Hello all,
Since I received no responses to my previous email and am unaware of any
staff conversations with the City Council on this topic, I conducted my own
research:
*1) How much money do we spend on our roads?*
Annual street resurfacing
:
$1,700,00
- $3,200,000
Sidewalk repair
:
$600,000
Studies and evaluations: many millions of dollars
Public works vehicle replacement: $1,700,000
Bollard budget for Coleman Ave: $0
*2) How can we maintain protected bike lanes?*
Well it turns out there is literally a device for this. I would be happy
to purchase it and donate it to the city if needed!
https://bikelanesweeper.com/. It costs $5,000.
If we need our public works department to have a full vehicle to maintain
the multitude of protected bike lanes we plan to have, then the big-city
ones cost about
$200,000
I also wonder how the Class IV bike lane on Chilco stays so clean.
[image: PXL_20260924_175531087.jpg]
*3) How wide should our car travel lanes be? *
Below are all direct quotes. Why are we actively attempting to defy our
local, regional, and state recommendations on lane width?
NACTO says 10 feet
.
Lane widths of 10 feet are appropriate in urban areas and have a positive
impact on a street’s safety without impacting traffic operations. For
designated truck or transit routes, one travel lane of 11 feet may be used
in each direction. In select cases, narrower travel lanes (9–9.5 feet) can
be effective as through lanes in conjunction with a turn lane.
*Lanes greater than 11 feet should not be used as they may cause unintended
speeding and assume valuable right-of -way at the expense of other modes.*
Restrictive policies that favor the use of wider travel lanes have no place
in constrained urban settings, where every foot counts. Research has shown
that narrower lane widths can effectively manage speeds without decreasing
safety and that *wider lanes do not correlate to safer streets*.
The MTC has explicit guidance that our staff should follow NACTO
and a Complete Streets policy.
*4) Do speed bumps belong in bike lanes?*
No. US Department of Transportation:
The ITE Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps provides
additional recommendations such as including a tapered edge *so that
bicyclists can avoid potential discomfort by passing around the speed hump*.
A speed cushion is a unique measure that can accommodate the mobility needs
of both bicyclists and fire vehicles. *A bicyclist is able to pass between
the cushions* without experiencing vertical deflection.
5) Is it recommended that the Coleman bike lane have a buffer?
Yes. NACTO states
that a bike lane is only considered an All Ages & Abilities facility on
streets with a 25mph speed limit *if it is buffered*. It also states that:
"The use of protected bike lanes should be explored wherever possible."
On Wed, Sep 16, 2026 at 11:42 AM Ross Silverstein <
silverstein.ross@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
