It's about time that people in authority -- city staff, city council -- start paying attention to the ludicrous "innovations" the traffic "planners" keep coming up with so they can rein them in.

What have they done for us lately?

1) They've eliminated the right turn on red from Middlefield S @ Embarcadero, leaving the left turn lane largely empty while the right lane backs up forever.

2) They're asking for comments on the new Grand Boulevard initiative for El Camino. Their interactive survey is unworkable. But more important, there's not a sing;e mention of CAR traffic in their lengthy presentation materials.

So we've got buses, pedestrians, bikes, bulbouts but NO CARS!

3) First they covered the streets with sharrows and bollards and posts and poles. But now they new "in" thing seems to be the bulb-outs that narrow the streets so much only the tiniest cars can safely make their turns.

For this we spend our tax $$$$ ????

The city planners think that narrowing lanes makes people slow down (example, in front of Jordan Middle School on N. CA). And they think the islands will slow people down. Neither work for slowing cars downs, and they will lead to more accidents with cars hitting bicyclists and drivers driving onto the islands (time to open a tire alignment business). At night or poor vision, those islands are difficult to see. Government employees.

I noticed today, for the first time, while driving Loma Verde big orange signs warning about temporary construction and through traffic to find another route both directions either side of the Ross intersection.

Question 1. Why has this appeared now? Is there more construction about to happen now that will make through traffic have more problems?

Question 2. There is no alternative route that doesn't cross Ross, unless of course they want us to use Oregon and San Antonio. Not useful for those of us trying to get to Piazzas or Safeway, or just get home.

Posted by Lead Foot; a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive:

>> Neither work for slowing cars downs,

Hi Lead Foot. I have a question for you. I constantly see cars going 35+ in the 25 zones (it is easy to calculate the speed once you know the lot width), even on narrow streets with cars parked on both sides that I typically drive 20 on.

My question is this: Since you assert that traffic calming measures don't work, then, what do you think does work to slow a "Lead Foot" down in a residential neighborhood?

@Anon, give the speeders tickets and don't penalize / endanger the rest of us. How many cops could we have hired for the $10,000,000+ we've spend on road furniture and traffic calming?


Re "dumb" traffic calming examples, check out the Jordan bike lane barriers that back up traffic from Middlefield onto Oregon -- a known problem.

Some time ago mid-day -- NOT heavy traffic time -- I watched a vehicle pulling a small trailer with yard equipment. It couldn't make the turn from N. California onto Middlefield. Several cars -- about 5 of us -- had to back up to let the car make its turn!

Now go check out some of the newly restriped intersections and look at the clearances there (Middlefield and Embarcadero as just ONE example).

Watch the vehicles slam on their brakes when they realize they're about to smash into the cars waiting at the intersections!

So far no increase in accidents has been noted, so there's that little nugget of fact out there to evaluate and fit into your reasoning about the topic.

Drove on Ross today just to see what it is like and found one good thing, the speed bumps between the bulb outs have two flat parts on each side of the center of the street ( for bikes I assume) the spacing of which allowed me to drive through in my SUV with no bump experienced (by taking the center of the road). Too bad for the cyclists as others find this loophole.

There is a similar device where the first Gunn bikepath comes out on Georgia. It does seem to have the obvious desired effect of slowing down traffic during bicycle rush hours. I have had no difficulties with the configuration. There are a lot of bicycles at times. Imagine how much room that many cars would take up.

Here's a shocker. I actually slowed down and quit trying to drive it as fast as I could and suddenly the road seems much safer. I haven't had to "Slam on my brakes" because my speed is safe. People seem to have an issue that they are now prohibited from "safely" speeding, but once you accept that you must slow down, it all goes perfectly fine. Is it faster? Hell no! There are simply too many cars for that, but the road design will never fix that issue. Less cars will fix it, but that's another topic.
Slowing down, it actually works if safety is the concern.

Excessive road obstacles do divert traffic to streets wothout obstacles, regardless of speed. I question blocking up all the cross-city thoroughfare streets as a policy.

Today Ross is completely closed at Loma Verde. There are many trucks there and more men in orange vests than I could count. It seems they hit a gas line. I have to wonder what work they were doing that would involve a gas line. They asked me if I had lost my gas so there are people without gas as a result.

I am still waiting to see this is an improvement.

Digging. That's what involved the gas line. It happens remarkably frequently at any number of construction jobs, but no doubt someone will try to blame this on policy rather than something that happens not infrequently.

The two flat spots on the speed bumps are great for autos. My Volvos wheels align perfectly on the two flat spots. I can avoid the bumps and drive smoothly down Ross. Of course the flat spots are designed for cyclists, but they are a great discovery for cars, too. I’m noticing less cyclists on Ross. Ross is now too dangerous for bicyclists.

@ Ross is dangerous. Yes , I was wondering about the safety for bikers, when I posted. I may prefer to go down Louis where I can avoid the middle of the road and bike next to the side walk. The project seems to have the wrong effect as it was supposed to turn Ross into a bike boulevard. What do other bikers think?

"New Ross Road really safer for bikers?"

Possibly, unless moving cars are present.

I see lots of people "Climing" Ross road is more dangerous, because they "Feel" it's more dangerous.
Looking at the unbiased facts though, no evidence has been brought forward other than people's "Feelings" about how safe they "Think" the road is.

You claim it's dangerous? OK, but you'll need to bring more to the table than just your anecdotal opinions if you want to convince people.

It's easy to prove yourself right about the dangers if it's true. So far I've only been able to disprove that assumption.

As a cyclist I really enjoy the reduced speeds of cars. it gives them better reaction times and I feel mush safer. Slower traffic, no accidents to report so that feeling of safety is showing to be true.

How many accidents have there been on Ross between vehicle and bicycle, as well as between vehicle and vehicle, in the last 5 years, 10 and 25 years? If "proof" is the number of accidents then I would like to seem some figures on how dangerous it was before the construction started. If that is indeed a high number and there are now no accidents then we might know it is safer.

If however, bikers or traffic engineers "felt" it wasn't safe in the past, and now those that ride it or drive it no longer "feel" it is safe now, then that "feeling of safety" is all we can go with.

I don't see any commenter here claiming it was unsafe initially, only commenters claiming it is now unsafe. I would expect proof in either claim, but for now, the only comments on safety are claiming its been made unsafe. I won't simply believe an anonymous commenter on a discussion board, but actual, factual evidence goes a long way. I'd be more concerned with providing that if the point is to be taken seriously. I'm not saying it it NOT unsafe, I simply have seen zero evidence that it is.

"I see lots of people "Climing" [sic] Ross road is more dangerous, because they "Feel" it's more dangerous. ... As a cyclist I really enjoy the reduced speeds of cars. it gives them better reaction times and I feel mush safer."

Others' feelings trumped by your feelings, eh? You'll need to bring more to the table than just your anecdotal opinions if you want to convince people.

"Others' feelings trumped by your feelings, eh?"

Nope. Not at all. If anything, other's feelings were trumped by lack of proof. I'm just calling it out.
I'm fully ready to say "Yes, Ross road is dangerous" once someone proves that other than just claiming it.
For now I'm simply stating there are no facts proving danger. That's a fact, but if you disagree, it would be easily proven.
Pretty simple stuff: back up what you claim with evidence.

My statement above that you cherry-picked, about my perception of how I feel wrt safety is not claim that the roads are safe, only that I personally feel safe on that road, since someone wondered if cyclists felt it was dangerous.

The Ross Rd barriers push bikes into traffic lanes in the middle of the block and cars into the bike lanes at the end of blocks. Makes zero sense to me.

Some people thing stationary objects are capable of "Pushing" other vehicles, when in fact we all have control over our speed and direction. Brakes are the tool nobody seems to think about. When used in conjunction with the legally posted speed limit, it's astounding how much easier it is to navigate this area. Effortless actually. Good luck.

I wish someone would tell the UPS and Fed Ex drivers that this is meant to slow vehicle traffic. From their actions, they seem to look on it as a race against the oncoming traffic as to who gets to the narrowest part wins, as they are determined that they will not stop and give way to any traffic already in the narrow spots.

I also saw a school bus trying to navigate Ross obstacle course. They should be told to avoid Ross as some of those turns are now not designed for something bigger than a car.

"I also saw a school bus trying to navigate Ross obstacle course. They should be told to avoid Ross as some of those turns are now not designed for something bigger than a car."

Just imagine the obstacles that this configuration poses to fire engine!

I lived in the Ross/Greer neighborhood for awhile, bu now I drive on Ross about once a year, when I go somewhere I usually don’t go, other routes are for whatever reason unworkable.

I drove on Ross the other day, and found bollards in unexpected places that cannot be seen from SUV drivers when they are within say 10 feet of the vehicle.

This in itself strikes me as dangerous (visibility from greater distances simply doesn’t cover this problem. If you don’t know they are there, you won’t know that you might have missed them when another driver distracts you during the time you would have seen them, etc.)

It’s not evidence, but claiming it isn’t dangerous is evidence of another problem.

So funny that everyone's drawers are bunched up over it. Personally, I'm fine with it. Others who cannot see things 10 feet in front of them, pose other dangers on the road than just those they think the city is responsible for.
Such a minor thing to get people fluffed up. Well it's done now. Those who can move on will, those who cannot will apparently run into things as they drive.
Be careful of e latter

A ridiculous, dangerous design forced on us by an unresponsive arrogant bureaucracy IS a very big deal. Ross is just one example of PA city govt's attitudes.

Re UPS and FedeX, remember that most of their drivers are independent contractors who are timed down to the nanosecond by their bean counters. That's why they're always double parked and blocking traffic. That's why we often get our packages after 9PM, hardly normal working hours.

The poor drivers in places like Arizona are suing to force the companies to provide air conditioning.

"I also saw a school bus trying to navigate Ross obstacle course. They should be told to avoid Ross as some of those turns are now not designed for something bigger than a car."


@resident, they should also be told to avoid N. California near Jordan because longer vehicles can't negotiate the turn at Middlefield without forcing Middlefield traffic to back up. This problem's also coming soon to many of the newly restriped intersections.

Now that this work appears to be almost completed on Colorado and Loma Verde have signs appeared saying that this is temporary construction and to find alternate routes?

These temporary constructions appear to be quite permanent constructions and as for through traffic finding alternate routes, it is almost impossible to expect all traffic to stop crossing Ross unless we use side streets. I am sure the residents of these side streets, such as Ames do not welcome additional traffic from Loma Verde, Colorado and Meadow.

There is no justification here for causing traffic that needs to cross Ross to go elsewhere.

To stick to the topic of the originally posed question, yes, Ross road is safe for cyclists(In my informed opinion). I have ridden this road at least 3-4 times per week since 1988. A cyclist "Taking the lane" increases safety in may cases. I like that part. It sounds like some drivers are having a hard time adjusting their behavior or flat out lack the needed skills to negotiate this area though. I would avoid it if one if these drivers is you. Anyway, I've not seen too many of these people...it's safe enough for me to not really worry about it. See you at the red light.

It's the differences in speed rather than absolute speed that causes accidents. That's been well-documented.

With that in mind, throwing two different types vehicles with different "natural speeds" into the same space seems idiotic, which is what is going on in Ross Road.

Josh Mello and Silicon Valley Bike Coalition-inflitrated office should be let go. The overreach in imposing a dogma from a well-funded special interest group on a population is ridiculous.

"See you at the red light."

Actually, see you at the stop sign that you will continue to ignore. Or at the California Ave underpass where you will continue to power through on your bike, even though there are plenty of signs that say "WALK BIKES".

And we think that putting self-important bicyclists in the same space as a car is good idea? Or maybe it's a sneaky Darwin-esque approach to pruning the cycling community?

I'm sorry this is so upsetting to you. I feel it's working fine, which was the actual topic.
You'll have to start another thread if you simply rant on cyclists, which is so 1997. Leaving now to glide through Ross road. Join me? I can disprove your assumption about me running reds/stops at the same time. Have a good commute.

Posted by Me 2, a resident of Old Palo Alto:

>> It's the differences in speed rather than absolute speed that causes accidents. That's been well-documented.

Agreed. Absolutely. That is why car drivers need to slow down and drive cautiously on residential streets in residential neighborhoods. As required by California law since at least the 1960's. (I won't bore you by citing and referencing again.) Interstate 280 is for driving fast, not residential and business district streets.

>> With that in mind, throwing two different types vehicles with different "natural speeds" into the same space seems idiotic, which is what is going on in Ross Road.

Streets in residential neighborhoods are, by design, "share the road". 2D Geometry doesn't allow a freeway to every driveway.

>> And we think that putting **self-important bicyclists** in the same space as a car is good idea?

(Emphasis added.) What we have seen a lot of in this thread is **self-important car drivers** who feel **entitled** to drive fast in residential neighborhoods, despite the fact that California law has said otherwise for at least half a century.

What I witness for adult bikers in a pack mentality is very different from a pack mentality of middle school bikers, or individuals, or families with young children, or any individual biker from any of these groups.

Lumping all bikes as well as cars, FedEx and UPS trucks, trash trucks and roadsweepers, into the same space and telling them to share is similar, in my opinion to a city park where there are dog walkers, soccer players, parents with toddlers, joggers and those wanting a picnic. It doesn't work unless there are rules and divided space.

In any Palo Alto park there are certain areas where it is safe for toddlers to play, other areas where soccer players can run and kick the ball, other areas for dogs and areas for picnics. It is not safe to take a toddler into the soccer area or the soccer players to start kicking balls by the picnic tables.

So why is it seen as realistic to put bikes of all abilities into the same space as large vehicles?

Palo Altans for Common Sense

To the adults arguing about data on whether Ross is more or less safe now......

My kids have been biking on Ross to school for 2 and 4 years. Both of them FEEL much less safe than before, but they have been careful to avoid being hit. Fearing rude and speeding drivers would add many more cars to the road and remove some freedom and a bit of exercise for already stressed out teens. They did not ask for this project, but sure hope it does not result in data points in the form of bike accidents.

To the other adults arguing about car vs bike superiority and to the drivers who are so excited to discover they can subvert the speed bumps by driving down the middle in their SUV, would you please grow up or take a different route? Sheesh.

Ross Road isn't the only place that changes putatively intended to benefit bicyclists have made things less safe. I routinely pass Jordan School on Middlefield four times a day. Not one time have I seen a cyclist in the gaudily bollarded two way bike lane at the corner of N. California and Middlefield. Not one time. I have seen bicycles on the sidewalk. I have seen them merging into the auto traffic. I've seen them walking their bikes on the grass by the sidewalk. But I've never seen them use the two way bike lane. Under the old configuration of Middlefield, I saw bikes use the bike lane all the time. If you design a bike lane that no one uses, then it stands to reason that bikes and pedestrians put at risk by bikes on the sidewalk are less safe than before. Who comes up with this stuff? And why are we continuing to pay for their silly ideas?

@Mary -I also walk and drive past Jordan frequently. I have seen a handful of bikes use the bike lane for the short jog where Cal Ave ends at Middlefield. I have seen only a handful of bike on Middlefield anywhere between Oregon and Embarcadero - and they usually ride on the sidewalk, not the street (Often in the wrong direction, unfortunately). On the other hand, TONS of cyclists use Newell and Bryant as routes. Middlefield isn't used as a bike route and shouldn't have all this bollards, etc. on a main artery with no alternatives.

I have however seen several CARS use the bike lanes with the bollard by accident - both on Middlefield and N. California in front of Jordan.

No really, is anyone an expert in these things as in, they make a living at it and are educated in the matter?
I'd love to see comments from them. Too many people are experts in everything, except they're not.

Totally agree with the comments about Middlefield and how the Jordan bike lane is under-utilized by bicyclists who ride on the sidewalks while cars often try to drive down it by accident.

Middlefield with all the bollards and narrower lane configurations has become much more dangerous. Longer vehicles can barely navigate the narrower turn lane from N. Cal Ave onto Middlefield. The other day I watched 4 cars back up to let a van towing a small machine get enough clearance to make the turn -- a problem we'll see a lot more of with the new "bulb-out" intersections.

And of course we have the cars backed up INTO Oregon because of the Jordan / N. Cal Ave bike lanes and bollards -- with those "making a living at it" refusing to respond to and/or fix the problems and complaints.

Does it take an "expert" "making a living at it" to shift the blame for the newish Middlefield mess to the County and its Oregon light traffic? Maybe not expertise but it sure takes creativity and blatant indifference to safety.

@Anyone an expert?: I get your point, but the sad fact is that we are seeing bad results from the people we presumed had the necessary expertise. I'd like to think that it helps to have skin in the game, but if that was an absolute then we wouldn't be in the mess we are in. All of our CC members have skin in the game, but our problems have been getting progressively worse for several years now. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that relentlessly adding commercial development is the root of the problem. No amount of squeezing and pushing will make a size 12 foot fit into a size 8 shoe. And with each approval we get further and further behind the housing eight ball. It's nuts and ADUs are not the silver bullet.

I agree, the heart of the matter is too many people(cars) in to small an area. Nothing will help to fix that except elimination of many cars. Increasing the amount of people in an area will cause things to progressively get worse.
Congestion aside, I do not feel unsafe in my car or on my bike on Ross rd.

The problem is, the road requires more attention just to process its weirdness.

On the surface it would seem increased attention would be a good thing, but:

- driving with bikes and cars on the same road already require enough attention

- driving habits and driving-attention habits control attention. Those who text, snap, talk, adjust music, heed kids or dogs in the car, lose judgement as a result of roadrage or impatience will simply try to absorb the new situation without changing their habits. Or if they do try to change habits, that itself negatively impacts attention and judgement.

- a change like this means those familiar with the road will be confused to some extent at night

Aside from your perception, do you know how many accidents have happened due to this change? Individual perceptions of safety vary, but accident statistics prove the "unsafe-ness" of a road with facts. That's what we should be going by. I find it safe myself, as I slow down when I drive it to make sure I'm not endangering anyone else or myself.
If someone cannot navigate this area, the DRIVER is unsafe, not the road.

I truly think many people have lost the ability to drive a care in a safe unselfish manor. Too bad we can't curb up so many of these inept drivers. Talk about improving road safety!

To @unsafe (previous poster)

How many accidents were there before the recent work?

You may have felt unsafe before and now you feel safe. If you are asking for statistics as opposed to perceptions we need to see what the numbers were in the past.

As for safety, I walk the area a great deal. I have seen so many unsafe activities, bikes riding on sidewalks, bikes without lights and riders in dark clothes at night, delivery trucks racing to get through the narrow parts first, etc. etc. that my perception of safety as what I see as a pedestrian is very much less safe behavior than before.

Exactly!

"You may have felt unsafe before and now you feel safe."
OK, maybe not "exactly", I felt fine prior to the change as well. My contention is that it has not proven to be unsafe.

"If you are asking for statistics as opposed to perceptions we need to see what the numbers were in the past."
Now you're talking! Facts, data, lives lost, injuries caused. We need to know where the real unsafe issues are and focus on that. I'm not sure where bikes and others will fall into the data, but lets look at the real data, not just serial complainers on msg boards.

I found out today what the traffic islands on Loma Verde at Ross intersection were for, at last.

They are for realtors to put their open house signs on!