Mountain View Honored as a "Bicycle Friendly Community"
Mountain View accepted the League of American Bicyclists Bronze Level award/designation as a "Bicycle Friendly Community" at the Council meeting on Tuesday, February 24th. This was a great honor for the City as it adds to an extended track record of three such designations!
The Bicycle Friendly Community Program is the only national designation program that recognizes communities for improving their transportation network and trail facilities for bicyclists. Mountain View is one of only 96 communities in 31 states that are designated as Bicycle Friendly Communities at the Bronze through Platinum award levels.
Key accomplishments include:
- The completion of Reach 4 Segment 1 of the Stevens Creek Trail
- A high number of bicycle commuters: over 4 times the national average with plans to increase those numbers
- A 52 space bicycle shelter at the Downtwon Transit Center
- Education efforts such as the elementary school bicycle safety education program in which all 7 schools participated
- Use of Safe Routes to School Program funds to construct safety improvements such as speed deterrents, traffic circles, pedestrian signals, and radar speed warning signs
- Energizer stations located throughout the City on Bike to Work Day
A press release and a picture of BPAC members is attached.
| Preview | Attachment | Size |
|---|---|---|
| Bicycle Friendly Mtn View Honor for 2009--Press Rel.pdf | 125.93 KB | |
| IMG_7332_1_1.JPG | 1.17 MB |
Submitted by John Ciccarelli on March 3, 2009 - 10:24pm.
Bob,
Regarding the Shoreline/101 overpass bike lane striping, I was involved in the early 1990's as charter member and chair of MVBPAC. The reason for the bike lanes staying to the right of the NB and SB loop ramp exit lanes as far as they do is that Shoreline has a substantial crest vertical curve over Highway 101, and the ascending grade is initially substantial.
It was anticipated that many (though not all) bicyclists would ascend relatively slowly until near the crest, which implies relatively high differential (closing) speed (a contributing factor to crashes) and also long exposure time to exiting vehicles if they shift left early in the climb (many motorists do not leave the through lane until the crest). Extending the tail of the bike lane up toward the crest enables and encourages slower bicyclists to delay moving leftward across exiting traffic until they are nearly past the steep part of the climb and are thus capable of higher speed and greater acceleration. The right-side bike lane is *not* carried past the crest, where it would be too late for a cyclist to safely move left, and at which point a cyclist might be hidden (by the crest) from a fast motorist ascending the overpass in the exit lane.
Near the crest, the right-side bike lane vanishes and a through bike lane picks up to the left of the exit lane. (I do think that bike lane could be solid-striped on its left side, to indicate to exiting motorists that they should have entered the exit lane before that point.)
Bottom line: If this was a flat overpass, for example like WB Sand Hill Road over I-280, the bike lane striping have been different.
A cyclist capable of ascending the overpass at motor traffic speed can ride legally in the outer through lane because CVC 21208's "slower than normal traffic" condition would not apply.
John Ciccarelli
www.BicycleSolutions.com
Submitted by alison on March 1, 2009 - 10:20am.
Congratulations MV BPAC members and staff for LAB's recognition of all your hard work. I love cycling in Mountain View and appreciate the fact that it's a lot safer and more pleasant place to ride than the nearby community where I lived before. While there still is room for improvement, I have found City staff to be helpful and responsiveness. Let's hope that the next 8 years are even better, as the inevitable rise of fuel prices will bring cyclists out in legion on our streets.
Submitted by Bob Sutterfield on February 28, 2009 - 3:41pm.
Regarding the six Es on which MV might have been evaluated (though the BFC program description still lists only five Es), I know they fall short on at least three:
Apparently those key accomplishments scored highly enough on the other three Es (Education, Encouragement, Evaluation+Planning) to outweigh these problems? Or maybe this deficit is why they only renewed after five years at Bronze, without advancing up the scale?
At a public forum with cyclists in November 2007 I asked Sgt Albarillo of the Mountain View traffic division about their enforcement policies. I posed this question:
When I ride along Rengstorff Ave, I use the rightmost of the two through lanes because the bike lane is in the door zone of the cars parked there - a hazardous place for cyclists. When I use the Shoreline overpass to cross SR101, I use the rightmost of the two through lanes because the bike lane there is painted to the right of a right turn only lane - in violation of the MUTCD. In both those cases I exercise the example escape conditions in CVC 21202(a)(3) [exception permitting discretionary positioning in a substandard width lane] and especially CVC 21208(a)(3) [exception permitting leaving the bike lane].
Suppose in those locations I am followed very closely by a motorist, using their engine noise or horn to express to me their preference that I ride farther right so they can pass more easily. If you observed such an event, would you cite the motorist under 21703 [following too closely]?
Sgt Albarillo responded he would instead cite the cyclist under 22400(a) [impeding traffic], and probably for violating 21208 [mandatory bike lane] also. Aghast, I asked for clarification: You mean you prioritize motorists' convenience over cyclists' safety, even when the cyclist in front has the right of way? He responded he has been both rear-ended and doored in his own personal cycling experience, and in his opinion a cyclist can do more to avoid dooring than being rear-ended, so that's the safer option that he encourages. Besides, he said, a DZBL isn't actually hazardous unless there's a door open and sticking out. If the door is closed, it's only a potential hazard, and not enough reason to impede traffic.
In another part of the discussion, I asked whether he would ever cite a motorist who had right-hooked a cyclist with violating 21717 [turning across bike lane], and he said he couldn't imagine a way in which the motorist could be at fault in such a situation. He's never heard of such a citation.
Based on that conversation, I'm concerned that Mountain View's Enforcement policies are hostile to cyclists. Can SVBC do anything (I was unsuccessful acting as an individual) to improve the situation there? Perhaps by bringing the Engineering into compliance with MUTCD, and by educating the Enforcers, MV could score higher on the other Es and move farther up the BFC scale!