|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Parking spaces will make way for bike lanes along El Camino Real next year after the Palo Alto City Council voted on June 18 to approve an ambitious proposal that has split local merchants and energized area cyclists.
The bike project that the council backed with a 5-1 vote, with Lydia Kou dissenting and Greg Tanaka absent, differs in some way from the one that members saw and rejected on April 1. It now includes wider bike lanes, narrower vehicle lanes and additional barriers separating the two in various stretches of the corridor.
It also now includes restrictions on right turns on red lights along El Camino at 17 locations, with a focus on areas close to schools. The list of El Camino crossings that will now have right-turn restrictions includes Arastradero Road, Stanford Avenue, Page Mill Road, Churchill Avenue, Matadero Avenue and Los Robles Avenue, among others.
These revisions followed months of negotiations between the state Department of Transportation, which is spearheading the project, city staff and a council committee composed of Vice Mayor Ed Lauing and Council member Pat Burt. Both were unimpressed with the earlier plans that Caltrans presented in April. Both enthusiastically supported the revised ones, with the recently added safety measures.
The council also acknowledged that its ability to reshape the project is limited. El Camino Real, also known as Route 82, is a state highway and, as such, is within Caltrans’ jurisdiction. While Caltrans has requested that the city approve a resolution authorizing the removal of parking, the agency has the authority to modify El Camino even without the council’s support, according to City Attorney Molly Stump.
“City approval is not required for them to make changes to the street and, as a legal matter, they do have the authority to design and redesign the street over the city’s objections,” Stump said at the June 18 hearing.
For Caltrans, the bike lanes are a component of a broader $30.9 million project to repave a stretch of El Camino. The bike lanes were added last year as a safety measure to address what Caltrans described as a pattern of collisions along the Palo Alto stretch of El Camino. Its data showed 33 collisions involving bicyclists between 2016 and 2020, with 32 injuries and one fatality.
Not everyone, however, bought the idea that El Camino bike lanes would improve safety. Many residents and some bike advocates posited that encouraging cyclists to ride along a busy, six-lane road would create more problems than it would solve.
Council member Pat Burt, who frequently bikes, was among the skeptics. At the April 1 hearing, he proposed refining the Caltrans plan to make it more consistent with a “safe system” approach, which seeks to minimize conflicts between different modes of transportation. Since then, he and Vice Mayor Ed Lauing worked with the city, Caltrans and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority staff to add various safety features to the plan.
“We didn’t have a great deal of leverage, and yet we have a drastically improved outcome as a result of the council’s initiative on this,” Burt said at the June 18 hearing.
Lauing said the collaboration entailed numerous meetings as a long workshop at City Hall in which staff virtually walked every block of the El Camino corridor. Caltrans, he noted, made it clear immediately that the decision to put bike lanes and remove parking was “unchangeable.”
“The core of discussions was to focus on the areas where we had complete common agreement and that is on safety,” Lauing said. “And I’d say that it worked very well.”
The revised plans also won rave reviews from a key constituency: parents of students. The Palo Alto Council of PTAs endorsed the latest approach and urged the council to approve the new safety features, most notably the restrictions on right turns around school corridors. Lara Anthony, who chairs the PTA council’s Safe Routes to School Committee, spoke in favor of the bike lane proposal. She noted that without restrictions on right turns on red lights, drivers often look left to find a gap in traffic and then make the right turn without checking to see whether there are pedestrians or cyclists in the crosswalk.
Ken Kershner, a bike advocate with the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, also lauded the safety improvements, including the removal of parking.
“The most critical safety enhancement is removing parking to establish clear sight lines, addressing broadside crashes at intersections, driveways and bus stops,” Kershner said.
Others saw the removal of parking as potentially disastrous. Galen Fletcher, owner of Sundance Steak House, argued that the move could be devastating to his business unless the council takes additional action to ensure his employees and his guests have a way to park. With the project advancing, Fletcher said, he is at a risk of joining the dozens of businesses on El Camino that are out of business.
“There needs to be concessions made so we can all coexist with a balanced approach that works for everyone,” Fletcher said.
Tony Lee, who owns the Stanford Coin Wash laundromat on El Camino, similarly said that he depends on El Camino parking to stay in business. The project, he said, could have a detrimental effect on his life.
“Removing the parking along El Camino Real would not only kill my business but also negatively impact the lives of our customers, who rely on my services and of course my livelihood as a small business owner who gives so much to the city,” Lee said.
Gregg Hood, owner of Bike Connections, also spoke out against the proposal. Prior to the council discussion, he had visited nearly two dozen El Camino businesses. He submitted to the council petitions from 22 establishments, including owners of Lux Eyewear, New Mozart School of Music, Innovation Endeavors and Jack in the Box. The business owners asserted that they were not notified of the bike plan, which they argued will have a “catastrophic effect” on their businesses, employees and customers.
Council member Lydia Kou similarly opposed the bike lane plan. She questioned the need for installing bike lanes on El Camino and argued that removing parking would undermine the business community. She called the proposed plan “overengineered” and voted against it.
“We do want to separate bicyclists, but is El Camino, a state highway, the best place to be doing this?” Kou said.
Most council members, however, shared Mayor Greer Stone’s assessment that the new bike lane is a huge improvement over what was proposed or not. Stone noted that other cities along the corridor, including Mountain View, Los Altos and Menlo Park, are similarly slated to get El Camino bike lanes, which makes the construction of the Palo Alto segment particularly critical.
To address concerns from businesses, the council also agreed as part of its vote to explore longer term safety improvements, including redesigns of bus stops to eliminate conflicts with bike lanes. City staff also plans to reach out to businesses and residents in and around Evergreen Park, Mayfield and Southgate to discuss changes to their residential parking programs so that businesses along El Camino could get passes for their employees to park in the neighborhoods.
“We can either have a seat on the table and improve these designs … or we can bury our head in the sand and Caltrans is going to move ahead with this project regardless,” Stone said. “It’s better that we work together to make these improvements that will ultimately serve our community.”
Correction: They approved No Right Turn On Red restrictions (not Right turn restrictions–Right turns will still be allowed) to eliminate collisions at El Camino Real school commute route crossings to Gunn, Paly, Greene Middle School, Fletcher Middle School, Escondido Elementary School, Juana Briones Elementary School, and Barron Park Elementary School. Wow! You got this article out fast, and covered the issue thoroughly.
Stump’s statement that CALTRANS has jurisdiction over the city SHOULD have been transparent and known to the public from the get go.
Many are concerned that a lobbying coalition SVBikeCoalition pressured the city staff and various city council members including Pat Burt. What about SAFETY? What will happen after all the Builders Remedy Projects are built? We have bottlenecks now. What will these council members do after a kid is injured? Only Lydia Kou stood up for the Palo Alto community. Now people could be injured as riding bikes on a highway is perilous. For the record the woman (Bike Coalition employee) who spoke at length in support of bike lanes on the highway incorrectly said that the boy (Paul Lafargue) was killed in 2020 at a red light. Paul was in a pedestrian crosswalk on his bike WITH the green light. She the speaker was wrong. Now there will be even more FRICTION on the highway with EV scooters, EV bikes, skate boards and bikes. The city council needs to understand the weight of their decision as lives may be jeopardized. The future will tell if this imprudent decision will expose your lack of reflection regarding safety for our community.
At the public meeting on this a few months ago, the regional head of Caltrans said that Caltrans would not remove the parking without approval from the City of Palo Alto (although it might legally be entitled to via a bypass procedure). It seems to me that the City Attorney is reporting as legal fact something that in practice is not true (as she has done in past controversial decisions) .
On the whole, I think this was a good outcome for the community. As housing is built on the El Camino Real (ECR) corridor, there will be more people of all ages and abilities traveling across and along this multi-lane highway. The fact is, many hundreds of PAUSD students cross ECR twice each school day, not to mention many other people who walk and bike and drive the corridor. All of these people will experience reduced risk of injury and fatal collisions. This is a good thing. Thank you, City Council, for prioritizing safety of road users today. Soon we will have a repaved El Camino Real. Bike lanes were a given, not a city prerogative. Other cities around us: Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Mountain View and Menlo Park are all getting bike lanes with Caltrans repaving. This plan creates a continuous facility through our city for the region. Without much leverage, staff and Council have managed to get Caltrans agreement to improve CROSSINGS that people use every day and other in-town segments of ECR. To the businesses–These changes (new housing, new pedestrian and bicycle accessibility), collectively, will bring new business to the corridor. Go out and study these intersections. Notice how parked cars obstruct visibility at intersections and driveways. Notice how people who park on ECR have to exit/enter their car by opening a door to the active highway lane beside them. Parking planning is underway. This was a challenging problem set, but thoughtful decisions were made.
Re: “ the agency has the authority to modify El Camino even without the council’s support, according to City Attorney Molly Stump”
However, the regional head of Caltrans (based in Oakland) affirmed at the public meeting held at Paly a few months ago that Caltrans would NOT override a city council lack of approval for the removal of parking along El Camino.
Thus City Attorney Stump, Burt and others are disingenuous to claim the City had no choice but to remove the parking. It’s often helpful politically to claim one is being forced into an unpopular decision even when that’s not the case.
The “no right turn on red” seems targeted to protect students biking to school, yet those students already use their preferred routes, which are all perpendicular to ECR. If I’m a student, why would I bike N/S on ECR instead of through Mitchell Park, where all of my friends are, or Cowper, where it feels much safer? This restriction is a feel-good mitigation which is actually completely decoupled from the intended effect, and it’s just going to make driving on ECR through Palo Alto a nightmare.
Thank you Mondoman for your accurate description of the Feb. 29th meeting at Paly where the lead from CALTRANS, Saleh, stated that the bike lane proposal would not go forward unless the PA city council authorized the removal of parking on the highway El Camino Real. Molly Stump tried to provide cover politically for the council as they voted for parking removal on the ECR. Her history of not doing right by residents is exemplified with caving to Lanferman for Michael Alchek and the Presidents Hotel. One could see how the minuet between Stump and Burt was rehearsed. It was unethical for Stump to tell the public that CALTRANS holds legal authority and therefore the council’s role was perfunctory. If the other council members had courage they would have joined Lydia Kou and voted against removing parking and bike lanes. Only council member Kou supported keeping the community safe.
I’m a longtime cyclist in Palo Alto. I’ve NEVER felt the need to go cycling down El Camino. Why should I when Park Blvd and other parallel routes provide much safer opportunities? This sounds like a solution looking for a problem.
The first portion of the “Park pike path” is only a partial bike path and relies on a revocable CalTrain easement, they may go away soon. The Park path actually extends from Churchill to Matatero, where it turns back to El Camino. It’s useful if you are going from central Palo Alto, to Gunn or Barron Park, but it’s out of the way and not an efficient way to get form one end of Palo Alto to another. And, even if it were extended to the border of Mountain View, it would end many blocks away from the El Camino bike route that Mountain View, Los Altos and Sunnyvale have welcomed.
In a recent bike ride between Palo Alto and Santa Clara, the distance following current shortest-distance bike paths (recommended by Google maps) was over 18 miles, while the distance on the El Camino was 8 miles. (Google Maps didn’t recommend Park as part of the route to get there, even as an alternative.)
It is easy to throw out Park as a reason for Palo Alto to not join the other cities in welcoming a safe and efficient protected inter-city bike path up and down the Peninsula, but when you examine its actual state, and even its future potential, it just doesn’t work.
When questioned, the head of PA Transportation repeatedly responded that Caltrans had refused to answer various key questions. That, if nothing else, should have been when our “leaders” said, “Nope. Come back to us with answers and THEN we’ll talk.”
Look at the graphic and think about all the ECR driveways. I was on ECR this week and almost got rear-ended trying to avoid several cars that had nosed so far into the right lane when braking to avoid them while boxed in with traffic in the next lane. SCREEEECH.
Now imagine bikes trying to avoid the cars nosed into “their” bike lane and tell us in what world this is safer and not plain nuts.
How special that “mental health” is a top PA priority.
Mayor Greer says “safety” should be the top priority; it should be SANITY.
Until former Mayor Kou asked, no one had even addressed OBVIOUS questions like who’s going to maintain ECR, who’s liable for accidents, who’s going to police ECR, how much we’ll have to compensate destroyed businesses, if the new obstacles will make anyone safer, etc etc. etc.
Shades of the Casti hearings where it took our “leaders” 6.5 YEARS to even ask BASIC questions like who’s going to count, police and PAY for traffic monitoring.
Careful there, Online! You are sounding dangerously level-headed! Have you considered moving to Los Altos to better fit in?
Hah. Los Altos at least managed to fire its City Manager for non-performance although it DID retain the consulting services of former PA transportation czar Jaime Rodriquez who took a DECADE to address synchronizing the traffic lights near Town & Country to reflect when the students were NOT at Paly and who was finally dismissed after running his own business selling green paint and other stuff on OUR dime and who’s now collecting a lifetime pension…
And for Los Altos he worked his magic by sprinkling their fair city with 24-hour-blinking traffic lights on quiet residential streets next to people’s bedroom windows which it took a year-long lawsuit to get removed.
Don’t forget the fun drivers had in Los Altos bottoming out their cars on the Cuesta speed tables that were higher than standards allowed and had never been vetted by the fire department. (Cuesta is an emergency evacuation route.) Emergency vehicles had to slow down en route to El Camino Hospital, losing precious minutes. The solution (?): Tear up the $900,000 speed tables and put speed bumps on alternate sides of Cuesta so fire engines and ambulances could zig-zag down the street. So could cars, knocking over trash cans and almost running into pedestrians on the sidewalk-less street. What next, oh wise Los Altos planners?
To Mondoman–or perhaps, Caltrans’ Mr. Saleh was being disingenuous at that early meeting–which seems to me more likely, given what I know (as a layman) about State policy and law. Please note that I am not accusing Mr. Saleh; I am simply pointing out that there is another likely possibility.
To Neil, the No Right Turn On Red restrictions are specifically targeted to designated school commute routes and routes that kids use to get to after-school activity locations, like soccer fields on ECR, for instance. Thousands of new housing units are coming to ECR. People who live there will need bike lanes along ECR to get from their ECR homes to crossings and quieter bike routes.
Also, elimination of parked cars to make room for bike lanes will shorten crossing distances at intersections for bikes and pedestrians and greatly improve sight lines at driveways and intersections. These are positive safety improvements for all road users, including drivers.
The City Council wrings its hands about struggling retail, but doesn’t extend such sympathy to the important retail district along ECR in South Palo Alto. Business owners tell us they need on-street parking to survive. They were here, serving the community, long before an enthusiasm for biking devolved into a powerful lobby. It’s a betrayal not to believe the store owners and to eliminate parking on ECR.
The silliest comment is that is “dangerous” for drivers to park on ECR because you have to be careful when opening the passenger door to check for traffic. That maneuver is not akin to opening your car door on 101 or 280, folks. Somehow I have been able to exit my car on ECR with nary a scratch for decades.
I’ll keep it simple — we will all adjust to having and using bike lanes on ECR. This is great news. I can hardly wait to have more efficient biking on ECR. Thank you, City Council.
Thanks to Lydia Kou for speaking out for small businesses, their patrons, as well as residents and guests of all the new apartments and condos that don’t have adequate parking.
And thanks, Lydia, for noting that Caltrans should focus on fixing the humongous potholes NOW! Seems like cars don’t matter. They think that when our tires and suspensions are shot, we’ll all sell our cars and ride bikes 20+ miles to work, to shop for groceries, to take our kids to soccer practice, to go to the dentist/doctor/drugstore …
It’s more fun for Caltrans engineers to make grandiose plans than to get out and make essential street repairs. They like spending huge amounts of taxpayer money on virtue signaling. What about the state budget deficit? Where’s our county rep, Joe Simitian, on all this? Does he ride a bike to work?
Councilman Lauing said the city will go “block by block, business by business” to find parking solutions. Have fun, Ed. That will take a miracle. Neighborhoods don’t want business parking on their streets. We’ve already seen what happened in College Terrace, Downtown North and Crescent Park. People couldn’t get out of their driveways!
Never mind the people living in vans. What about all the Paly and Stanford student cars lining El Camino during the school year?
Gregg Forrest, owner of Cardinal Bike Shop, said, “This is going to blow up in your face.” Next to Lydia Kou, he was the smartest guy in the room.
Narrower lanes on ECR? That doesn’t sound safe. Please Palo Alto. Can we have any roads where cars can safely drive any more (at least once the pot holes are fixed)? There are several areas in Palo Alto where cars currently wait to turn right in the existing parking area. 1) Keys School during drop off (Los Robles, ECR) 2) Starbucks (Ventura, ECR), and 3) Paly. Wondering whether the right traffic lane or the bicycle lane should be blocked?
Also looks like we’re reducing Charleston down to one lane between ECR & Alma on the new train crossing renderings. Traffic continues to increase, especially with of the the new construction.
Telling, isn’t it, that the City plans to talk to residents of Evergreen Park, Mayfield, and Southgate about employees parking in these neighborhoods, but they do not mention College Terrace. What is it immune??? Let me take a guess.
This is so wrong-headed. Commercial activity and cars belong on commercial streets. Cars do not belong in the residential areas. What will happen here is that cars will increasingly become frustrated traveling on ECR and take short cuts through the residential areas. Good luck to school children biking or walking to school through those areas. Employees from the local businesses on ECR will park in the residential areas who fought for years to finally get the cars out of their neighborhoods. Here comes more traffic, pollution, and residential parking nightmares. Leave the cars on El Camino and put bicycles in the residential areas. Safer for everyone. And then we ask why businesses leave Palo Alto? Lots of businesses haven’t shut down, they have simply moved to Los Altos or Menlo Park.
Thank you, Evergreen Park for bringing up cut-through traffic: “Good luck to school children biking or walking to school” when frustrated drivers take short cuts through residential areas.
Way back in 2012, when the aforementioned Jaime Rodriguez convinced the city to narrow Charleston/Arastradero to two lanes, “traffic volume rose in three areas within the Barron Park neighborhood: Maybell Avenue and Maybell Court; Maybell Avenue and Pena Court; and Matadero Avenue at Josina Court. The traffic count at Maybell and Pena rose significantly from 2,700 vehicles to 3,348 daily” according to the city. That’s a 24% increase on a “safe-route” to several schools.
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2012/07/27/commission-approves-arastradero-traffic-plan
I agree with Lydia Kou and Pat Burt. I think the state should put its money where it’s mouth is, underground the train through Palo Alto, and make the area above it a continuous bike, pedestrian, and small vehicle path (separated) from one end of town to the other, adding separate signaling for bikes that could accustom bikers to the signaling so it can be added elsewhere for safer bike throughways in busier-traffic areas. (I realize I’m just dreaming out loud, no need to reply with a can’t do rant.). The state should have worked harder to create better bike paths through residential areas that make sense. There is no recognition in this plan about how all the overbuilding has put more traffic on El Camino as an artery and how that has caused conflicts with bikes, hence more crashes. What happened to SF and other larger cities recently really should be more of a cautionary tale. If you build it, they will come, but if you overbuild it, they will eventually go…
It might not be perfect for every scenario, but by and large, removing curbside parking tends to increase business for local businesses, contrary to what these business owners believe (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0966692323002053?via%3Dihub).
That study of Aachen, Germany, actually suggests something different. Namely, “ greening, outdoor dining, benches, or other equipment that invites people to spend more time in a street” are what increase business success.
We’re not planning on replacing El Camino parking with plants or outdoor dining I think…
“I think the state should put its money where it’s mouth is, underground the train through Palo Alto, and make the area above it a continuous bike, pedestrian, and small vehicle path (separated) from one end of town to the other, adding separate signaling for bikes that could accustom bikers to the signaling so it can be added elsewhere for safer bike throughways in busier-traffic areas…”
Uh, the state has no money to put anywhere now that it’s running a huge deficit and has cut all but the most basic services. It’s cutting money for affordable housing and public transit, state teachers are suing for “unconstitutional” cuts to basic education, etc etc.
Yet it continues to take away the rights of cities to regulate or even fine unsafe autonomous vehicles, to control their own budgets by forcing cities to build more housing although they lack the funds for EXISTING services and certainly for the future infrastructure and services needed by the new residents…..
Safety isn’t the issue; SANITY is.
Bill G.
Thanks for the link to the study. It seems to say that if curbside parking is banned, you need to have—among other things—multi-story parking garages nearby in order to compensate for the loss and to help businesses. Is the city planning any parking garages adjacent to ECR to replace the lost parking? My guess is no.
The article omits mentioning the advocacy and professional inputs provided by members of PABAC. Palo Alto’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee. Several PABAC members met with the ad-hoc Council committee created in April and spent hours reviewing and improving Caltrans’ proposal.
The article also omits mentioning the tireless advocacy of Penny Ellson on behalf of the safety needs of school kids at the El Camino crossings. Penny, also a member of PABAC, was long time chair of the City/School Transportation Safety Committee and wrote many letters over the years to Caltrans.