Honorable Menlo Park City Council

I write regarding the meeting tonight April 1, and the discussion regarding the "negative declaration" for the Oak Knoll School plans. I write as a parent, who has had two children attend the school, and I have 10 years experience biking, walking and occasionally driving children to and from the school. I write as a member of the committee which in 2001/2002 worked on the Safe Routes to Schools plan for Oak Knoll, as a city bicycle commissioner who has worked on safety material for teachers and students, and as a parent volunteer at multiple "Bike Safety" assemblies and rodeos for the school children and teachers.

The proposed Oak Knoll design adds an extended two lane drop-off line in the space now used for bicycle parking. This last two weeks there have been between 125 and 175 bikes parked there, not counting parent's bikes who ride in with the younger children. Between 15% and 20% of Oak Knoll parents and children walk or bike to school, and the numbers have been increasing each year since implementing a Safe Routes to School grant in 2002.

In reviewing the proposed plans for Oak Knoll, particularly the design features related to the reconfiguration of the exit driveway, the creating of an interior roadway, the relocation of the existing crosswalk, the removal of a sidewalk directly in front of the school, etc. I am very concerned that this study which concludes there is no impact on pedestrian and bike travel near the school is very flawed in its methods and particularly in its conclusions. I think there are numerous concerns with the report.

#1) While the traffic study and simulation is extensive and 130+ pages long,
the study is entirely focused on car counts, car traffic - it has minimal study of pedestrian routes, numbers, bike routes, numbers, etc. It doesn't count parents who walk or ride in with young children, count who has tandems or trailers, what bikes are going to be leaving after the parents drop off their young cyclists.

It completely ignores the very significant impact the direction of traffic has on Oak and Oak Knoll - and the impact of proposed roadway changes on the very successful Safe Routes design features implemented in 2002. Increasing the traffic on Oak Knoll and Oak, and changes as to the direction of traffic may create significant safety conflicts between pedestrians, bikes and re-routed car traffic. This report has no method to analyze safety or conflicts between cars and pedestrians and bikes.

#2) The 2001/2002 Safe Routes to School grant and project for Oak Knoll
produced important survey data and was summarized in several reports. This most recent study for the board doesn't use any of the data on cyclists, pedestrians, street conditions, roadway widths and configurations, etc. It doesn't address how the proposed changes would interfere or interact with the parking restrictions, routes and crosswalks implemented in the safe routes program. There is additional useful survey data from the "walk to school day" events, such as maps showing where students walked, comments from parents on hazards, etc. All this relevant material is not referenced, used or applied in the study.

#3) There are extensive simulations of auto traffic queues, but there is no
effort to use these models to examine the existing conditions, to see if the models accurately replicate the actual situation at the school now. Unless verified against existing conditions, the output results of these simulation models are completely untested. The city engineers identify some strange inconsistent traffic counts in the conclusions of the study. More significantly, he study makes no effort to analyze if the existing design could be improved with

1. Better parent education
2. right turn, or left turn out of the existing parking lot, or both-way exit as proposed

These measures are recommended as important for the new design - but if applied to the existing design they might get the same improvements in reduced length of the traffic queue. I cannot understand how the proposed design can be considered "improved" if the existing design, with these same features, was never analyzed.

#4) The design intent of the interior roadway is to take cars off the street
for a few minutes of the morning drop off. Yet the study data show that a minority of the students arrive to school via the car drop-off line (more students walk, bike, and bus to school than are dropped in the car drop line). The study states that even with the changes, 30% of the parents driving will still prefer to park on the street. The net change is of order 10 - 15 cars removed from white oak, yet the impact of these proposed changes on the majority of the arriving students is not analyzed. The study is focused on a situation for the minority of the arriving students, and ignores the impacts on the majority.

#5) Removal of the sidewalk in front of the school is completely counter to the
concept of a pedestrian and bike friendly school design. It also removes a sidewalk for the neighbors after school, anyone walking in the neighborhood, etc.

#7 The existing design crosswalk conflict, between the cars exiting the school
site and the pedestrian traffic - isn't in any way mitigated by this new design. It is just pushed further down the street.

#6) Concentrating all the pedestrian, bike, and bus traffic to one narrow gate
is going to make a very congested morning, especially for the parents with tandems and trailers. The traffic in this gate will be two-way. There is no estimate of the area needed to park bikes, or any expansion plans if more students begin riding to school.

#8) The district report concludes "this design is safer for pedestrians
because the sight lines at the relocated crosswalk are improved". I think their criteria, the sight distance between two opposing cars, is appropriate for a rural 2 lane road, where passing is hazard. The relevant measure for pedestrian-car approaches are sight lines between the approaching car, and the pedestrian. The existing design is better in this respect

In summary, I think the report completely fails to study the interaction of the roadway and sidewalk changes, and the pedestrian and bike safety issues. I fear the proposed changes would reduce the number of parents cycling and walking.

The city has authority and responsibility regarding the travel of students to and from school, and their safety up to the district property line. On tonight's agenda are measures related to sidewalks on Santa Cruz avenue, and a study to increase the numbers of students walking and biking to our excellent local schools. The council and citizens value the importance of safe walking and cycling opportunities in our city.The proposed Oak Knoll plan, and reconfiguration of the exit driveway and crosswalk appear to be inconsistent with these values. At best, the study and resulting "negative declaration" fail to study the safety of these changes, or model the impact of the proposed design.

For these reasons I urge the council to not grant the request to reconfigure the exit driveway, remove the school sidewalk and relocate the primary school crosswalk. The council may want to request the district adequately restudy these issues and the many others that have been raised by the city commissions, city staff and concerned citizens. The district may prefer to eliminate these roadway design features and move forward on the important renovation and new facility plans which are supported by the community.

Sincerely,

John D. Fox
1310 Elder Ave
Menlo Park Received on Tue Apr 1 15:19:51 2008