Hello again, I want to clarify the email I just sent. My comment of "from what I've been hearing" about the dark/low undercrossing is completely unsubstantiated and based on murmurs around town. I have no idea if it is the case. I attended the community meeting where the consultants presented an undercrossing that was much like Homer (well-lit, short, etc.). This would be lovely. My concern comes from whether there is new information available that has fundamentally changed what the undercrossing would look/feel like. If anything, I would love for Council to seek clarifying information about this. With that information, a well-thought out decision/recommendation could be made. Thank you again, Jen Wolosin On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Jennifer Wolosin wrote: > Dear City Council Members (and Stanford), > > I am writing to give input on the 500 El Camino Real project from a Safe > Routes perspective. While it is great that a railroad crossing is planned > and a thorough improvement to bike travel on Middle is anticipated*, we > must not forget about the bicyclist experience at the development itself. > Many are touting the crossing/Middle improvements as a Safe Route for > Hillview kids (and others). For this to be a reality, kids must have a safe > way of navigating through the property itself. Dodging cars and/or riding > on sidewalks is not acceptable. Please do not overlook this important > aspect in the design. > > I would also like to echo Menlo Park Complete Streets Commissioner, Lydia > Lee's, well-written comments about a potential bike/ped path along the > backside of the project. While this is not a requirement per the Downtown > Specific Plan, to Lydia's points, the alternatives for cyclists are bleak. > Stanford takes great care in developing fabulous biking facilities on its > campus, please consider replicating these efforts at 500 El Camino. > > Furthermore, while the feedback given at the last community meeting for > this project indicated a preference for an undercrossing (much like that at > Homer in Palo Alto), from what I've been hearing, an actual undercrossing > at Middle could be longer, darker, lower and less desirable than that at > Homer. If this is indeed true, it calls into question how safe the > undercrossing would be for kids. I have also heard discussions about an > overcrossing that would potentially have even longer ramps than that at > Ringwood and Hwy 101, thus making it a very cumbersome and unlikely (not to > mention unattractive) crossing for many. Because of the uncertainties of > whether we'll have an overcrossing or an undercrossing, and where it could > eventually be located, we must build flexibility into the project so that a > multitude of crossing locations could possibly be considered in the future. > The bike/ped path along the back of the project would give us this > adaptability. Without it, we greatly limit our future possibilities. > > I urge you to consider these Safe Routes-related issues vis-a-vis this > project. > > Sincerely, > Jen Wolosin > > P.S. *With regards to Middle Ave., it goes without saying that Parents for > Safe Routes believes only a Class II bike lane (not Class III) would be > acceptable. We are looking forward to the community engagement process on > this to make it a reality. > > -- > *Jen Wolosin* > Parents for Safe Routes > www.parents4saferoutes.org > jenwolosin_at_(domainremoved) > 415.710.5838 > > -- *Jen Wolosin* Parents for Safe Routes www.parents4saferoutes.org jenwolosin_at_(domainremoved)415.710.5838 Received on Mon Sep 25 2017 - 18:03:45 PDT
