Council of Transportation Committee Meeting June 17, 2026: ATP Review and Middlefield Interchange
Council of Transportation Committee Meeting - June 17, 2026
The Council of Transportation Committee (CTC) met on June 17, 2026, in a hybrid format to review the public draft of the Mountain View Active Transportation Plan (ATP) and provide policy direction on the State Route 237 and Middlefield Road Interchange Improvements Project. The meeting included public comment on non-agenda items, a consent calendar approval, and extensive discussion on both major agenda items. Committee members provided feedback on the ATP, and staff were directed to refine the plan for final review in August. The committee also voted to recommend approval of the preferred design concept for the interchange project to the City Council.
Consent Calendar
- Approved minutes from previous meetings and a revised meeting schedule for the CTC (unanimous vote).
Public Comments & Testimony
- Barry Burr (former VTAC member) expressed strong concern about the vague definition of segregated/separated bike lanes, stating that current bollard-style protection creates safety hazards and that the city should define clear standards before implementing further projects. He also urged consultation with the MVPD bicycle patrol for safety insights.
- April Webster (Caltrans D4 Bicycle Advisory Committee, etc.) voiced full support for protected bike lanes with stronger separation (e.g., quick curb), citing research that 60% of potential cyclists need substantial protection to mode shift. She urged adoption of NACTO urban bikeway design guide and complete streets policy.
- Bruce Inkling (resident) emphasized the need for clear public comment timing, removal of abrupt curbs on bike/ped paths, making walkways inviting, and adhering to NACTO standards.
- Cliff Chambers (Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning) praised the outreach process, but noted that a bicycle boulevard network (like Bryant Street in Palo Alto) was underemphasized, and that accessible pedestrian signals and tree canopy are critical. He also called the temporary Middlefield bike lanes a safety hazard.
- Daniel Halsey supported the plan and suggested more formal early engagement with cyclists, and addressing the downtown Castro pedestrian mall cycling gap.
- On the interchange item, Barry Burr noted that previous police traffic timing changes had reduced collisions and suggested rumble strips on the off-ramp. He also requested a defined class IV bikeway standard before proceeding. April Webster asked staff to evaluate the design for all ages/abilities, urged coordination with VTA's interchange research, and called for the most protective form of class IV facility (raised/sidewalk-level) given the high-risk environment.
Discussion Items
Active Transportation Plan (ATP) Public Draft Review
Staff (Alison Boyer, Tracy McMullan, Nelson Nygaard) presented the ATP components: four chapters, vision and guiding principles, extensive community engagement (over 600 comments), proposed bicycle and pedestrian networks, 23 priority projects, policies/programs, and implementation approaches (resurfacing vs. reconstruction). Key community themes included a desire for stronger pedestrian focus, clearer performance metrics, and better integration with sustainability and biodiversity plans.
Committee members (Kamei, McAllister, Hicks) posed questions and comments:
- Member McAllister asked about validation of specific street recommendations (e.g., Carol Avenue), integration with shuttle/public transit, how community comment density was quantified, and the process for moving from resurfacing to reconstruction. He emphasized data-driven prioritization and fiscal responsibility.
- Member Kamei raised questions about addressing last-mile connectivity, the definition of access and equity in scoring, how the ATP interacts with the housing element and future development, and the need for improved resident communication about jurisdictional boundaries. She suggested adding a section on safe routes to schools and an appendix with contact information for partner agencies.
- Member Hicks (Chair) focused on pedestrian improvements, noting that the plan underemphasizes pedestrian needs relative to biking. She questioned the minimum sidewalk width (5 feet) in the context of increasing density, the 11-foot minimum lane width (versus NACTO's 10-foot recommendations), and why shade/heat resilience was categorized under sustainability rather than comfort. She also expressed concern that some proposed sidewalk widenings (e.g., Latham Street) might not be feasible or necessary and urged on-the-ground validation. Hicks supported making the ATP a living document, incorporating pilots, and tying it to sustainability and equity goals.
Staff responded that they will incorporate feedback into the final plan, add performance metrics, strengthen pedestrian focus, and bring the revised plan to BPAC and CTC in August before council adoption in September.
State Route 237 and Middlefield Road Interchange Improvements Project
Staff (Joey Helen, Robert Gonzalez) presented the background: high collision rates at the interchange (26 collisions 2005-2010, 31 in 2011-2015, 44 in 2016-2020, with 75% at the Middlefield/237 ramps), and the need to improve safety, bike/ped connectivity, and transit access. Six alternatives were evaluated; Alternatives 1, 2, 5B, 5C were eliminated due to Caltrans objections or high costs. Alternatives 3 and 4 advanced; Alternative 4 required right-of-way acquisition beyond current budget. Staff recommended Alternative 3, which includes:
- Traffic calming on westbound frontage road (raised medians, speed markings, radar signs, lane narrowing)
- Class IV bikeways and widened sidewalks (6-foot minimum) on Middlefield and frontage roads
- Protected intersection improvements at key ramps
- Signal timing optimization and separate bike/ped signal phases
- Fully funded ($24.8M) through VTA Measure B highway funds and city funds.
Committee questions focused on collision data, future proofing given planned developments, coordination with the Middlefield Complete Streets project and nearby developments, and pedestrian connectivity. Member Kamei asked about capacity consistency between Alternatives 3 and 4, and how this project interfaces with developer improvements. Staff confirmed no capacity difference and that design will incorporate developer commitments. Member McAllister questioned why Caltrans is not funding the project, and staff cited the city's proactive approach and community benefit funds. Public comment urged more robust protection and coordination with VTA's ongoing interchange research.
Key Outcomes
- Active Transportation Plan: Committee members provided extensive feedback; staff will revise the plan and return to BPAC (June 24 update) and CTC (August 31) for final review before City Council adoption in September.
- Interchange Project: The committee unanimously voted to recommend that the City Council approve the staff-recommended design concept (Alternative 3) for the SR 237/Middlefield Interchange Improvements Project, with direction to staff to explore enhanced pedestrian and bicycle features and coordinate with VTA research where feasible.
- Consent Calendar: Approved unanimously.
- Next Meeting: August 31, 2026.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Council of Transportation Committee. This is a hybrid meeting allowing public comment in person or virtually. Instructions for addressing the committee. Virtually maybe found on your postation. Roll call. The assistant public works director will take attendance viral roll call. Welcome, member for me. Here acting chairmanister. Here we have a quorum. Okay. Thank you, sir, for that so function. Oral communication. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the committee on any matters not on agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for three minutes. During the section, state law prohibits committee from acting on non-agenda items. Any member of the audience like to provide comment on a non-agenda item? We'll get you. Would any member of the public like to uh if so please raise your hand there? Or and we'll take and anybody virtually will zoom in. Please raise your hand. The staff will sway the timer on the screen. And we will take. Yes, sir. Yeah, members of the committee, um, my name is Barry Burr, um, member of VTAC from about 2005 to 9. Um, I'll specifically address the middle field proposal later, but in general, I'm seeing what I'm gonna call tragedies waiting to happen because of a vagueness in the definition of segregated or separated bike lanes. Um my call to action. I haven't spoken or got involved because I'm pretty pleased in general with um state of bicycle pedestrian advocacy in town. But if any of you with maybe 60 something year old eyes, um come in El Camino before or after you know, sunset, sunrise. You will be blinded by sunrise off of these paddles. This highlights the uh lethal nature using these paddles and in driving down through uh today. Yes, okay, call them bollards or paddles, the density, the shortness between them is getting closer and closer. The basic tragedy waiting to happen. Many places I'm noting that these paddles have already been hit by cars. Um, the curbing, the strip up the asphalt, it's a solid dedicated strip. I was part of the safe uh mountain view group that uh took on upper castro section up to the school for reconfiguration. That is my idea of an ideal separated segregated bike lane because we just have rubber strips, there's full visibility in and out, and there's rubber bicycle hits that they're reflected in in the gap, they're safe. Car comes over, same thing. Their tires, so this looseness in what's being called segregated and separated bike lanes itself. I'd like the council transportation committee to address and define before any other action moves forward that implements what's being called generically a separated or segregated bike. That's my request to the committee. Thank you. I remember councilman calister for my first time zone. And these issues to have segregated and separated bike lanes back then. We were told we're dreams, but look at what the dream is turned into. Great in concept, but now let's put them in practice so that you know I don't feel safe bicycling on El Camino or where these bollards are anymore. I live right near the middle field stretch, so that's my call to action. Thank you, and appreciate your considerations. Anybody else in the audience would like to speak? Do we have any virtual people who would like to speak?
openpublica.com