|
So, one option I suggest is that you cancel the meeting, and instead, provide the final data
<br />set report to the residents, since the interim report only reflects 3 months of data compared
<br />to, often several years of pre-pilot data, yet still draws conclusions at that "interim" period,
<br />which is not mid-point data as described, but rather, one quarter data. Give the residents time
<br />to review the report, provide feedback, analyze the data, ask questions, etc. before meeting,
<br />and then have a meeting to discuss the final data and the public feedback before deciding on
<br />what to advise the Council.
<br />The second option is to still provide the final data set as early as tomorrow, keep the October
<br />5th meeting to present and discuss, but don't determine the conclusion within that meeting.
<br />Give it a month to continue to collect feedback and then have another meeting to advise the
<br />Council.
<br />Given that the Interim data report was completed in January 2016, (and it is basically useless
<br />because of the time period taken), and we are now September and no final data report was
<br />provided to residents, but you have a meeting scheduled for next week to discuss it, and
<br />decide all at once without any feedback is completely unacceptable to this community,
<br />particularly the neighborhoods that are directly affected by this poorly implemented pilot. I
<br />explain why I think this is, below. Also, what did the city do with the petition from residents
<br />that was sent in with over 2500+ names on it to change the lanes back to 2?
<br />_____
<br />My summary feedback based on the 32 page document of interim data report: The full review
<br />can be seen better on my thread on Nextdoor titled "Farm Hill City data and October 5th
<br />meeting".
<br />Without looking at data, and just understanding that on one end of Jefferson, Redwood City
<br />decided to expand and grow its downtown with major companies such as Box, Google, and is
<br />expecting Stanford, as well as several new residential buildings, it is illogical to shrink the
<br />other end of Jefferson and Farm Hill Bouelvard, which directly connects its downtown to the I-
<br />280, and its Farmhill and Emerald Hills residents to Alameda de las Pulgas, El Camino Real,
<br />and Veteran to Whipple to the 101, from 2 lanes each way to 1 lane each way.
<br />But, I did take the time to look at the interim data report on the website, and it is
<br />largely inconclusive due to unequal period of time comparisons of the data. It also does not
<br />seem to take into consideration the increasing population of residents and non-resident
<br />commuters which are as a result of the City's decision to expand downtown. Essentially, it
<br />appears that the city heard complaints for residents who lived on Farm Hill in 2012,
<br />implemented this project in 2015 without any further data or notification to residents or
<br />neighbors, causing a surprise to the community, all the while having new growth in
<br />downtown.
<br />The project created bike lanes, shrunk driving lanes, and consequently, diverted traffic to
<br />narrower hill streets that were not designed to carry the increased traffic loads, often do not
<br />have shoulders or sidewalks, will experience accelerated deterioration, and thus, making
<br />those streets unsafe, particularly during peak times. For example, according to the interim
<br />report, within the first 3 months of the pilot, Highland Avenue had 60 additional cars driving on
<br />it each morning, likely avoiding Farm Hill, and being used as an alternate route to get kids to
<br />Roy Cloud. Perhaps it should be considered that Farm Hill is a Boulevard and bikes should
<br />have routes on smaller side streets to be safer. The way the interim data reads right now, the
<br />average of 1.3 accidents per month over the 5 year period compared to the average of 1
<br />accident per month in 3 months, can be interpreted to mean that the previous configuration
<br />8.A. - Page 71
|