way—as I will get to below. As best I can tell, all that really came of that was I was added to a quasi-political mailing list. Not what lists should be gathered for, and a real time misrepresentation on how they would be used. We should ALWAYS be allowed to OPT IN, not made to OPT OUT. As a side note, I ask the council to make the policy absolutely clear on this. No sign in or similar lists should be used by any member or staff for ANY purpose not strictly related to the subject matter at hand.
STOP SIGN AT MIDDLE AND SAN MATEO
The report seems to be sweeping under the rug the “trial” nature of this. That was the commitment. Further, concerns were raised at the time about possible increased diversion of through vehicle traffic onto either San Mateo or Wallea (important bike routes). A commitment was made for pre-and post- traffic counts. So, where are the traffic counts? The latest staff report only alludes to a single day, apparently “pre-“ count and says nothing about “post” counts here. So, do “trials” actually mean anything and are commitments met? I would say not. Meantime though, yet other “trials” are proposed down at the Park. Are we to believe those either?
NEW DANGER AT SAN MATEO DRIVE/MIDDLE?
Buried in the report is a “post-“ Oct 2023 accident at San Mateo and Middle. Page N-1.16. There were NONE reported before the stop sign change per the report. Begs the usual questions, especially at this key change location—the ONLY new traffic control implemented the entire length Who, what, when, where, why? More generally, it unfortunately fits with the seeming idea just to move past the stop sign as fully baked, regardless of prior commitments made for a “trial” and relevant data to address concerns. Yet, now we also an accident. Likewise as you were told prior to the first decision, the intersection really does not have a history of accidents. Until…you changed it…
BLAKE CLOSING:
In a nutshell opposed, more so because of the recent likewise not-well-thought-out idea to prohibit rights on red (after stopping, per the law) at Middle and El Camino. In each case, you are promoting cut through traffic elsewhere (College, etc.). Right now that starts (at least) back at University and then even forward at the (through) alley behind the Shell gas station. Block right turns on red and that ECR intersection will be yet more of a mess. Predictably, that traffic—and A LOT of it--will end up diverted into Allied Arts back to University. And through that very through alley too. And the gas station itself. Crazy. And predictable. On top of this, this entire area was studied and designed for the Stanford development across the street and earlier, for the Safeway center expansion. This would logically contradict assumptions made and data collected to support those those EIRs, and frankly separately seem to create enough impacts to merit its own EIR here.
Do us a favor. Realize that no right-on-red needs to be dismissed as an idea and work discontinued. Factor that into other planning more holistically. Meantime, on Blake you already started to open that diversion of traffic box. Doesn’t seem right to me. Great for Blake--who bought with the prior existing conditions and knew them—bad for many more elsewhere in Allied Arts with incrementally more traffic, more danger, less quality of life.
BIGGEST PICTURE AND DISTRICTING ISSUES
Honestly I am concerned NONE of the council live in this area. NONE. And supposed learning I have heard referenced about Santa Cruz (and my own living on Avy for 7 years) really does NOT apply here in my opinion. Living in between both of streets on San Mateo and using both daily for 40 years of commuting, work, play, kids, etc., they are NOT the same. Also candidy, my view is our representative on council has been MIA, after the council likewise botched redistricting of our neighborhood.
For reference, you literally split our neighborhood in two (at Wallea) with the last redistricting, AND you didn’t even seem to recognize it. Called Oakville Terrace historically by the way. We were not informed of it in any meaningful way, and found out only belatedly when a neighbor figured it out. Some folks complain about their vote not counting, or questions on validity or whatever? Well here—on San Mateo Drive we have not gotten to vote in SIX years. That’s the practical result of this decision. SIX years. Absurd. People (Mr. Mueller) then representing the area then farther west aren’t even part of this process now. And now we have an appointed representative following the redistricting mistake, were shifted into a district with no good connection to our area, and who frankly has held apparently one intro coffee basically. Just not right.
I feel we are essentially unpresented at this point, forgotten and not generally respected in recent years. This project is more of the same, and worse since the redistricting oversight. My city government. Really too bad. Busy with all the do-good, feel good, justice everything else, and you unfortunately neglect things as basic as truly allowing people even to vote in ANY reasonable timeframe, you approve plans to split identifiable neighborhoods, you don’t engage in the real grass roots work needed to get to know your constituents, don’t fund our police department adequately in favor of other priorities (which also affects Middle), and so on. Yet meantime, you continue not living in the area to also legislate on things like this. Please think about that input biggest picture.
Regards, Elias Blawie
San Mateo Drive
