You are here

KimleyHorn-County - Proposal 3

Consultants to San Mateo County have created a proposal one strech of the Santa Cruz/Alameda Corridor.   This proposal does not address the northern segment of Santa Cruz Ave above the "Y".

For that southern most section of Santa Cruz Ave (South of Y), this proposal has several changes:

  • Eliminates the dangerous 3rd NB lane at the Y (uses normal lane for that traffic)
  • Reduces each direction to a single lane of traffic
  • Center turn/merge lane is retained
  • Parking on the east side (northbound)  is move away from curb to allow room for inner protected bike lane
  • Bike lanes are added both directions
  • both bike lanes are next to curb

For  Alameda de las Pulgas, this proposal has several changes:

  • Reduces each direction to a single lane of traffic
  • Creates a Center turn/merge lane 
  • Parking on both sides is move away from curb to allow room for an inner bike lane
  • Inside Bike lanes are added both directions
  • both bike lanes are next to curb

Note:  This is not a proposal that was created by our community SAFE group, nor is it recommended by SAFE.  This proposal is not the recommendation of the Cycling commision.   It is a propsal that County is presenting in conjunction with their consultants.

Below are there engineering drawings.  Have a suggestion or concern? Enter your Comments and feedback below.


testobject

 

Click on the File link here to see the full Kimley-Horn/County Proposal. 

Comments

I have questions and concerns on this proposal by County/Kimley-Horn. My research shows these protected bike lanes used in only in areas that do not have driveways such as the tight configuration we have.   This KimlyHorn design has other flaws that  do not address our community's needs,  so I am not understanding why this is being recommended by County.

KH/County Proposal 3
Several residents have reacted to this concept as being extremely unsafe for residents and for bikes. Here are some of the issues that need to be understood:

  1. Our parking is parallel parking and when parking is near full, this would require a parallel parking maneuver, and that would block that traffic lane, causing traffic to stop. Cars queued behind a parking car, would probably start changing lanes and add further risk.
  2. With over 2 dozen driveways and Palo Alto Way, the cyclist seems to be much more at risk to ingress/egress events, especially when the parked cars hide the visibility of the cyclist and the motorists — seems this issue is visa-versa, equally bad for both.
  3. Residents would, when exiting their properties, have much greater issues with visibility as parked cars are immediately next to the traffic lane and thus critically block views of the on coming traffic. If the bike lane is in its typical position, it provides visibility to the oncoming traffic and a much safer action.
  4. Residents waiting to enter SCA from their driveways, would end up blocking the bike lane because they have to inch out to the edge of the parked car lane and their cars/trucks would then block the bike lane while they waited for a safe space to enter SCA.
  5. Same as item above, there are hundreds and hundreds of trips from Palo Alto Way, and they would have to stop before the inner bike lane, then stop again after proceeding out a bit (to the park lane edge) to see if it was safe to enter SCA. Cars in queue would probably queue bumper to bumper and once again block the bike lane.
  6. Cars turning left from SCA into Palo Alto Way or driveways on that side of the road would do so at great risk to everyone: They would be concentrating on a clearing in traffic to start their turn, but the parked cars hide the visibility of on coming cyclists creating a serious safety dilemma: the driver has committed to make the turn, entered the on coming traffic lanes, only to find a conflict with a previously unseen cyclist.
  7. There does not seem to be any traffic lane door buffer for parked cars. They are right next to the traffic lane and would have difficulty entering or exiting the driver side doors. Seems they would be unreasonably put at risk, especially if they were loading/unloading kids or other items into the car.
  8. One other issue is that many of these driveways are at steep angles and this creates additional issues with having to negotiate two separate traffic paths (bike and motorists).

The above concerns is why I have asked the County to provide the research and findings for making this recommendation. I have also asked for reference materials they used so we can better understand the reasoning and benefits of this configuration.

Add new comment