To our Public Works city staff and Menlo Park City Council,
Thank you for holding the hearing about the Coleman bike lane last night
and ultimately making it permanent. I appreciate all the time that you
take to listen to the community and tackle these issues.
I was very encouraged by the Councilmembers initial thoughts and
considerations for making a protected bike lane for our kids, but then felt
betrayed when staff continued to rebuff every attempt. Im also
disappointed that the councilmembers didnt push back further on some of
staffs statements, and instead accepted them as true blockers.
Staffs arguments against having any form of protection hinged upon 4 main
points, which I will address below:
*1) Bollards get knocked down and require maintenance.*
Why are bollards getting knocked down so often? Is it because cars are
drifting into the bike lane? Isnt that something we really *really* want
to prevent? Would they be hitting those bollards instead of hitting my
kids? Im appalled that this point wasnt pressed harder. We spend so
much money maintaining car infrastructure, but we cant prioritize decent
bike infrastructure because it costs money to maintain. Disappointing.
Also, the bollards wouldnt be hit as often if there were a buffer between
the car and bike lane, which brings me to my next point.
*2) We cant add a buffer because that would require narrowing the other
side of the lane from 12 feet.*
The argument against narrowing the lane heading towards Willow is that
bikers would then be too close to parked cars, raising dooring concerns.
Wouldnt they have *ten whole feet* to work with? I thought that lane has
sharrows because bikers will be taking the lane while biking in that
direction. Which means they wouldnt be anywhere near the parked cars.
Again, why wasnt this pushed back on?
*3) General street sweeping and bike lane maintenance*
I return to my point about spending money on car infrastructure while
refusing to prioritize any other form of transportation. Why is this a
blocker instead of a problem to address? Other cities maintain bike lanes
- why cant we? Has staff put together a financial analysis of the cost?
What about amortizing those costs across even more protected bike lanes
that we will build in the future? The Parkline plans that we have approved
include a Class IV bike lane along Laurel St. Will staff reject that as
well because we cant sweep it?
*4) Trash pickup currently blocks the bike lane*
First of all, why is it simply accepted that trash bins block bike lanes?
We should solve this problem regardless of whether it is protected or not!
To solve it, there are many creative solutions - none that staff has
seemingly explored: Utilizing Coleman Place. Utilizing the large driveways
and parking lots of the apartment buildings. Using larger dumpsters
instead of individual cans. What do the residents do across the street
where the road is always blocked by parked cars?
*In addition:*
An item that wasnt addressed at all is what the city plans to do to
prevent drivers from parking in and blocking the bike lane. It seems that
the current plan is to do nothing, and as I showed in my pictures, this
happens very often.
Staffs insistence that the only reason people complained about a speed
bump *in the bike lane* is because it is currently rubberized, and that
asphalt ones will solve all the problems, is patently untrue. Speed humps
present further biking challenges, especially for cargo tricycles and
little kids. It is simply *not* best practice to have speed bumps extend
into bike lanes. I encourage staff to publish their sources, because
according to the Federal Highway Administration and the National
Association of City Transportation Officials, vertical speed humps in bike
lanes should be avoided.
Thank you again for your consideration,
Ross Silverstein
District 2 resident and concerned parent
