March 8, 2022
1 ,P~~P C~ARq'c•.
g 9;off ~ !~~•.
~ ' o Z .
M~ssioN G%
Agenda
City Council
Study Session
Item No. 2 — 22-1669
Item No. 2, RTC 22-1669
Pruneridge Avenue
Complete Streets Plan
March 8, 2022
• History of Pruneridge Avenue
• Project Scope/Funding/Goals/Schedule
• Outreach Summary
• Traffic Data and Analysis Process
• Improving walking conditions
• Improving bicycling conditions
• Next Steps
• Questions &Answers
2 7
~'()S7' I~IIEETING IWgTERIAL 1
3 4
231
'CP~'MP~
gar
W
W ~ CENTRAL
~ OF-
g z
EL CAMINO c~~~O
~~
0~ CITY
OF
SAN JOSE
CITY
OF PRUNERIDGE
CUPERTINO
Pruneridge Avenue
• 3-mile east-west minor arterial street
• 2 to 41ane roadway
• City and Cross-County Bicycle Corridor
Pruneridge Avenue Project Map
5 West of Pomeroy Ave
(Cities of Santa Clara and Cupertino)
.f ~~~~e ~ ~ ~,y~ ~~~
~;~c, - ,.~~4ti+ ~~,,~r ~ ,~~, i i t ~ ~
~'~i~~• Ste'
—~ '~`"t"t y ~'~, ,.~~! ~ 1. p~ '.~ ~ --~~
e~i.
2011
~: 41ane road•~ ~~~
No bicvcle 1
—~— --~ - .
~---=..
,~~. ~ ,
3 2012 Bicycle Lanes ~ ~ ~ 2018 San Jose Bicycle O1 Bicycle Lane Improvements at Lawrence Expy r~ ~ ~ Project Area Lanes Project OZ New Traffic Signal at Cronin Dr
Project Scope and Funding
a
• Study 2.2 miles of Pruneridge Avenue
(Pomeroy to Winchester) for Complete
Streets improvements
• Caltrans planning grant funding of $351,0~~
• Council approval of agreement with Alta
Planning +Design in November 2020
Project Goals
• Create a "Complete Street" plan for everyone, no matter who they are or how they choose to travel.
— Improve bicycle and pedestrian connections
— Improve the comfort and safety of all users of the roadway Zo
• Analyze and summarize traffic, parking, and collisions along the corridor
• Seek and record community input on options at multiple points in the process ,o
5 ~.
a~' ~' Clty Of
``~d~'` Santa ClaraThu Centcr of \Y hay's Possible
Community Workshops dl and k2 Community Workshops tt3 and b4 Community Workshops d5 and k6 2021 WINTER SPRING SUMMER FALL 2022 WINTER SPRING SUMMER FALL 2023 - n rmation Gathering + Develop and Share Roadway Concepts Share Revised Public Drak Plan Review Community Survey Roadway Concepts Period 8 City Council Review W e are here
~ f R..
t e ~y . •Y' k -'~\~
II ~~': `
y- -•r ..-~ - ---
~,"'y> _h ~yq , ~ '
~ - ~ s,
~
s•
runerid ve atpAaywe "1~ar~,k~__ ~ ~ ,; .~ - ~ - _ _ „~
Outreach Summary s~~:~~~~ ~~ty°fSanta ClaraThe Confer of Ylhal's Possibly
Outreach Completed
13 23,238 postcards mailed
— 115 einails received
— 4o messages received
— 1,026 responses to 3 surveys
5 stakeholder interviews
6 Committee &Commission
M eetings
Celebrate Santa Clara &Christmas
Tree Lighting Ceremony
6 online workshops (259 attendees)
Community Feedback Themes
Reduce traffic congestion (50%)
Improve bicycle conditions (18%)
Calm traffic speeds (15%)
Improve walking conditions (13%)
Preserve on-street parking C4 % )
14 7
City of Santc
15 Collision Data (2016-2020)
• 4o collisions
• 4bicycle-involved
• 2pedestrian-involved
~ Q ~ ~ W ~m Q~ m~ >
O I~ ~jm W~ 00NI L
~~ PRUNERIDGEAV PNnendge ~ ~-~-_ ~ ._ Goll Course ~ y- .~ __.___ _. _ _— +J May~x~odPa - - ---- "'' N
~ i-t ; , N y ,~;~ ;:, ---- r-', ~ ~•N > , _ _ _San Jose_ Y m Santa Clara ,
~ ~
ay
E:j
a'~ ~~ Clt~/ Of
,~~,~. ` Santa ClaraTha Cemer al Whalk PossiLl _~
Pomeroy to Kiely
44% of drivers exceeded
35 mph
~85in% 39 mph)
Kiely to Sarah
39% of drivers
exceeded 35 mp
~85tno~o 39 mph)
Saratoga to
W inchester
57°/a of drivers
exceeded 35 mph
,~(85~h% 41 mph)
a~' ~~~ Clt)/ Of
~.._.~Santa ClaraThe Center o1lYhatk Possible
Location
Pruneridge -North Side
Pruneridge -South Side
Pruneridge -Overall
Side Streets
# of Available
Parking
1 Average Cars
Observed Utilization Rate
On a typical block, there are 8 out
of 10 parking spaces available.
Traffic Analysis Process
• Traffic modeling completed in the project area
• Intersections evaluated using the City's Level of Service (LOS) scores A through F
— LOS D acceptable operations for City
— LOS E acceptable operations for County
• Traffic counts collected Feb. 2021 and adjusted to
represent pre-COVID traffic volumes
19 Existing
M orning (AM) Peak
• 24 acceptable
• i unacceptable
Evening (PM) Peak
• 25 acceptable
• o unacceptable
AM ~ PM
• Acceptable
• Unacceptable
20 1 ntersections LOS
`F, ~~.r~es`eaa: e
N°
AREA.
~•
.. ..
;,
~
QJ
~• p,~e 1 ~ ,~,~ moo., a~
•~
,.my
PRUNERID EAVE_~
~,
• a a ~----e -~
~Mauricia Ave Y m ~ 20
10 21
Pedestrian Improvements Toolbox
~~
Note: All suggested
improvements could be
pursued independently.
22 11
Sample Pedestrian Improvements
Pedestrian Advance Yield/
Signage Crosswalk Markings
23 Sample Pedestrian Improvements
24 =.~ '~---~ 1=
Curb Radius
Improvements
= ~ ~J
~ y .J
;+.~ - -
'~
_~-__
Traffic
Engineering
Studies~ ~.
~,~;
~i it ~ ~ t ~ ~~ ~ ~I ;
~j I~-
24 12
ADA Improvements
( Curb Ramps and
Accessible
Pedestrian Signals)
Pedestrian Improvement Map
~ Pedestrian Improvement (City jurisdiction)
• Pedestrian Improvement (multi jurisdictional)
i~ John Sufte~
Q~ E/enlentary
, ~ Schoa/
(~J-~
` IYeshvooU
Mil/ik/n m Schoo!
~
J
O ~ Bas/css ~~~ [0 ~
Q ~ w m
PRUNERIDGEAVE ~o;~ ~' W ~?
May~wod Pa .,
• ~.
N
UE/senhowei
Schoo/
t~ .
~1 C
}
T ~ P
N --
Y m ~P~~ ~s
25 26
13 27
Bicycle Master
Bicycle Plan Updaten nao ,i
Master Plan v
Developing and Analyzing
Roadway Concepts
• Four Roadway Concepts
— Current Conditions / No Build
— Concept 1—Four Lanes w/ parking removal on one-side
— Concept 2 — 'I~vo Lanes w/ parking and bike lanes
— Concept 3 — 'I~vo Lanes w/ parking protected bicycle lanes ~t 7
• Concepts analyzed against parking and traffic
Plan (2018)iigua t0
28 14
Hi~ArioAly HecommanEations 6 EdsUng Bikaw~ya
gar. ra — - ""
Oti.~ ,..
Current Conditions /
No Build
Z~
29 Current Conditions/ No Build
• Parking remains the same ~,o ~, , ,
Traffic lanes remain the same o ,fi .
• LOS remains the same 8~ s~ $. ~2 O
• Travel time remains the same ~ ' u.
• Speeds remain the same ~ J; ~ 64; z '2~ $' s 8,'
~Rg TO
• Collison frequency remains Ap Rpx 9~ ~ a z
the same '" a
• No bicycle improvements 30
30 15
W
Concept 1:
Four Lanes w/ parking
removal on one-side
• ~~
31 32
I[~:
Concept 1: Four Lanes
• Maintains four lanes so changes to vehicular travel are minimal — No changes to LOS
— No change in travel time
— Speed reduction of ~ mph - 6 mph
• Removes parking on one side
33 34
16 - 18% per side
35 - 38% on one side
(w/ remaining parking)
8 of 10 spaces available
6 of 10 spaces available
m
17 Concept 1: Four Lanes
• Parking analysis information
• Resident concerns about crossing the street
Concept 2:
Two Lanes w/ Parking
and Bicycle Lanes
35 35
36 m
Concept 3:
Two Lanes w Parking
Protected Bic cle Lanesy
37 19
Concepts 2 and 3
• Collision, Speed, LOS, and Travel Time for both concepts the same due to two travel lanes for each concept
• Difference - Buffered or Parking protected bike lane
19 - 47°/a reduction 3 - 6 mph slower
K~:
39 Concepts 2 and 3 (LOS)
M orning (AM) Peak
• 2i acceptable
• 4 unacceptable
Evening (PM) Peak
• 22 acceptable
• 3 unacceptable
AM ~ PM
• Acceptable
• Unacceptable
40 ~..~aP ~ aPie
•N°mestea
AREA
i ~ • -~. - ,~ ""'
,~~ ,,..,~o,.=~...d,~ • ,~Q ,~,~
v~• ~e
~
1 E ,~
`O
,4z~P.< ~
F ~ aes ~,~ a~o =_.., • vim. F°~~ c~u x
_ ...
~ cuzw,
'=
~
PRUNERID EAVESMy
~~ T
'-------`
"-35rit52TSr5
Mauricia Ave ~ Y m ;40
20 a''~~N~'ti City of
~"~ Santa Clara>.,a~ The Cent¢r of Whatb Pouibla
Intersection Operations
Concept AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Acceptable ~ Unacceptable ~ Acceptable ~ Unacceptable
Current Conditions / No
Build
Concept 2 & 3: Two
Lanes w/ parking and
bicycle lanes
_'~ ~`` City of
~' Santa Clara~ `Tha Cenler of Whatk PosA6ts
Travel Time (min)
Concept
Morning Westbound ~ Evening Eastbound
(peak direction) ~ (peak direction)
Current Conditions/No Build Option
Concept 2 & 3: Two Lanes w/ parking
and bicycle lanes
Concepts 2 and 3
• Lane reduction results in estimated traffic diversion along adjacent streets
• Major Roads: San Tomas Expressway, Stevens Creels Blvd • Collectors Roads: Homestead Rd, Kiely Blvd, Scott Blvd, Benton St, Winchester Blvd
• Minor Roads: Forbes Ave, Los Padres Blvd
43 43
Summary of Analyses
m
44 22
o~ Clt)/ Of
-` ~ Santa ClaraTha Censer of Whal4 Po~siWe
Concept I Lane
Narrowing
Current ConditionslNo Build
Concept 1: Four Lanes w/ parking
removal on one-side
Concept 2 & 3: Two Lanes wl parking
and bicycle lanes
Lane I Potential Potential
Reduction Collision Speed
Reduction Reduction
a'~ ~ Clt~/ Ofa
~~` Santa ClaraTha Centerol Whatt Posalble
Concept Typical
available
parking
Current ConditionslNo Build Option
Concept 1: Four Lanes w/ parking
removal on one-side
Travel Time (min)
Morning Evening
Westbound Eastbound
(peak direction) (peak direction)
Concept 2 & 3: Two Lanes wl parking
and bicycle lanes
a~~Clt~/ Of
Santa ClaraTha Centcr of Yliintl Pu:si Llu
•
Intersection Operations
Conce t Traffic
p Diversion AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Acceptable Unacceptable Acceptable Unacceptable
Current Conditions / No
Build
Concept 1: Four lanes w/
parking removal on one-
side
Concept 2 & 3: Two Lanes
w/ parking and bicycle
lanes
'~'~ ~` Clt~/ Of
"`~'` Santa ClaraTha Cenleral Whalt Posalbla
Preserves Minimizes Improve
Reduces Improves Walking andConcept Speeding Safety On-Street Additional BicyclingParking Congestion Conditions Current Conditions I No
Build
Concept 1: Four lanes w/
parking removal on one-side
Concept 2 & 3: Two Lanes
w! parking and bicycle lanes
Next Steps
• Prepare Public Draft Plan
Release Public Draft Plan for public review /community input • Present Public Draft Plan to BPAC
• Update Public Draft Plan based on public review/BPAC
• Present Final Draft Plan to Council in Fa112o22
49 50
~~
25 ~;, ~ p, C L q Rq
.• P~ c~ .,
o~ ~~.c~
ii ~i~ O
~,,...._ ~ '~' a. ~~.~~~-,-:~
t .= ~. ry MIS~ `,~yF
- __
City Council
Study Session
Item No. 2, RTC 22-1669
Pruneridge Avenue
Complete Streets Plan
March 8, 2022
51 alp ClAR9 c -..
OZP '`~ ~ity ofe~ i p
J 'lyF4~f610N~~,+- n Santa C I a ra""' ''" The CenterofWhat's Possible Date: March 8, 2022
To: City Manager's Office
From: Executive Assistant, Mayor &City Council Office
Subject: Correspondence received regarding Item 2 on the March 8, 2022, City Council Meeting Agenda
As of March 8, at 3:00 p.m. the Mayor and City Council Offices received the attached correspondence regarding agenda item 2, Study Session — Pruneridge Avenue Complete Streets Plan.
Martha Martinez
Executive Assistant
Documents Related to this Report:
1) Communications received
~'~S~' NI~ET'ING Il~l~►,~'~F~Y~~
Martha Martinez POST MEETING MATERIAL
From: Kirk Vartan <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 6, 2022 12:02 PM
~"o: Mayor and Council
Cc: [email protected]; Art Maurice
Subject: Item 22-1669 -Study Session - Pruneridge Ave Complete Streets -SUPPORT CONCEPT C
Mayor and Council,
have been part of many Complete Street discussions, including this one. I help to communicate this activity to the neighborhood and surrounding communities.
hope you will recommend preceding with further fleshing out Concept C. The reasons I am suggesting this one are as fo I I ows:
1. It reduces the vehicle lanes, thus slowing down vehicular speeds to speed limits (current, it is a very fast and dangerous corridor) 2. It will align well with San Jose's connector to the east of Winchester 3. It will provide leadership in developing future cycle and pedestrian friendly corridors 4. It creates a protected bike-lane (critical in reducing bicycle accidents) 5. It maintaining all existing parking (not a huge fan of that, but it seems like a good compromise) 6. It creates a buffer for bikes not to get clipped by car door openings (happens a lot) 7. Allows for better visibility for residents to see any oncoming bikes 8. Crates a turn lane so general traffic flow is not impacted 9. Create large visual cues for bike awareness 10. Will encourage more cars to head to Stevens Creel< or EI Camino for express travel 11. Pruneridge is already adead-end due to Apple, so there is no reason to have four vehicle lanes hope you will recommend Concept C for future development. I know there is no funding for construction at this time and you are simply looking at concepts, but selecting Concept C is the most forward looking and robust solution there.
There is a lot of development in the area, including the Agrihood, that encourages non-vehicle mobility. This concept embraces it the best.
Thanks for considering this.
Kirlc Vartan
A Slice of New York, a Worker Cooperative A New Yorl< Experience in the Bay Area 3443 Stevens Creel< Blvd. (San Jose/Santa Clara)
1253 W EI Camino Real (Sunnyvale)
SJ: (408) 24-SLICE / SV: (650) 938-NYNY
https;//gcc02.safelinl<s.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asony.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cma yorandCouncil%40santaclaraca.gov%7C275918b5022b4afe421908d9ffac3dfa%a7C28ea354810694e81aa0b6e4b3271a5c b%700%700%70637821937798173672%7CUnl<nown%7CTWFpbGZsb3dSeyJWljoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJ6 Ti1611<1haWwiLCJXVC16Mn0%3D%703000&sdata=uclEfOg3ud71J3a5daFFR7cYwBYQnhsxEKOPD%2FyFcLO%3D& ;reserved=0
https://gcc02.safelinl<s.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.911memorial.org%2F& data=04%7001 7CmayorandCouncil%40santaclaraca.gov%7C275918b5022b4afe421908d9ffac3dfa%7C28ea354810694e81aa0b6e4b3 271a5cb%700%700%70637821937798173672%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWljoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luM zIiLCJBTil611<1haWwiLCJXVC16Mn0%3D%703000&sdata=9wpEY9XG06%2B%2BhP7gHMAINVaxgn3fmoevdCmjbuo9s Uc%3D&reserved=0
Martha Martinez POST MEETiNr MercnTw.
From: art maurice <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 6, 2022 9:33 PM
To: Mayor and Council; Kirk Vartan
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Item 22-1669 -Study Session - Pruneridge Ave Complete Streets -SUPPORT
CONCEPT C
Dear Mayor and Council,
apologize for missing this last meeting but I have been in previous ones. Kirk and I have long been community activis~i and are both officers of the Cory Neighborhood Association which borders Pruneridge Avenue.
First a poini of clarificafiion, I t~elieve Kirl~ is talking about Concept 3, nat "C", 'from the ~owerpoint presentafiion. While I like Concept 3 and Kir{< made some very valid points, I have ~ couple concerns.
1. Ifi is not the current bike lane standard. Every Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, I ride my bike on ~ihe Santa Clara streets to get fio AirbornE Gymnastics at 1515 Walsh. Those are the days they have adult classes. The bike lane I use are similar to concept 2. So the I'm asking is, "I~F we go to Concept 3, are all ~ihe bi{<es lanes going to be reformafited io match thai or is Pruneridge going ~io be the one of flew streets with This new concept?"
2. Using Concept 3, cars coming out of the driveway will have to cross the bike lane, then the parking zone and finally merge onto Pruneridge. During commuter hours, which should have the most cars and bicyclists, there may be cars trying to i~nerge onto Pruneridge that block the bile lane. Which leaves two options for the bicyclists: a) go in front of the car, possibly onto fihe street, to c~et around it or b) go behind the car, possibly onto 'the sidewalk, 'to get around it.
W ith Concept 2, the cars normally drive into the parking zone and wait. I hey wait there for ar opening io get onto the street and usually don't block the bile lane.
You can probably tell that I prefer Concepf 2 as i~t sficks with the current standards and there's safety inherent in standards. Now if with there's new money from the federal infrasfiructure bill that the city is planning on using to change the standard to Concept 3...well then my argument is moot.
But fihat still leaves my second concern of cars blocking the bike lane as they try to get onto the street. I can see that being a big issue during commute times. It could be even worse during off- commuie fiimes as drivers see no traffic and rush to beat fihe bicyclist io gel on the street.
It's the "beat fhe train" mentality. A driver sees the train coming but thinks they can cross the railroad Tracks before fhe train gels there. I don't know the statistics o~~ who makes it and who doesn'i but we've all seen news report of trains slamming into cars as they fry to "bead the train" across the railroad tracks. But this time the bicyclist is the train and they are going fo lose to the car. bring this up as I bi{<e a lot and this has happened io me quite often. Both coming out of the driveway and going in. Cars going in are much worse as you're pinned and you have to react fast. A handful of ~~imes I've had to jump the curb and use a bush to help me stop. It's not fun but it's better than a car.
Witi~ concept 3, the bicyclist is~pinr~ed on poih sides, assuming (here's a parked car in the parking see~ion:""fh'~'fast reaction situafiion, I don'i know where the bicyclist would go. My guess is you use the parked car io help slop you.
There is one indirect concern ~thar should be considered. I he stale of California has funded $10 million dollars for a program to give ref~afies to people buying electric bicycles. I his should starfi at fihe end of 2022 or the beginning ofi 2023. I here~fore in the coming years, there will be rnany more electric bicycles, meaning more bikes going faster than current bikes.
These bikes go 20 to 25 miles per hour. My normal speed is between 15 to 'I S mph. I've pushed myself to get into the 20 mph range but that lakes a lot of effort and usually fne wind to my back. This speed will become more commonplace and with that the reaction Times will be longer.
Thank you for your time,
Art Maurice
President, Cory Neighborhood Association
On Sunday, March 6, 2022, 12:01:41 PM PST, Kirk Vartan <{<irl<@asliceofny.com> wrote:
Mayor and Council,
have been part of many Complete Street discussions, including this one. I help to communicate this activity to the neighborhood and surrounding communities.
hope you will recommend preceding with iuriher fleshing out Concept C. The reasons I ain suggesting this one are as follows:
1. It reduces the vehicle lanes, thus slowing down vehicular speeds to speed limits (current, it is a very fast and dangerous corridor)
2. It will align well with San Jose's connector to the east of Winchester
3. It will provide leadership in developing future cycle and pedestrian friendly corridors
4. It creates a protected hike-lane (critical in reducing bicycle accidents)
5. It maintaining all existing parking (not a huge fan of that, but it seems li{<e a good compromise)
6. It creates a buffer for bikes not to get clipped by car door openings (happens a lot)
7. Allows for better visibility for residents to see any oncoming hikes
8. Crates a turn lane so general traffic flow is not impacted
9. Create large visual cues for bike awareness
10. Will encourage more cars to head to Stevens Creek or EI Camino for express travel
11. Pruneridge is already adead-end due to Apple, so there is no reason to have four vehicle lanes hope you will recommend Concept C fior future development. I know there is no funding for construction at this time and you are simply looking at concepts, but selecting Concept C is the most forward looking and robust solution there. There is a lot of development in the area, including the Agrihood, that encourages non-vehicle mobility. This concept embraces it the best.
Thanl~s for considering this.
Kirk Vartan
--------------------------------
A Slice of New Yorl<, a Worker Cooperative
A New Yorl< Experience in the Bay Area
3443 Stevens Creek Blvd. (San Jose/Santa Clara)
1253 W EI Camino Real (5unnyvale)
SJ: (408) 24-SLICE / SV: (650) 938-NYNY
www.asony.com
Marfil~a fV(artinez POST MEETiNc; McT~erw~
~rorn: Kirk Vartan <[email protected]>
Se~~t: Sunday, March 6, 2022 10:05 PM
Ta: Mayor and Council
Ce: [email protected]; Art Maurice; Teresa O'neill; Bob Levy Subjecfi: Re: Item 22-1669 -Study Session - Pruneridge Ave Complete Streets -SUPPORT
CONCEPT C
Thank you Art! Yes, I did mean Concept 3. And i really appreciate the perspective, especially from an avid bile rider (and Know you are one!).
Here is my main issue with Concept 1 and 2: Neither of them utilize protected bile lanes. As a driver, one of the biggest hazards I feel is a side swipe from a car to a bile. I think this is the more common-place and statistically substantial concern. By having the parked cars on the street next to the moving traffic, you completely isolate the bile land and the cyclists. The only way a vehicle will interact with a bile is from the driveway. And only in Concept 3 can the driver see the bile lane completely when they are existing their property onto the street. Both of the other Concepts block all bile activity with parked cars. And if there is a van, pick-up truck, or SUV, there is a high likelihood the rider will be hidden until the hood is completely in the bile lane and the driver inches out to look around the car. do agree that consistency is a basis for safety. And it is true that the San Jose connection that would link to this path looks more like Concept 2. But let's be clear, San Jose didn't select the best option, they picked one that they could afford (and they ar I<inda broke) and that wouldn't disrupt the many driveways. I asked multiple times of the planned why there were not protected bike lanes, and I don't feel there was an acceptable response.
So I would like to suggest Santa Clara lead the area with how bile lanes should be constructed: In a way that pay difference to the most vulnerable, the cyclist. Creating better visibility and separation from 2-ton cars that are consistently driving distracted is the safe way to move forward and show the others what needs to be done. Again, would love to see the parked cars completely removed and decorative planters or other physical barriers erected, but doubt that will ever happen.
am copying two other avid cyclists very familiar with Santa Clara so they may weigh in. Here is the link to the plans:
Prunerid~e Avenue Design Concepts
Kind regards,
Kirl< Vartan
Vice President, Cory Neighborhood Association
Lead, Forest-Pruneridge Nextdoor Community, made up of both Santa Clara and San Jose residents On Mar 6, 2022, at 9:33 PM, art maurice <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Mayor and Council,
apologize for missing Phis last meeting but i have been in previous ones. Kirk and I have long been community activist and are both officers of the Cory Neighborhood Association which borders Pruneridge Avenue.
~irsi a point of clarification, I believe Kir!< is -iaiking about Concept 3, not "C", from the powerpoint ~r~senfiation: While I like Conceit 3 and {dirk made some very valid points, i have a couple concerns.
1. It is not the current bi4~e lane sfandard. Every Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, I ride my bike on the Sanza Clara szreeis to get io Airborne Gymnastics at ~ 515 Walsh. Those are the days they have adulfi classes. The big<e lane I use are similar io concept 2. So the I'm asking is, "I~ we go to Concept 3, are all the bikes lanes going fo be reformatted ~o match that or is Pruneridc~e going io be the one of few streets with this new concepi?"
2. Using Concept 3, cars coming out o~ the driveway will have to cross the bike lane, then the parking zone and finally merge onfio Pruneridge. During commuter hours, which should have the most cars and bicyclists, there may be cars trying to merge onto Pruneridge fih~t block the bike lane. Which leaves two options for the bicyclists: a) go in front o~f the car, possibly onto the street, to gel around it or b) go behind the car, possibly onio the sidewalk, to get around it.
W ith Concept 2, fihe cars normally drive into the parking zone and waif. I hey wait there for an opening ~to gefi onto the siree~ and usually don't block fihe bike lane.
You can probably ~~ell Thai I pre~~er Concept 2 as it sticks wifih the current standards and there's safety inherent in standards. how if with there's new money from the fiederal infrastructure bill that the city is planning on using to change the standard to Concept 3...weil ~ihen my argurnent is mooi.
Bud ~~hat still le~v~s my second concern o~ cars blocking the bi{<e lane as 'they try to get onto the street. I can see that being a big issue during commute times. It could be even worse during off- commu~e times as drivers see no '~raf~ic and rush ro beat the bicyclist to get on the street.
It's the "beat she train" mentality. A driver sees the train coming but thinks they can cross the railroad firacks before the firain gets there. I don't know the statistics of who makes it and who doesn't but we've all seen news report of trains slamming infio cars as they try to "beat the train" across the railroad tacks, But this fiime the I~icyclist is the train and they are going to lose to the car. bring this up as I bike a lot and This has happened to me quite often. Bofih coming out of the driveway and going in. Cars going in are much worse as you're pinned and you have to react fasfi. A handful of times I've had to jump the curb and use a bush fo help me slop. It's not fun but it's better Than a car.
W ith concepi 3, 'she bicyclist is pinned on bosh sides, assuming there's ~ parked car in the parking section. In a fasfi r~acfiion situafiion, I don't !<now where the bicyciisi would go. ~Vly guess is you use the parked car to help stop you.
There is one indirect concern iha~ should be considered. I he state o~ California has 'Funded $10 million dollars for a program to, give rebates to people buying electric bicycles. This should start at the end of 2022 or the beginning ofi 2023. Therefiore in the coming years, there will be many more electric bicycles, meaning more bikes going ~~as~er khan currenfi bikes.
These bikes go 20 to 25 miles per hour. My normal speed is befiw~en 15 to 18 mph. I've pushed myself fio get in'~o the 20 mph range but that Makes a lot of eifori and usually the wind to my back. This speed will become more commonplace and wiih that the reaction times will be longer.
Thank you for your time,
Art Maurice
President, Cory Neighborhood Association
z
On Sunday, March G, 2022, 12:01:41 PM PST, f<irl< Vartan <kirk(a~asliceofnv.com> wrote:
Mayor and Council,
have been part of many Complete Street discussions, including this one. I help to communicate this activity to the neighborhood and surrounding coir~munities.
hope you will recommend preceding with further fleshing out Concept C. The reasons I am suggesting this one are as follows:
1. It reduces the vehicle lanes, t'hus slowing down vehicular speeds to speed limits (current, it is a very fast and dangerous corridor)
2. It will align well with San Jose's connector to the east of Winchester
3. It will provide leadership in developing future cycle and pedestrian friendly corridors
4. It creates a protected bike-lane (critical in reducing bicycle accidents)
5. It maintaining all existing par{<ing (not a huge fan of that, but it seems like a good compromise)
6. It creates a buffer for bikes not to get clipped by car door openings (happens a lot)
7. Allows for better visibility for residents to see any oncoming bikes
8. Crates a turn lane so general traffic flow is not impactecl
9. Create large visual cues for bike awareness
10. Will encourage more cars to head to Stevens Creek or EI Camino for express travel
11. Pruneridge is already adead-end due to Apple, so there is no reason to have four vehicle lanes hope you will recommend Concept C for fiuture development. I Know fihere is no funding for construction at this time and you are simply looking at concepts, but selecting Concept C is the most forward looking and robust solution there. There is a lot of development in the area, including the Agrihood, that encourages non-vehicle rnobility. This concept embraces it the best.
Thanks for considering this.
Kirl< Vartan
---------------- ----------------
A Slice of New York, a Worker Cooperative
A New York Experience in the Bay Area
3443 Stevens Creek Blvd. (San Jose/Santa Clara)
1253 W EI Camino Real (Sunnyvale)
SJ: (408) 24-SLICE / SV: (650) 938-NYNY
www.asonv.com
www.911 memorial.orq
-`~ ~
:~
Martha Martinez
From: Frank Lemmon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2022 5:23 PM
To: Mayor and Council
Cc: Frank Lemmon
Subject: Public Comment for Mar 8 Council Meeting
City Staff:
am submitting the following to be read at the Mar. 8th Council meeting during public comments.
Thank you.
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
As the Council looks forward to the annual budgeting process in May and June, I wish to suggest that funding for a study of the economic impact of locating City Hall in the Downtown district at Monroe &Benton be included in the budget plan. A great deal of planning for the downtown district redevelopment has been completed, but for due diligence it's essential to assess the impact of locating City Hall in the downtown district as an option. For example, the downtown district offers a unique opportunity for locating City Hall where it will be part of the plan, instead of a "drop in" to an existing development already in progress. Therefore, I hope the Council will utilize the opportunity to commission a study, as it's the wise and informed thing to do.
Respectfully yours,
Frank Lemmon
District 5 Resident
i
~-.~ yv
POST MEETING MATERIAL
M artha Martinez
From: leroy rodriguez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2022 4:34 PM
To: Mayor and Council
Subject: Pruneridge Complete Streets
Hello, as a resident of Santa Clara I would like to have bicycle lanes on Pruneridge as they have now from Pomeroy to Cupertino. This section of Pruneridge has reduced traffic accidents by reducing the speed of vehicles in both directions and noise in the neighborhood. With the price of gasoline increasing and projected to increase even more in the future. More residents will be using alternative modes of transportation like bicycle riding. More people are using electric bicycles and scooters to travel around the city. I feel safer riding my bicycle on Pruneridge from Pomeroy to Cupertino.
LeRoy Rodriguez
~. _~-~ ~~~~%~
POST MEETING MATERIAL
Martha Martinez
From: Sharlene Liu <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2022 3:56 PM
To: Mayor and Council
Subject: I support Pruneridge bike infrastructure
Dear Santa Clara city council and mayor,
am a bike commuter who lives in Sunnyvale and bikes occasionally to San Jose downtown. Having a robust bile lane on Pruneridge in the 2-mile segment that currently has no bile infrastructure is critical to get more people like me to bile. have had to go on smaller neighborhood streets to skirt Pruneridge, and that males my commute longer, malting it less likely forme to bile. Please support bile commuters.
Thanl<you.
Sharlene Liu
Sunnyvale resident and bile commuter
~~,
a
POST MEETIIV(; N1gTE6tIA~
M artha Martinez
From: Ed Maurer <emaurer@scu,edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2022 3:48 PM
To: Mayor and Council
Subject: please approve the Pruneridge Avenue Complete Streets Plan Dear Mayor and Council Members,
As you contemplate the different concept plans to improve Pruneridge Avenue I urge you to approve one of them (Concepts 2 and 3 are especially promising). The current striping breaks what would otherwise bean important E-W bicycle corridor through Santa Clara County. Concepts 2 and 3 also provide a desperately needed left turn lane, allowing much safer left turns for vehicles and bicycles into and out of driveways and side streets along Pruneridge, The detailed studies show so many benefits of adopting a complete streets approach, so the public right-of-way can better serve all residents, notjust those choosing to pass through the City using vehicles.
As a licensed civil engineer for over 30 years, I Know how infrastructure must change not just for current needs, but anticipating future demands. The current design of Pruneridge is based on what seemed important more than half a century ago, and it does not serve current needs well. I hope that the City can move forward with a plan that loo!<s to shape a more inclusive and sustainable future, and improving Pruneridge Avenue plays an important role in that.
Thank you.
Ed Maurer
Robert W. Peters Professor and Department Chair
Civil, Environmental and Sustainable Engineering
Santa Clara University
Santa Clara, CA 95053-0563