Sunnyvale study session examines buffered bike lanes, alternating parking and status quo for Hollenbeck Avenue

Sunnyvale Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission members heard a presentation March 20 on a feasibility study to close a bike-lane gap on Hollenbeck Avenue between Alberta Avenue and Danford Drive.

The study team — Eric, the city traffic engineer, and Ollie Joe of Hexagon Transportation Consultants — summarized existing conditions, collision history, bicycle volumes and three preliminary alternatives that vary in how they treat on‑street parking and the physical separation between bicycles and motor vehicles.

The study said Hollenbeck is a 40‑foot curb‑to‑curb residential collector that now lacks continuous bike lanes while parallel arterials have them. Ollie Joe said the consultants’ collision review for 2018–2022 found “we have 5 bicycle collisions along this corridor within the 5‑year period,” and that two occurred at intersections and three were mid‑block, two of which were collisions with parked vehicles. The team also reported that a 14‑hour bicyclist count on Hollenbeck is roughly one‑third of Mary Avenue and about 70% of Sunnyvale‑Saratoga Road, despite Hollenbeck’s lower speeds and its lack of a bike lane.

The three alternatives presented: - Buffer bike lane (Alternative 1): 6‑foot bike lane with a 3‑foot painted buffer, vehicle travel lanes narrowed to 10–11 feet and removal of on‑street parking along the corridor. The team said this alternative provides the greatest separation for bicyclists and the highest comfort benefit but would displace on‑street parking and require changes at several intersections (Remington, Torrington, Fremont). The presentation estimated preliminary construction costs for Alternatives 1 and 2 at about $2 million to $4 million, driven largely by intersection improvements such as removing pork‑chop islands at Fremont. - Bike lane with alternating parking (Alternative 2): a 5–6 foot bike lane with parking retained on one side of the street but alternating sides in transition zones. The design preserves some parking (staff estimated “slightly less than half” of current spaces could be retained) but creates lateral shifts in vehicle travel alignment and transition zones where parking must be removed. - Maintain existing condition with Class 3 bike route (Alternative 3): no bike lane, signage and shared‑lane markings only; retains all on‑street parking but offers few safety improvements, the team said.

Staff and consultants highlighted three geometric constraints that affect any design: a northbound VTA bus route between Fremont and Remington (requiring wider northbound lane widths), a planned left‑turn improvement at Remington that could remove space for a bike lane at that single location, and the pork‑chop islands at Fremont that would need removal to allow continuous bike lanes through that intersection.

Parking impacts and equity questions were central to public comment and commissioner discussion. The consultants reported maximum on‑street parking counts across several sample days and said the northern section around Danforth and a stretch from Torrington to Fremont show high utilization; in three shaded segments people would likely walk about six to seven minutes from relocated parking to their destinations if on‑street parking were removed. Commissioners asked for more detail on who uses the parking (residents vs. school drop‑off vs. retail) and for driveway utilization data, which the study team said had been collected and would be included in the final memo.

Several commissioners pressed for more collision detail and for how the Hollenbeck alternatives would interact with the city’s planned intersection improvements. Commissioner Melman asked for police report details and fault allocation; the consultant said police reports exist and that staff would include the breakdown in the final memo. Commissioners also flagged operational concerns at school drop‑off/pick‑up and bus operations at Remington.

More than two dozen public speakers addressed the commission during an extended public comment period. Many residents, students and local bike advocates urged the commission to support Alternative 1. Student speaker Sarah Mohsen told commissioners she avoids Hollenbeck because it is unsafe and asked the commission to “choose Alternative 1, providing a safe protected bike lane for all.” Long‑time cyclists and Sunnyvale Safe Streets speakers said alternating parking (Alternative 2) creates door‑zone and transition hazards and noted Wolf Road’s alternating design has been unpopular.

Other residents stressed parking loss concerns and asked staff to confirm how much displaced parking could be accommodated on adjacent streets and whether affected residents have driveway capacity. Staff said driveway and time‑of‑day parking data are available and would be included in deliverables.

Timelines and next steps: staff said BPAC is in its second round of outreach, an online survey was open through March 31, and staff expects to take the study to City Council for a study session in May before returning to BPAC for a formal recommendation and then to council for a hearing later in the year. The study team noted that some costs and intersection work would be substantial and that design should avoid precluding the city’s planned Remington left‑turn improvements.

Commissioners’ views at the study session leaned toward the buffered bike lane (Alternative 1). Commissioners raised three recurring issues to be resolved before a formal recommendation: (1) a full breakdown of collisions and police‑report details; (2) driveway and parking‑user analysis to quantify who will be affected by on‑street parking removal; and (3) a clearer plan for how the planned Remington intersection work would affect continuity of a bike facility.

"We heard a lot about safety related concerns," Ollie Joe said during the presentation, describing public outreach responses. Multiple public commenters framed the question as one of climate, safety and access for children; Catherine Besser said the city’s climate targets demand action now and urged prioritizing safe active‑transport connections.

Next steps: staff will include the collision details, driveway utilization and an outreach summary in its final memo; refine alternatives after survey and stakeholder feedback; return to BPAC with a recommendation; and present to City Council for a study session in May.