The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/4/2025 Item 6b, Mills Russell S Mills < To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Item 6b Prado Interchange and Bridge Value Engineering To: Mayor and Council Members From: Russell Mills, ATC Member Subject: Item 6b Prado Interchange and Bridge Value Engineering Date: November 4, 2025 Regarding the ATC recommendations on p. 215 of the sta? report, there are several recommendations that lack rd clarity and deserve further explanation. At our meeting on October 23, the committee experienced a robust discussion regarding the Prado Road design modiﬁcations, which concluded with four motions comprising the committee’s recommendations. All four motions were made by me, incorporated content from the committee’s deliberations, and were approved unanimously in all cases. Most importantly, the ATC recognized the importance of decreasing cost for the Prado project and generally supported the design modiﬁcations being proposed. However, many of these modiﬁcations reduced the e?icacy of certain cycling and pedestrian components of the project and, consequently, the committee made recommendations for several enhancements in support of safe and e?icient active transportation. The committee was adamant that the AT improvements should be continuous throughout the project, from Dalidio rd Drive to South Higuera Street. The illustrations presented to the committee on October 23 showed AT improvements that varied from segment to segment. If realized, these discontinuous features would lead to confusion and added complexity by requiring transitional elements between the three roadway segments. These negative aspects may be avoided through consistent design. The ATC unanimously supported a protected two-way, multi-use path on the south side of Prado. Besides accommodating pedestrians, the design would also provide a path for less conﬁdent and capable cyclists, especially children, similar to what now exists on Madonna. During discussion, one or two committee members questioned whether this path was necessary, yet all members of the committee eventually supported a formal motion to provide this path. This is the ATC’s recommendation, not the cross-section lacking this path shown in Figure 14 on p. 216. Also, while no motion was made, some committee members also questioned whether four lanes were needed for motor vehicle tra?ic in Segments 2 and 3. As presented to the ATC, the cross-sections for the three segments often showed on-pavement Class II bike lanes. The ATP and the ATC both work toward avoiding this older style bike lane, especially when used on high-speed, high-tra?ic arterials, as Prado will eventually become. The committee has generally supported separated or protected bike lanes for these applications and for Prado the committee recommends the used of unidirectional Class IV (i.e., protected) lanes on each side of the roadway. This is in addition to the two-way path on the south side of Prado. The Class IV lanes are anticipated to accommodate experienced cyclists, especially those using e-bikes. This will reduce the incidence of relatively high-speed bikes on the multi-use path, providing for a better experience on this path for pedestrians and slower cyclists. Class IV lanes will also be viewed as a safe route for many cyclists and can be expected to reduce illegal bicycle riding on the sidewalk on the north side of Prado. 1 The illustrations in Figure 13 and 14 on pp. 215-216 show the use of both Class II and Class IV lanes. The ATC at its meeting did not even consider this possibility but, instead, preferred Class IV lanes instead of the Class II lanes. Not both. At the meeting, the committee was told that shoulders were needed through Segment 1, the portion with only one motor vehicle travel lane in each direction. This shoulder is intended to provide width for motor vehicles to move to the curb away from the tra?ic lane if they are disabled or being passed by emergency vehicles. This intended use is in direct conﬂict with also using this shoulder as a Class II bike lane. It would be better not to stripe the shoulder as a bike lane and instead provide protected Class IV lanes on each side of the roadway, as the ATC recommended. In conclusion the ATC recommended the following: 1. Support for the project modiﬁcations, conditioned on implementation of additional enhancements provided in support of AT. 2. Continuous AT elements throughout the length of the project. 3. A protected, two-way, multi-use path on the south side of Prado, with a sidewalk on the north side. 4. One-way, protected bike lanes (class IV) on each side of Prado instead of Class II lanes. The committee also expressed concern regarding the vehicle barrier illustrated in Figures 8 and 9 on p. 209. The concern is the use of such a barrier as shown with a Class II bike lane would force cyclists, to avoid a pedal or handlebar strike with the barrier, to ride closer to the tra?ic in the vehicle lane. The barrier also would prevent a cyclist from attempting to move away from the motor vehicle lane to avoid a potential collision. The ATC did not make a formal recommendation regarding this barrier since there is a likelihood the barrier will not be needed as depicted when the ﬁnal design is developed. 2