HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-01-13 City CouncilTO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
City of Palo Alto
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
AGENDA DATE:January 13, 1997 CMR:103:97
SUBJECT:Lytton Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan-Six-Month
Trial Evaluation Report
In May 1995, the Council approved a trial installation of a traffic management plan in the
Lytton Neighborhood (Trial Plan). The construction of the Trial Plan was completed on May
31, 1996, and the six-month trial period was concluded at the end of November 1996. This
report presents staff’s evaluation of the Trial Plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that Council adopt a modified Lytton Avenue Neighborhood Traffic
Management Plan that would remove the median on Chaucer Street at Palo Alto Avenue, and
make all of the other elements permanent. The modified Plan would contain the following
elements:
a. A traffic circle at the intersection of Lytton and Fulton;
b. A traffic median on Guinda at Lytton;
.e. Road bumps on Palo Alto Avenue (2) and Guinda Street (1); and
d. An additional westbound through lane on University Avenue.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Council approved a trial installation of a traffic management plan (Alternative 5) for the Lytton
Neighborhood on May 8, 1995. The plan is consistent with existing Comprehensive Plan
Policy No. 4: Reduce through traffic on residential streets.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On May 8, 1995, Council directed staffto implement a six-month trial installation of the traffic
management plan shown in Attachment 1 (same as Alternative 5 included in the attached staff
report CMR:242:95). The Trial Plan became fully operational on May 31, 1996, and the
designated trial period was concluded at the end of November 1996. The plan includes the
following dements:
CMR: 103:97 Page 1 of 11
a. A traffic circle at Lytton and Fulton;
b. A traffic median on Guinda at Lytton, allowing all .movements;
e. Three road bumps (two on Palo Alto Avenue and one on Guinda);
d. Restriping of University Avenue between Fulton and Webster, to accommodate an
additional westbound through lane; and
e. A traffic median on Chaucer at Palo Alto Avenue, allowing only right turns in and out
of the westerly leg of Palo Alto Avenue and all movements in and out of the easterly leg
of Palo Alto Avenue except through movements.
The primary purpose of the Trial Plan was to reduce the impact of traffic shortcutting through
the Lytton neighborhood on Palo Alto Avenue/Lytton Avenue via the Pope/Chaucer Bridge
without excessive transfer .of traffic to other local residential streets. The Trial Plan has, in
fact, reduced the traffic volumes on Palo Alto Avenue/Lytton Avenue, but has shifted more
traffic to Chaucer and Hamilton, south of University Avenue than originally anticipated.
Staff believes that the median on Chaucer is the main element of the plan which has caused
traffic volume changes. While the reduction in traffic within the neighborhood is a positive
aspect of the median, it has also shifted traffic to other local residential streets, which is not
desirable. The median on Chaucer has also created the problem of drivers making u-turns
and three-point turns, as well as going the wrong way into Menlo Park. All of these
movements could lead to potential safety problems in the long run.
Staff has looked at ways to minimize the illegal movements and the traffic shift.
Enforcement has not been very successful, because it cannot be provided at a level needed
to control driver behavior. Physical means to prohibit these movements would require a
median to be installed in the middle of Chaucer Street which will force Chaucer Street
residents to make fight turns only, in and out of their driveways. Staff has also considered
the possibility of replacing the median with a circle and additional road bumps. However,
drivers would be tempted to go the wrong way around the circle into Menlo Park, rather than
going around the circle properly, thereby creating a potential safety problem.
In view of the above, staff recommends that the median on Chaucer be removed and the
remainder of the plan be approved and implemented on a permanent basis (Alternative 2).
Staff believes that the remaining elements of the plan will continue to have a calming effect
on traffic in the area, without creating potential safety problems and shifting traffic to other
residential streets. Traffic volumes would be expected to return to 80 to 90 percent of the
initial volumes.
~IMPACT.
Capital Improvement Project (CIP) No. 19623 was established to fund the trial installation of
the Lytton Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan. A total of $74,000 was budgeted for the
CMR:I03:97 ’Page 2 of 11
CIP and, to date, $39,000 has been expended on the trial installation, leaving the sum of
$35,000 currently unexpended and available.
If a decision is made to adopt the staff recommendation (Alternative 2), funding would be
required for (a) the removal of the median on Chaucer, (b) the permanent installation of the
traffic circle at the Lytton/Fulton intersection, and (c) the permanent installation of the median
on Guinda at Lytton.. The existing road bumps and the University Avenue restriping were
installed in a permanent fashion, and do not require additional work.
A preliminary cost estimate for implementing a permanent installation of Alternative 2 is
$68,000 ($25,000 for the median on Guinda at Lytton; $37,000 for the traffic circle at the
Lytton/Fulton intersection, and $6,000 for removal of the median on Chaucer), If Council
adopts Alternative 2 on a permanent basis, staff will pursue the additional required funding of
approximately $33,000 ($68,000 required minus the $35,000 available) through the normal FY
1998-99 CIP process.
In addition, implementation of the plan on a permanent basis, may require additional resources
in the Public Works Department operating budget for maintenance and landscaping.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
An Environmental Assessment (95-EIA-5) was approved by the Council in its meeting of May
8, 1994.
Prepared By: Ashok Aggarwal, City Traffic Engineer
Department Head .Review:
City Manager Approval:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning
and Community Environment
EMIL’~HARRISON
Deputy City Manager
CMR:103:97 Page 3 of 11
SUBJECT:Lytton Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan--Six Month Trial
Evaluation Report
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that Council adopt a modified Lytton Avenue Neighborhood Traffic
Management Plan that would remove the median on Chaucer Street at Palo Alto Avenue, and
make all of the other elements permanent.. The modified Plan would contain the following
elements:
a. A traffic circle at the intersection of Lytton and Fulton;
b. A traffic median on Guinda at Lytton;
c. Roadbumps on Palo Alto Avenue (2) and Guinda Street (1); and
d. An additional westbound through lane on University Avenue.
On May 8, 1995, Council directed staff’to implement a six-month trial installation of the traffic
management plan shown in Attachment 1 (same as Alternative 5 included in the attached staff
report CMR:242:95). The Trial Plan became fully operational on May 31, 1996, and the
designated trial period was concluded at the end of November 1996. The plan includes the
following elements:
a. A traffic circle at Lytton and Fulton;
b. A traffic median on Guinda at Lytton, allowing all movements;
c. Three road bumps (two on Palo Alto Avenue and one on Guinda);
d. Restdping of University Avenue between Fulton and Webster, to accommodate an
additional westbound through lane.; and
e. A traffic median on Chaucer at Palo Alto Avenue, allowing only fight turns in and out
of the westerly leg of Palo Alto Avenue and all movements in and out of the easterly leg
of Palo Alto Avenue except through movements.
The primary purpose of the Trial Plan was to reduce the impact of traffic shortcutting through
the Lytton neighborhood on Palo Alto Avenue/Lytton Avenue via the Pope/Chaucer Bridge
without excessive transfer of traffic to other local residential streets.
CMR: 103:97 Page 4 of 11
Traffic Volumes
Traffic counts (24 hours) were taken in November 1996 (before Bloomingdales opened),
approximately six months after the start of the trial. Attachment 2 shows the traffic.volumes
for several points in time: (1) volumes prior to installation of the Trial Plan (before); (2)
volumes projected during the initial study; and (3) current volumes on several streets in and
around the neighborhood (after). Two sets of before counts were conducted prior to the actual
installation of the Trial Plan, one in 1993 during the study process andanother in October 1995,
approximately 8 months prior to the trial installation. Changes in traffic volumes, as a result
of the Trial Plan, were projected based on the 1993 counts.
A comparison of the traffic counts indicates that the current traffic volumes within the Lytton
neighborhood are substantially lower than counts taken before implementation of the Trial
Plan. They are also quite similar to or lower than the projected counts. However, traffic
counts on Chaucer and Hamilton are higher than the before counts, as well as higher than the
projected counts. The projected increase and the actual increase in traffic on Chaucer and
Hamilton are shown in Table 1.
Street Segrnent
Chaucer, between Palo Alto
Avenue and University Avenue
Actual Increase Based on
October 1995 (before) Counts
280 550
Chaucer, between University
Avenue and Hamilton 100 320
Hamilton, between Chaucer
and Hale 110 600
Staff believes that the increase on Chaucer and Hamilton, south of University Avenue, is not
solely related to the trial plan, but also reflects varying traffic conditions on University Avenue.
Staff also believes the median on Chaucer is the predominant reason for the reduction in traffe
volumes in the Lytton neighborhood, because this median is the only element of the Trial Plan
that was designed as a diverter. The median on Chaucer physically prohibits a predominant
left-turn movement from Palo Alto Avenue into Menlo Park. All other elements of the Trial
Plan allow all movements to be made.
ClVlR:103:97 Page 5 of 11
Two sets of 12-hour turning volume counts, both taken after the implementation of the Trial
Plan, were also conducted at the intersection of Chaucer Street and Pale Alto Avenue to
determine the number of drivers who continue to make illegal u-rams and three-point turns on
Chaucer Street, as well as what are now illegal left turns from Pale Alto Avenue into Menlo
Park. These are shown in Attachment 3. Approximately 60 drivers were observed making these
illegal moves within each 12-hour period observed. These illegal turns are made by drivers who
would otherwise turn left from Pale Alto Avenue into Menlo Park. One of the dominant flows
at this intersection, prior to the Trial Plan, was the left turn from Pale Alto Avenue into Menlo
Park. The prohibition of the left turn has resulted in a level of driver frustration and driver
behavior that eanses the relatively higher number of illegal turns, and may cause a potential
safety problem, although no actual accidents have been reported to-date.
Speed Reduction
Before and after speed measurements (85th percentile speeds), over a 24 hour period, were
made on six street segments within the neighborhood, and are shown in Attachment 4. A
comparison of the before and after speeds indicates that the after speeds are lower by 1 to 7
miles per hour (mph) in all cases except one, where the data show an increase of 1 mph.
Measurements of speeds may fluctuate by approximately plus or minus 3 mph. Therefore, the
after speeds are lower than the before speeds on three of the street segments (where the decrease
in speed was greater than 3 mph) and are about the same on the other three street segments
(where the change in speed was 3 mph or below). A major factor in speed reduction on Lytton
and Guinda streets is due to the road bump and median on Guinda, as well as the traffic circle
at Fulton and Lytton. The speed reduction on Pale Alto Avenueis due to the road bumps on
Pale Alto Avenue.
Traffic Accidents
One accident related to the median on Guinda at Lytton has been reported to the Police
Department. This accident was caused when a 13-year old, who took his parents’ van on a joy
ride, accelerated through the intersection of Lytton and Guinda and hit the median. Staff has
also received two other complaints regarding minor property damage relating to the median on
Chaucer. Both were related to drivers making three-point turns. In one case the driver making
the three,point turn scraped the bumper of a parked car in a driveway and in the other case
damage to landscaping occurred. Staff is not aware of any other incidents or accidents relating
to the other elements of the Plan.
_lmp_~ls_on Emergency services
The Police Department has concluded that the traffic control plan has had no measurable impact
on Police response to calls for se~ce, other than the additional traffic enforcement they have
provided to monitor the v~ous elements of the plan, especially driver behavior at the median
on Chaucer.
CMR:103:97 Page 6 of 1 1
The Fire Department has checked the various elements of the plan and indicates that, with the
exception of the trafficmedian on Chaucer at Palo Alto Avenue, the other elements of this Trial
Plan have had no adverse impact. The impact of the median has been that when traveling
eastbound on Palo Alto Avenue and turning right onto Chaucer, they have had to drive the fire
engine onto the curb of the median, to avoid hitting a sign at the comer of Palo Alto Avenue,
and the engine came within six inches of a telephone pole, which is also located at the comer.
The Fire Department recommends relocating some signs and reducing the width of the median
by one foot (the existing width of the median is five feet) in order to facilitate the right turn at
this location.
Impacts on Other Ci.ty Services
Other than complaints of inconvenience and nuisance, no sigaifieant operational impacts were
reported by the Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO), the U.S. Post Office or the Public
Works Department. However, the Public Works Department has indicated that the turning
radius from Palo Alto Avenue to Chaucer is too tight for its large-size trucks. This issue is the
same as that reported by the Fire Department. While PASCO has had no significant operational
impacts, its preference would be to replace the concrete block at the Chaucer median with a
removable pole with a lock. Should Council decide to adopt a permanent traffic management
plan, staff will work with the affected City Departments and PASCO, to develop the most
suitable final plans; taking into consideration their comments.
Comments from Nei_daboring Cities
Staff requested the cities of Menlo Park and East Palo Alto to comment on the Trial Plan. A
copy of the letter received from the City of Menlo Park is included as Attachment 5. The traffic
volume counts and speed data collected by Menlo Park staff for streets within Menlo Park do
not demonstrate adverse tratiie volume or speed changes in Menlo Park as a result of Lytton
Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan. No comments were received from the City of East
Palo Alto.
Nei_mhborhood Opinion Survey and Public Comment8
~ November 22, 1996 a re~ postage paid postcard survey with an explanatory cover letter
(Attachment 6)was sent to all the residents within the area bounded by Palo Alto Avenue,
Middlefield Road, Chaucer Street and University Avenue (Area 1). The same survey wasalso
sent to residents who may have been affected by the plan: (a) along Palo Alto Avenue (east of
Chaucer), and along Marlowe (Area 2); as well as (b) along Chaucer, between University and
Hamilton, and also Hamilton, between Chaucer and Middlefield (Area 3). The three areas are
shown in Attachment 7.
A total of 332 surveys were mailed. As of December 20, 1996, 154 surveys have been returned.
The survey results are shown in Attachment 8.
CMR: 103:97 Page 7 of 11
The postcard survey results below indicate:
Of the total respondents, 31 percent want the current Trial Plan removed and 69 percent
support the current Trial Plan, as is, or with modification.
Of the 69 percent who support the current Trial Plan, 35 percent support permanent
implementation of the plan as is, and 34 percent support the current plan, subject to any one
of several suggested changes. ’
Of the 34 percent who support the current plan with changes, over half (18 percent) want
the median on Chaucer removed; while the remaining portion (15 percent) suggested a
variety of changes that have no other predominant theme.
While there appears to be support within the neighborhood for making the current Trial Plan
permanent, there is also support for removing the entire plan, or, as a minimum, removing the
median on Chaucer.
Staff has also received 65 letters from Palo Alto residents, and 366 letters from Menlo Park and
East Palo Alto residents requesting removal of the median on Chaucer. The primary concern
from Menlo Park residents is the median on Chaucer at Palo Alto Avenue. This median
prohibits left turns from Palo Alto into Menlo Park. This prohibited movement is one that many
residents from Menlo Park used to make returning from Palo Alto to their homes. While
alternative routes exist, they do not find them convenient. The primary concern of residents
along Chaucer Street and Hamilton Avenue is the additional traffic on those streets, as a result
of the Traffic Management Plan; and, in particular, as a result of the median on Chaucer Street
at Palo Alto Avenue.
ALTERNATIVES
Permanent installation of the full current Trial Plan. The current Trial Plan has effectively
reduced the cut-through traffic in the Lytton neighborhood and there is some support (35
percent) within the neighborhood for this alternative, as it currently exists. The current.
Trial Plan has had the effect of shifting traffic to Chaucer and Hamilton, south of
University Avenue. These street segments are classified as local residential streets and,
therefore, such a shift is undesirable and inconsistent with the objectives of the plan, which
include an intent not to divert traffic to other local residential streets. In addition, drivers
continue to make the illegal left tunas, u-turns and three-point turns on Chaucer, and there
is not a reasonable way to effectively control this behavior. This may lead to potential
safety problems in the long run. Complaints have also been received from bike riders
meeting drivers head-ongoing the wrong way from Palo Alto into Menlo Park. The total
cost to implement Alternative 1 on. a permanent basis is $102,000 ($40,000 to install a
permanent median on Chaucer; $37~000 to install a permanent traffic circle at Fulton and
Lytton; and $25,000 to install a permanent traffic median on Guinda at Lytton).
CMR: 103:97 Page 8 of 11
Permanent installation of the current Trial Plan as modified with the deletion of the median
on Chaucer (sta..tTrecomrnendation). The reduction in traffic volumes within the Lytton
neighborhood is primarily due to the median on Chaucer. Staff anticipates that traffic
volumes would return to approximately 80 to 90 percent of the initial numbers if the
median is removed. The median has caused traffic diversion to other local residential
streets which, is contrary to the objectives of the plan. In addition, the median at Chaucer
has created a situation where driver behavior is such that there are a relatively high level
of illegal maneuvers, which may lead to potential safety problems in the future and for
which there are no practical engineering or enforcement solutions. While the removal of
the median eliminates most of the traffic reduction benefits of the current Trial Plan, the
remaining elements would continue to have a traffic calming effect on streets within the
Lytton neighborhood (i.e., Guinda, Lytton and Pal, Alto Avenue). The total cost to
implement Alternative 2 on a permanent basis is $68,000 ($6,000 to remove the Chaucer
median; $37,000 to install a permanent traffic circle at Fulton and Lytton; and $25,000 to
install a permanent traffic median on-Guinda at Lytton).
Q
Trial installation of a modified plan which would include replacement of the median on
Chaucer with a traffic circle and installation of two additional road bumps - one on L.vtton
and one more on Pal, Alto Avenue. Staff anticipates that the installation of an additional-
traffic circle and two more road bumps would have some small incremental effect on traffic
diversion, probably with the result that traffic volumes would return to approximately 70
to 80 percent of the initial volumes. "Staff has concerns that driver behavior at a traffic
circle installed on Chaucer may be problematic. While the traffic circle would permit all
movements to occur in a safe and legal manner, driver behavior for the relatively high
volume of eastbound left-turning vehicles may be such that many would short cut around
the.circle to the left, rather than proceed as directed around to the right of the circle. Some
physical measures can be taken to discourage such behavior, but it cannot be eliminated,
nor, realistically, can sufficient enforcement be administered to eliminate such behavior.
Therefore, if such a plan is selected, staff recommends a second trial period of six months,
followed by a similar evaluation, prior to a decision on whether or not to make it
permanent. The cost to implement this .Alternative 3 on a trial basis is $24,000 ($6,000 to
remove the median at Chaucer, $10,000 to install one temporary traffic circle at Chaneer,
and $8,000 .to install two additional road bumps). Installation on a permanent basis is
estimated to cost an additional $107,000.
Remove all elements of the current Trial Plan. Removal of the plan would most likely
result in a return to pre-trial conditions including speeding, safety and traffic volume
concerns expressed by residents at the start of the study. The cost to remove all of the
elements of the current Trial Plan is $20,000 (excluding changes on University Avenue,
which would remain).
CMR:103:97 Page 9 of 11
Cost Summary
Alternative
Permanent installation of the full current Trial Plan.
Permanent installation of the current Trial Plan, as
modified with the deletion of the median on Chaucer
Street.
Trial installation era modified plan, which would
include replacement of the median on Chaucer
Street with a traffic circle and installation of 2
additional road bumps (one on Lytton and one more
on Pale Alto Avenue).
4.Remove all elements of the current Trial Plan
$102,000
$68,000
$131,000 ($24,000 trial;
$107,000 permanen0
$20,000
The above-referenced costs are preliminary cost estimates for construction only, and do not
include provisions for ongoing maintenance. The costs are based on previous experience and/or
information developed in conjunction with the review and approval of the generic traffic circle
design approved by Council last year.
FISCAL IMPACT.
Capital Improvement Project (CIP) No. 19623 was established to fund the trial installation of
the Lytton Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan. A total of $74,000 was budgeted for the
CIP and, to date, $39,000 has been expended on the trial installation, leaving the sum of
$35,000 currently unexpended and available.
If a decision is made’ to adopt the staff recommendation (Alternative 2), funding would be
required for (a) the removal of the median on Chaucer, (b) the permanent installation of the
traffic circle at the Lytton/Fulton intersection, and (c) the permanent installation of the median
on Guinda at Lytton, The existing road bumps and the University Avenue restriping were
installed in a permanent fashion, and do not require additional work.
A preliminary cost estimate for implementing a permanent installation of Alternative 2 is
$68,000 ($25,000 for the median on Guinda at Lytton; $37,000 for the traffic circle at the
Lytton/Fulton intersection, and $6,000 for removal of the median on Chaneer). If Council
adopts Alternative 2 on a permanent basis, staff will pursue the additional required funding of
approximately $33,000 ($68,000 required minus the $35,000 available) through the normal FY
1998-99 CIP process.
CMR:103:97 Page 10 of 11
In addition, implementation of the plan on a permanent basis may require additional resources
in the Public Works Department operating budget, for maintenance and landscaping.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
An Environmental Assessment (95-EIA-5) was approved by the Council in its meeting of May
8, 1994.
1.Alternative 5 (current trial installation) diagram
2.Before/After and Project Traffic Volumes
3.Turning volume counts at Chaueer/Palo Alto Avenue
4.Before/After Speed Surveys
5.Comments on trial installation fi’om the City of Menlo Park
6.Letter/postcard survey sent to residents on November 22, 1996
7.Neighborhood Opinion Survey Areas
8.Postcard Survey Results
9.CMR:242:5, May 8, 1995, Lytton Avenue Traffic Study - Recommendation from Policy and Services
Committee
Lytton Neighborhood Study Working Group Members
Crescent Park Neighborhood Association (Margaret Feuer)
City of Menlo Park
City of East Palo Alto
East Palo Alto Transportation Task Force
Safe Open Streets
CMR: 103:97 Page 11 of 11
ATTACHMENT 1
ALTERNATIVE 5
11/94
3550
3040 \
Note: The two road bumps on Palo Nto Avenuebetween Chaucer and Seneca were installed inslightly different locations than shown on this plan,due to site specific constraints.
LEGEND:
EXISTING DAILY VOLUME (1993)
PROJECTED DAILY VOLUME
Existing stop signs
(shown only in the Lytton
neighborhood area)
Traffic Signals
ISED
DIAN
iMP
1800
810 125
150
MNNTAIN AI.L
EXISTINGSTOP SIGNS
270
2470
2750
1230
.2O87O
386O
3970
226O
1420
8O
NEGLIGIBLE
CHANGEIN VOLUME MIDDLEFIELD
NEGLIGIBLE
CHANGES "
IN VOLUMES
4360
3230
18690
19280
ATTACHM
~ o
~NT 2
Pope Chaucer Bridge
ATTACI{MENT
I___0 c:: .-
w
ATTACI-IMF~NT 4
0 c-
-- 0
~8
STEPHEN M. SCHMIDT
MAYOR
BERNIE NEVIN
MAYOR PRO TEM
ROBERT N. BURMEISTER
COUNCILMEMBER
PAUL COLLACCHI
COUNCILMEMBER
CHUCK KINNEY
COUNCILMEMBER
Ashok Aggarwal
City Traffic Engineer
City of Palo Alto
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
ATTACHMENT 5
701 LAUREL STREET / MENLO PARK, CA 94025-3483 / 415.858.3380 / FAX 415.328.7935
December 10, 1996
SUBJECT: LYTTON NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN
Dear Mr. Aggarwal:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Palo Alto’s evaluation of its Lytton
Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan.
The Menlo Park Transportation Division has directed its attention to the Traffic Management
Plan’s potential effects on traffic in the City of Menlo Park that are directly measurable - traffic
volume and traffic speed. We have had specific citizen complaints that traffic volume and
speed on Menlo Park streets, particularly Woodland Avenue, have increased as the result of
local traffic diverted from Palo Alto streets by the Lytton Neighborhood Plan. There has also
been conjecture that theisland at the intersection of Chaucer Street and Palo Alto Avenue, by
eliminating some of the potential for conflict at that location, has had the effect of increasing
speed of traffic in Menlo Park on Pope Street. Our data gathering has been focused on
addressing these issues. The results of our data collection are as follows:
Traffic Volume
The overall pattem of traffic volume data collected by the City. of Menlo Park on the streets in
Menlo Park most likely to be affected by the Lytton Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan do
not demonstrate adverse traffic volume changes in Menlo Park that can be clearly attributed to
the Lytton Neighborhood Plan. The amount of traffic crossing thecity limit between Palo Alto
and Menlo Park on Chaucer Street appears to have remained essentially the same before and
after the experimental installation. Our traffic counts show total daily 2-way volumes of 3032 in
November 1995, 3108 in June 1996, and 3268 in November 1996. A similar stability inthe
amount of traffic on Woodland Avenue and Pope Street in this vicinity is exhibited in our traffic
count data.
Speed data collected by the City of Menlo Park do not substantiate the belief that the actions in
Palo Alto have shifted fast traffic to Woodland Avenue. However, because the radar speed
studies involved are small sample measurements taken at brief time periods, a failure to
confirm by direct measurements the resident perception of an adverse change in speed profile
does not mean that the resident perceptions are incorrect; or that an adverse change has not
taken place.
iytton3.doc
There is evidence in Menlo Park’s speed observations that speed of northbound traffic entering
Menlo Park from Palo Alto via Chaucer Street has increased. However, the data shows a clear
pattern indicating the primary cause of change is the removal of the temporary traffic circle that
formerly occupied the Woodland Avenue / Pope Street intersection.
Other Comments
The City of Menlo Park has received large numbers of wdtten and telephone communications
from its residents complaining about the Lytton Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan. The
City has already forwarded to Palo Alto wdtten communications that were received early in the
Lytton Management Plan test period and has urged those who have opinions on the plan to
communicate directly to the City of Palo Alto about their experiences over the full duration of the
tdal period. Although we have asked Menlo Park residents to communicate their views directly
to Palo Alto, it seems important to summarize what seems to be a very prevalent viewpoint
among Menlo Park residents who have commented to the City about this issue, and a possible
consequence of that viewpoint.
The focus of concern seems to be the "island" in the intersection of Palo Alto Avenue and
Chaucer Street. Among the traffic movements, this island prevents the left turn from Palo Alto
Avenue eastbound to Chaucer Street northbound. This is precisely th~ movement that many of
Menlo Park’s Willows Neighborhood .residents make in returning to their homes from downtown
Palo Alto. It appears to be the only reasonably convenient route for making that trip. The
Willows residents consider themselves residents of a.greater local neighborhood community
that transcends city limits and includes the Lytton Neighborhood and downtown Palo Alto. They
regard a traffic management feature that makes it very difficult for them to return home from
part of this greater local neighborhood to be an exclusionary act by the City of Palo Alto.
In its own neighborhood traffic management programs, Menlo Park has attempted to rely
predominantly on calming devices aimed at affecting speed and other aggressive driver
behavior rather than .employing barrier devices that preclude traffic movements and tend to
exclude drivers from local neighboring communities.
Conclu$iol~
Thankyou again for the opportunity to comment on the Lytton Neighborhood Traffic
Management Plan. In closing, we request that you inform Menlo Park of the procedural steps
and schedule that will be followed in making determinations on the future of the Lytton
Neighbo~ood Traffic Management Plan, and that Menlo Park have an opportunity to review
and comment on the Draft Evaluation Report when the draft is completed.
V~ truly yours,
Transportation Manager
C:City Council
Jan Dolan
Dan Smith
File 4P08, 8W34
lytton3 .doc
ATTACHMENT 6
City t,f Valo Alto
D_epartment o~Planning andCommuni~/ Environn~t
LYTTON AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN
NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY
Transportation Division
November 22~ 1996
Dear Resident:
On May 8, 1995, the City Council approved a trial installation of a traffic management
plan in the Lytton Neighborhood. The plan includes the following elements, with
related signing and striping:
a.A traffic circle at Lytton and Fulton; ....
b.A traffic median on Guinda at Lytton, allowing all movements;
c.Three road bumps: two on Palo Alto Avenue and one on Guinda;
d.Restriping of University Avenue between Fulton and Webster, to accommodate
an additional westbound through lane; and
e. A traffic median on Chaucer at Palo Alto Avenue allowing only right turns in
and out of the westerly leg of Palo Alto Avenue, and all movements, except
through movements, in and out of the easterly leg of Palo Alto Avenue.
The construction of the trial plan was completed on May 31, 1996. The six-month trial
period will be concluded at the end of November. We have begun gathering traffic
data as part of the evaluation process. Part of our evaluation is a short neighborhood
survey to seek public input regarding the traffic management plan. To that end, please
take a few moments to review the enclosed information, and then check the appropriate
response on the enclosed postcard and place it in the mail. Postage has already been
paid. Your postcard must be received no later than Friday, December 13.
The City Council is tentatively scheduled to discuss this issue at its January 13, 1997
meeting. At this meeting, Council could direct staff to (1) make the plan permanent,
(2) remove one or more elements of the plan, or (3) modify the plan in some manner
with or without ~other trial period.
Again, please take a few moments to complete and return the enclosed postcard. Thank
you for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please call me at 329-2575.
Sincerely,
ASHOK A0~ARWAL
City Traffic Engineer
Enclosures (2)
250 I-Iamillx~n Avenue
P.O. Box10250
PaloAlto, CA 94303
415.329.2520
415.329.2299Fax
LYTTON NEIGH]3ORHOOD £RAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN
SIX-MONTH TRIAL
PREMINARY TRAFFIC DATA
The following data has been collected todate, and may be useful as you formulate a response to the enclosed
postcard survey. Final conclusions regarding the Traffic Management Plan will take into consideration the
traffic data, including residents’ responses to the postcard survey.
Traffic Volumes and speeds: Enclosed are maps (Exhibit 1 and 2) showing the 24 hour traffic volumes and
speeds measured in the area, before and after.the installation of the various traffic management elements.
From the comments received to date, it appears that most of the elements of this traffic management plan have
been well received by residents, except for the median on Chaucer at Palo Alto Avenue. This median
physically restricts the eastbound traffic on Palo Alto A~,enue from turning ie~ into Menlo Park. As a result,
some drivers continue to make U-turns and three-point turns on Chaucer Street, as well as lef~ turns from Palo
Alto Avenue into Menlo Park. These movements measured over a 12 hour period (7 a.m to 7 p.m.) are shown
in Exhibit 3. These movements are illegal, and the frequency is relatively low.
313
Hale St.
I[
Everett Ave.
II
Lytton Ave.Unlve~Ity Ave. Hamilton Av~.
Seneca St.
Fulton St.
LEGEND
City of Palo Alto
Transportation Division
Lytton Neighborhood
Tr c Volumes
C:~HOK~LYTTONWRAFFIC.DAT
November 22, 1996
Po~. ; .Chaucer St,
"Crescent Dr.
Hale St.
Everett Ave. Lytton Ave, Universe/Ave.
Seneca St.
Guinda St.
FultOn St.
Hamilton Ave.
LEGEND
City of Palo Alto
Transportation Division
Lytton Neighborhood
Before & After Speed Surveys
(85th Percentile Speeds)
IBefore and After Traffic Turning Count~
At ~ Close to the Median on Chaucer
L.vtton Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan--Neighborhood Surv~
Please read all three statzm~ts, then check the one box that best represents your
opinion.
["] The trial plan is acceptable and should be made permanent.
["l The trial plan is not acceptable and should be removed..
[’-[The trial plan should be made permanent subject to the follo~ving
changes. _Be specific. (e.g., "Remove median on ’x’ Street," "Replace
median on ’x’ Str(~t witha ___," etc)." "
LIST CHANGES HERE
General comments.
RETURN POSTCARD BY DECEMBER 13, 1996
ATTACHMENT 7
----/ /~Crescent Dr,
Chaucer St.
Hale St,
Seneca St.
Guinda St.
Fulton St,
l
Everefl Ave.Lytton Ave.UniversiIy Ave.
I Middlefield Rd,
Hamilton Ave.
LEGEND
~Survey Area 1
~Survey Area 2
~Survey Area 3
City of Palo Alto
Transportation Division
Neighborhood Opinion
Survey Areas
¯:ATTACHMENT 8
POSTCARD SURVEY RESULTS
Comments
1.Trial Plan is acceptable subject to:
a. Removing the Fulton/Lytton circle
b. Replacing median on Chaucer with a circle
c. Replacing median on Chaucer with a speed bump
d. Removing the median on Chaucer
e. Removing the median on Guinda.
£ Removing the road bump on Guinda.
g. Removing the second westbound through
lane on University
i. Install four-way stop at Lytton/Fulton
j. Remove all elements except speed bumps
k. Make speed bump on Guinda harsher
1. Install a traffic signal on Hamilton @ Guinda
Area 1
Neighborhood
(inc.University
Avenue)
9
2
1
19
4
3
2
Area 2
1100 block of
Palo Alto Ave
& Marlow
1
1
1
2
Area 3
500 block of
Hamilton &
Chaucer
6
1
Total
(all areas)
9
2
1.
27
5
3
2
1
1
1
1I
2. Remove the entire plan.. "28 3 16 47
3. Make the entire plan permanent 51 1 2 54
ATTACHMENT 9
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
AGENDA DATE: May 8, 1994 CMR:242:95
SUBJECT:Lytton Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Study - Recommendation
from Policy and Services Committee
REQUEST
At its meeting on December 6, 1994, the Policy and Services Committee passed a motion
recommending to the City Council that staff proceed with implementation of a traffic
management plan for the Lytton Avenue Neighborhood, identified as Alternative 5 in
CMR:531:94 (Attaclunent 1), on a six-month trial basis. The purpose of this report is to
forward, for Council action, the Environmental Assessment that was prepared for the
traffic management plan, mad to provide additional information.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendation, of the Policy and Services Committee is to proceed with the
implementation of Altemative 5 (Exhibit 1) on a six-month trial basis. If Council wishes
to proceed with this recolmnendation, Council should approve a motion that:
Approves the’ Negative Declaration (Enviromnental Assessment [95-EIA-5]), a
copy of which is included as Attaclunent 2;
Directs staffto proceed with the implementation of :Alternative 5, on a six-month
trial basis; and
Directs staff to prepare a Budget Amendment Ordinance transferring a total of
$74,000 from the City’s Street Improvement Fund to a new Capital Improvement
Program Project - Lytton Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan - in order to ..-..
provide fi~nding fora trial installation.
CMR:~242:95 Page 1 Of 7
IIVERSITY
N
m
If Council does not wisla to proceed with the hnplementation of a traffic management plan,
staff recommends that Council direct staff not to proceed further with this matter.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The actions considered in this report represent implementation of existing policy (i.e.
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Policy 4: Reduce through traffic on .residential
streets).
Implementation of tlfis project, like other similar traffic management measures, continues
to incrementally add to the .regularly required need for maintenance without any
concomitant budget adjuslanent for maintenance and landscaping within the Public Works
Budget. In addition, maintenance of the devices may require services that are not included
with current staffing, or for which funding is not available in the Public Works Budget.
The installation of traffic management devices is very likely to be located on top of one
or more tmderground utilities. While provision is made for normal service access, there
will likely come a time when a portion of such devices will have to be removed and
replaced, in order to accomplish needed repair or replacement of the underground utility.
While Street Improvement Funds are an eligible source of funding for such projects within
the public roadway, the use of these funds for these types of projects diverts them.away
from the City’s ongoing street repair/restu’facing projects. For example, the estimated cost
of approximately $200,000 for the trail and permanent installation of Alternative 5
represents approximately 10 percent of the Street Improvement Funds .available for a
given year. This equates to approximately 2 miles of streets to be resurfaeed or sealed in
the 1994/95 program. Over time, similar or larger diversions will have a significant
impact on the ability of the City to repair/resurface its deteriorating streets.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
In December 1992, Council directed staff to work With residents of the Lytton Avenue
neighborhood to evaluate and report back to the Council regarding appropriate .steps to
be taken, if any, to reduce the h~pact of traffic short cutting through the neighborhood on
Palo Alto Avenue/Lytton Avenue via the Pope/Chaucer Bridge. Residents had expressed
concerns regarding the amount and speed of traffic, pointing out that safety, noise,
eornfort and the quality of life of their neighborhood were being.compromised.
CMR:242:95 Page 2 of 7
Study Phase One
The study process that ensued included identification of issues, collection of field data,
initial development of multiple alternative plans, and refinement of a smaller set of plans.
The process included multiple meetings with a Neighborhood Working Group and one
neighborhood public meeting, prior to the time that this study was referred to the Policy
and Services Cormnittee.
In September 1994, staff prepared a report to Council (CMR:424:94; Attachinent 3)
reviewing the study process and findings and recommending that the item be forwarded
to the Policy and Services Committee, for its consideration.and fi~rther direction regarding
additional steps for staff to pursue. The study findings indicate that safety and travel
speeds within the study area are not tmusual for comparable streets within Palo Alto. The
findings also indicate that there is a substantial amount of cut through traffic within the
neighborhood and that the potential for mitigating through traffic on some of the streets
most affected does exist.
From a larger set of initialaltematives, the initial study process evolved to the following
four:
Alternative # 1
Alternative #2 ¯
Install traffic road bumps and other calming devices (i.e., circles,
chokers); limit morning ttmas on University at Guinda and Fulton; and
add a second westbound lane on University near Middlefield.
Install a diverter at Seneca and Palo Alto Avenue; install traffic
calming devices; limit morning turns on University at Guinda and
Fulton; and add a second westbound lane on University near
Middlefield.
Altemative #3 Close the Pope/Chaucer Bridge to through vehicular traffic, but
maintain access for emergency vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles.
Alternative #4 Maintain the status quo.
Alternative 1 addresses speeding, but not through traffic within the neighborhood; and
while Alternatives 2 and 3 address the current through traffic concern, Alternative 2 shifts
through traffic to other streets and Alternative 3 does not have support in the
neighborhood or elsewhere. Alternative 4 would not cause any changes from existing
conditions.
CMR:242:95 Page 3 of 7
Phase One Review
In September 1994, the Policy and Services Committee reviewed the study results, heard
public comments from residents, and discussed various options. They concluded that
meeting with a motion requesting staff to prepare additional alternatives to those noted
above. The Committee felt that AlternatiVe 1. (Road Bumps +) did not sufficiently address
the neighborhood traffic concerns; Alternative 2 (Diverter +) was excessive in terms of
traffic diversion to other streets; Alternative 3 (Bridge Closure) was inappropriate and
should not be considered further; and Alternative 4 (Status Quo) was not acceptable.
Additional comments reflected an interest in further consideration of measures such as
traffic circles and road bumps, and not street closures and diverters. Finally, the
Committee comments reflected an interest in reducing traffic impacts on local streets
without excessive transfer of traffic to other streets, and achieving an appropriate balance.
.Study Phase Two
Based upon the comments and direction provided by the Policy and Services Committee,
staff developed three new alternatives (No.’s 5, 6 and 7) for further consideration. An
illustration and summary description of each of the three new alternatives as well as two
of the original alternatives (No.’s 1 and 2), are included inCMR:531:94 (Attachment
Table 1 in CMR:531:94 presents a summary evaluation of the three new alternatives along
with two oft he original altematives.
Staff concluded that Alternative 5, which employs a raised median on Chaucer Street as
well as traffic management measures on Palo Alto Avenue, Guinda and Fulton Streets,
and Lytton Avenue, is the best plan for addressing the neighborhood traffic concerns,
within the context of the.guidance and objectives set forth by the Policy and Services
Committee, during its previous discussion of this topic.
Phase Two Review
In December 1994, the Policy and Services Committee reviewed the additional
information concerning the new set of altematives, again heard public comments from
residents, and discussed various options. They concluded that meeting with a motion to
recommend to Council to direct staff to proceed with implementation of Alternative 5, on
a six-month trial basis, potentially leading to a permanent installation.
The Policy and Services Committee also asked, that this item be brougt~t to the full
Council, aider Council had completed its discussion of the Transportation Element of Draft
IV Comprehensive Plan Update Policies and Programs. Council discussion of the
Transportation Element has occurredand included Council direction to include a program
CMR:242:95 Pag~ 4 of 7
to "Implement traffic cahning measures in residential neighborhoods on local and collector
streets," (Program TR-2, C, Page 7) as part of the current draft of the Comprehensive Plan
Update - Transportation Element.
Cost Estimate
For a trial installation ofAltemative 5 the estimated cost is a total of $74,000, comprised
of the following parts:
Part A:
Part B:
$32,000 for the temporary installation of one circle, one oval, and one raised
median, all of which would need to be removed and replaced for a permanent
installation (not usable for permanent plan).
$12,000 for a total of three road bumps which can only be installed on a
permanent basis, and would subsequently need to be removed if not part of a
permanent plan (usable if they remain part of the permanent plan).
~ Part C:$30,000 for lane restriping and relocation of traffic signal loop detectors to
create an additional westbound through .lane on University Avenue at
Middlefield Road. This is an existing approved project from the Citywide
Land Use and Transportation Study, and staff would otherwise plan to pursue
funding and implementation as part of the i996-97 Capital Improvement
.Program process (useable with or without a permanent plan).
For a permanent installation of Alternative 5 (if the trial is successful and a decision is
made to move forward with a permanent installation), the estimated cost is an additional
$120,000 to change the circle, oval, and raised median (Part A). The road bumps (Part B)
and the restriping and loop relocation for University Avent~e (Part C) would remain, in
ptaee and unchanged.
In summary, the cost to implement a six month trial is $74,000.
If, after the trial period, a decision is made to implement Alternative 5 on a
permanent basis, the road bumps ($12,000) and restriping/loop relocation
($30,000) would be retained, and an additional $120,000 would be required for the
circle, oval, and median.
If, after the trial period, a decision is made to abandon further consideration of any
traffic management plan, the restriping/loop relocation ($30,000) would be
retained, and an additional $6,000 would be required to remove the three road
bumps.
CMR:242:95 Page 5 of 7
If, after the trial period, a decision is made to try some traffic management
arrangement on .a trial or pennanent basis, the restriping/loop relocation ($30,000)
would be retained, and additional fimds (now undeterminable) would be needed to
install/remove various elements.
Coordination with Infrastructure Projects
At the present time, the Public Works Department is planning to install anew storm drain
and the Utilities Department is plarmhag to replace a water main along segments of Lytton
and Palo Alto Avenues, and Guinda and Fnlton Streets. Both projects are scheduled to
begin this summer, and are to be completed by December 1995. This work will cause a
disruption in traffic flow throughout a portion of the neighborhood for which the traffic
management plan is intended to be implemented, and, therefore, make any evaluation of
the impacts of the six-month trial impractical. Since it is not possible to implement even
a shortened trial before the start of the storm drain work, the actual implementation of a
six-month trial, if approved by Council, would not likely occur until the first quarter of
1996.
Next Steps
If Council approves the implementation of a traffic management plan for the Lytton
Avenue Neighborhood, on a six-month trial basis, staff will proceed with the following
steps:
Prepare the necessary plans and specifications for the trial implementation.
Return to Council with a Budget Amendment Ordinance that would create a new
CIP Project and transfer $74,000 from the Street Improvement Fund for this
project.
Install traffic management devices in accordance with the. approved plan, after the
completion of storm drain project along Lytton and Guinda.
Monitor on-going operations of the trial traffic management plan, complete an
evaluation at the end of the six-month trial period, and, thereafter, return to Council
for furtherdirection.
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost for implementation of Alternative 5 on a six month trial basis is $44,000, plus
$30,000 for restriping University Avenue. Subsequently, if a similar plan is approved for
permanent installation, a preliminary cost estimate for implementation is an additional
CMR:242:95 -Page 6 of 7
$120,000. hi addition, implementation will increase maintenance requirements, for which
Public Works is not currently staffed.
If Cotmcil directs staff to proceed with the implementation of Altemative 5 on a six-month
trial basis, staffwill return with a Budget Amendment Ordinance that would create a new
CIP Project and transfer $74,000 from the Street. hnprovement Fund for this project:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
An Environmental Assessment (95-EIA-5) recommending a Negative Declaration has
been completed, and is included as Attachment 2.
ATTACHMENTS
Attaclmaent 1" CMR:531:94; December 6, 1994
Attachment 2: Environmental Assessment (95-EIA-5)
Attachment 3: CMR:424:94; September 19, 1994
Prepared By:Ashok Aggarwal, City Traffic Engineer
Marvin L. Overway, Chief Transportation Official
Department Head Review:
I~NNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning
and Community Environment
City Manager Approval:
City ger
G
Working Group Members
Crescent Park Neighborhood Association (Margaret Feuer)
City of Menlo Park (Jan Dolan, Don Dey, Rubin Nine)
City of East Pale Alto (Jerome Groomes, William Howard,
David Miller)
East Pale Alto Transportation Task Force (Heidi Sanel)
Safe Open Streets (Eric Doyle)
CMR:242:95 Page 7 of 7