(disclaimer: the views presented here are entirely my own)

Plans are not promises. Goals can conflict when it comes time for implementation.

Map of Planned bicycle facilities in Mountain View with the Rengstorff highlighted as BLTS1 - All Ages and Abilities
Rengstorff and two other recently completed Complete Streets design projects. Source: AccessMV

This map, from AccessMV, shows the plan to have low-stress, all ages and abilities bike facilities on Rengstorff. During engineering design this plan conflicted with the goal preserving traffic operations. The choice of which (safety or traffic operations) takes precedence was made by staff before any designs were created. The choices presented abandon, either wholly or in part, the map above.

Mountain View has planned for Class IV protected bike lanes on Rengstorff since at least 2015. The corridor was listed in AccessMV and the draft Active Transportation Plan as part of the city’s planned “All Ages and Abilities” network. Rengstorff, as a 4-lane, 35MPH street, would only be All Ages and Abilities with fully protected bike facilities.

Table from AccessMV listing AAA requirements cited above

The Rengstorff design is before CTC on Monday. Three alternatives are presented. One alternative provides protection along portions of the route. Other alternatives provide no protection and are high-stress for the entire route.

Unlike the Moffett and Middlefield cases, where the class IV facilities are dropped only at pinch points (with 85, 101), the protection in alternative B is discontinuous everywhere. There is virtually none south of Montecito. This is not a low-stress, all ages and abilities design. This falls short of the plan.

Image of the planned design showing very little protection
Portion of Alternative B, showing paltry protection (only the dark blue areas above will have class IV facilities)

The possibility of providing low stress facilities via road diet was considered, but rejected. The rejection was justified by vehicular-only1 traffic analysis (LOS2 and queueing)

A road diet is not wanted just for the sake of a road diet, and should not be judged in isolation. A road diet is wanted in order to provide the planned-for safe biking facilities.3

We are asked by staff to pick between a “green” and “bike”. The “car” choice being presupposed4. The traffic goals were treated as a hard requirement, and the planned bike facilities as optional. This pre-screening is not any adopted city policy (the general plan states only to “Ensure performance measurement criteria optimize travel by each mode.”). It was a discretionary choice during planning.

Instead of choosing one priority as more important, staff could bring an alternative that actually provides protected bike lanes (and intersections5), explain the trade-offs, and allow our elected representatives to make the choice of which goal is more important. Rengstorff is identified as the city’s #1 safety priority in Vision Zero. We should not be skipping safety improvements lightly.

Notes

  1. Only vehicular traffic analysis was done. The city’s bike and pedestrian measurements (BLTS, PQOS) were not done. So there is only quantitative data for one side of the argument. ↩

  2. The city itself recognizes problems with LOS (illustrated in the linked page) and is generally moving toward other measures. VMT is mandated over LOS for CEQA for example. ↩

  3. A balanced design might be possible. The traffic concerns are concentrated in the north of the design, and the missing protection is generally in the south. A road diet up to Rock St, for example, would allow access to North Bayshore (Google) via the Permanente Creek Trail, while (potentially) avoiding the most affected intersection at Old Middlefield. ↩

  4. Staff notes that “congestion” is the top safety concern from the public survey. But this is the question being asked: “Which of the following safety challenges do you experience on Rengstorff Avenue?”. The question is multi-select, and not ranked. (also: is congestion really a “safety concern?) None of the survey questions genuinely ask the public to rank traffic flow vs safe bike facilities. If staff had presented a road diet alternative then we would have that data. As it stands we do not. ↩

  5. Staff promises to pursue protected intersections “Where feasible”. Protected intersections are very relevant because left-turn crashes involving pedestrians or bicyclists are among the common crash types identified on north Rengstorff. The city’s Vision Zero Action Plan lists protected intersections among its countermeasures for common pedestrian and bicycle intersection crashes. A road diet would create more physical space for protected-intersection elements, but that possibility has not been analyzed. ↩