2024. 07.22 Speaker Cards-PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

© 2024 Embarcadero Media 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. 7/21/24, 5:21 PM Blog: No WiFi on Hopkins? - Redwood City Pulse https://www.rwcpulse.com/blogs/peeking-at-plans/2023/12/04/hopkins/5/5