|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Editor's Note: The views and opinions expressed in all blog posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Redwood City Pulse or its staff.
rwSan Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA)
"The purpose of the Measure A and Measure W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program is to fund specific projects to encourage and improve bicycling and walking conditions. Funding can be used for […] construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities within San Mateo County." [SMC TA]
To receive that funding, our city claimed: "Bicyclists will benefit from the traffic calming and upgrades including green thermoplastic markings for conflict zones at intersections and upgrading sections of painted bike lanes to buffered bike lanes with raised buffers."
Redwood City did ask for $1.2 million in Measure A funds and did receive them. In a previous post, however, we established a few things already:
- speed humps were removed from essential locations
- speed humps were moved to the wrong locations
- no speed humps east of Dingee Circle mean speeding is still happening there
- speed humps incentivize trucks and large cars
There were hardly any improvements for pedestrians either. Nobody fixed the sidewalks, no raised intersections, no raised crosswalks, flashing beacons on only some, downgrading others; some crosswalks completely disappeared.
While other communities prepare for flooding with rain gardens or green streets, Redwood City does not.
For $1.2 million in bicycle funding, we should expect that people on bicycles will get something out of it.
But that didn't happen either. There are only a few feet of green thermoplastic markings. There are a few feet of buffered bike lanes in unused areas. If there were raised buffers during the pilot phase, they were taken down after. And it gets even worse after that, let's look at four different examples:
Example Number One – "MAY USE FULL LAN"
The upper section of Hopkins has no upgrades, but it has this weird sign I just don't understand. Two theories have come to mind so far, but I'm open to more suggestions:
Option One: This is a passive-aggressive way of letting people on bicycles know they should bring a long cable because they won't get WiFi here.
Option Two: When Pat Sajak retired, he took all the E's. With only one additional "E," this sentence would become a passive-aggressive way of saying that cyclists won't get bike lanes here.
The missing WiFi wouldn't be a huge issue for most cyclists, but the disappeared bike lanes are a debacle. A traffic safety project with $1.2 million in bicycle funding must be ADA compliant, be All-Ages-and-Abilities (AAA), and include Safe-Routes-To-School (SRTS). When you MAY SHARE the road with 6,000 lbs cars, it is neither one of those.
Example Number Two – Interim Peninsula Bikeway
The Peninsula Bikeway is one of the Traffic Advisory Committee's (TAC) signature projects. It starts in Mountain View, passes through Palo Alto, and into Menlo Park. It would be relatively easy and cheap to continue north and connect the three counties that share the Peninsula.
Unfortunately, RWC broke the whole plan. Instead of ending in San Mateo, Burlingame or San Francisco, this buck stops here in RWC. So because of the county seat, it became the Interim Peninsula Bikeway, and it's not connecting the county. And just to be thorough, they also broke the 'Interim' version.
Currently, in Redwood City, there are at least two spots where the city forces cyclists to ride a crosswalk. One of these is at Hess Rd when crossing SR-84, and hopefully, Caltrans will fix this next year. The other one is right at the Dingee Circle, and the initial Hopkins plan promised some changes to this area. And we need to keep in mind that this is also a major school route for Sequoia HS.
Naturally, when you take $1.2 million in bicycle funding from the county, people might expect a fix for the county-connecting Peninsula Bikeway. But that didn't happen. If any changes were made, they were not good ones. See how the bike lane just stops there. It's unclear where you go from here to the other side of Duane. This is where an excellent modal filter would have helped, but the parking lane seems to be of higher priority to city council members and the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC). An independent Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) would have noticed this.
Example Number Three – The Bike Lane Squeeze
Next could be one of those "I'm not a robot" tests: "Select all images with obstructed bike lanes."
or
Where is Artificial Intelligence when you need it …
To achieve traffic calm and safety here, you could widen the parking lane, buffer the bike lane, narrow the driving lane, and eliminate the median.
Example Number Four – The Speed Hump Comedy of Errors
I have to admit that, at first, it was funny to watch how staff pretended to increase bicycle safety to get the funding. Yet, they still struggled with very simple concepts around speed humps. The way city hall set this up, drivers would just go around the speed humps and use the bike lanes instead.
Does nobody (consultants, city staff, city council, planning commission, traffic advisory committee) understand what is wrong with this picture? Where would you put those bollards if your goal was to protect people on bicycles? And would you choose the model "Wimpy"?
So far, so funny …
After proving that bollards obviously can't work, the city chose the worst possible solution for people on bicycles. They put speed humps right across the bike lanes. And while speed humps hardly mean anything for trucks and SUVs, they can trip up people on bicycles quite a bit. Especially at night when you don't see or expect them. Tripping up cyclists is a very unorthodox way of encouraging cycling.
While the cat's away, the mice will play.
This project would have had a better outcome if Redwood City hadn't defied the Grand Jury for the last 20 years. A dedicated bicycle advocate within city hall or an independent BAC or BPAC would have picked up on all these flaws like "bicycle speed humps" or "squeeze lanes." Too many advocates, however, are embracing traffic calming projects purely on principle. The thinking goes that if it is terrible for people in cars and trucks, it must automatically be suitable for people on foot and bicycles. But all this project did was install medians with trees. Driving drivers associate medians with fast streets like El Camino Real, Woodside Rd, Sand Hill Rd, and SR-101. The speed limit wasn't lowered either. Technically, it's still a 25 mph street, which means 30 mph in America and 40 mph without enforcement … and RWC doesn't do much enforcement these days. There are a few speed humps around Stafford Park. Still, there is absolutely nothing currently reducing the speed between El Camino Real (ECR) and Dingee Circle or between Alameda de Las Pulgas (ADLP) and Nevada St. This project did nothing to control volume, did too little to reduce speed, failed with traffic calming, failed with pedestrian safety, reduced bicycle safety, did not increase flooding resilience, did not create a Sustainable Green Street.
But most importantly, it took $1.2 million in bike funding that is supposed to "encourage more walking or biking," making this another ethical issue.
… and we still have to discuss how gerrymandering played into this project.
