The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996-04-08 City Council (15)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report 6 TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AGENDA DATE: April 8, 1996 CMR:218:96 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Update--Traffic Related Reference Information REQUEST In preparation for further Council discussion on how to treat the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study in the forthcoming Draft Comprehensive Plan, staffhas prepared some traffic related information that may serve as a useful reference. This report follows up on the March 12, 1996 Policy and Services Committee meeting, including amplification of information presented at the meeting and response to questions raised during the meeting. This report shares information regarding traffic volume data for selective roadway intersections and roadway segments that has been collected over a period of years. Information regarding accidents and speeds is also included. This is an informational report that is supplemental to CMR:212:96 on the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study. RECOMMENDATIONS No Council action is required at this time. POLICY IMPLICATIONS As a result of the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study, current City policy is to allow a limited amount of additional land use development with the projected consequence that growth in traffic will occur and traffic conditions, as measured by Level of Service (LOS), will worsen to Levels of Service E and F at most major intersections. The extent to which furore additional land use development and its transportation impacts are incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan update is a fundamental policy issue that will need to be evaluated, discussed and eventually resolved. CMR:218:96 Page 1 of 6 EXECUTIVE SIYMMARY Traffic Volume Data for Eleven Key Intersections In 1985, the City of Palo Alto began a study process (Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study) which, when concluded in 1989, resulted in actions to address community-wide concerns about increasing traffic congestion resulting from continuing commercial and industrial development. The land use component of the study focused on nine discrete study areas (Attachment 1) which incorporated lands with commercial and industrial development potential. The traffic component of the study evaluated a total of 69 roadway intersections and focused on a subset of 11 key intersections (Attachment 2), as best representing traffic conditions at the City’s major intersections. The bar charts and table in Attachments 1 and 2 show the actual development (square feet) and traffic volumes (vehicles) at (a) the time of study, as well as (b) the development potential and related traffic allowable under the then current zoning (previous zoning potential), and (c) the reduced development potential and related traffic now permitted (current zoning potential). Approval of the Citywide Study reduced the development potential from 25 million square feet to 3 million square feet, and, thereby, dramatically reduced the amount of potential future growth in traffic. However, the Citywide Study did recognize and accept that traffic growth will continue to occur in Palo Alto and that traffic conditions, as measured by Level of Service (LOS), would worsen at major intersections. The Citywide Study also included approval of a series of feasible intersection operational improvements, at selective intersections, that would help ameliorate, albeit not solve, the projected worsening traffic conditions. Even with the identified feasible intersection operational improvements, traffic conditions were projected to be Levels of Service E and F at most major intersections. As part of the implementation of the Citywide Study, actual traffic volumes at 11 key intersections are monitored annually and compared with approved volumes established as part of the Citywide Study. Attachment 3 is a tabular summary comparison of the change in actual measured traffic volumes for 1985 and 1995, as well as traffic volumes for realistic buildout (i.e., the 3,251,000 square feet of development) approved as part. of the Citywide Study. The realistic buildout has been plotted based on the assumption that it w~ occur by 2010. This information is shown for both the P.M. peak hour as well as CMR:218:96 Page 2 of 6 the P.M. peak three hour period. Attachments 4 through 9 graphically illustrate the comparison of actual measured traffic volumes, during the period 1985 to 1995, with the projected volumes approved as part of the Citywide Study, for each of the 11 key intersections. Of interest is the relationship of the. solid line 2010 PM peak hour traffic (based on realistic buildout under existing zoning) and the heavy dashed line (actual measured PM peak hour traffic volumes from 1985 to 1995). The following observations can be made: At all intersections, the heavy dashed line (actual) remains below the 2010 endpoint of the solid line--that is, the measured 1995 PM peak hour volume is less than projected 2010 build-out PM peak hour volume (which it should be). Last year, the 1994 volume at Middlefield/San Antonio exceeded the 2010 volume. This was the first time that this had happened at any of the 11 intersections, and it appeared to be an aberration. This year, the measured volume dropped back to a value more in line with the general trend. At all but one intersection, the heavy dashed line (actual) in 1995 is below the solid line in 1995--that is, the 1995 measured PM peak hour volume is less than the projected PM peak hour volmne for 1995. The exception is Middlefield/ University, where the actual volmne continues to exceed the projection, but by less than last year. Last year, Middlefield/Oregon and Middlefield!San Antonio also exceeded projected volumes for 1994. At all but two intersections, 1995 PM peak hour volumes decreased from 1994 volumes (whereas 1994 volumes had increased from 1993 volumes). The two exceptions are Foothill/Page Mill and E1 Camino Real/Arastradero, both of which increased since last year. Between 1985 and 1995, at all but two intersections, PM peak hour volumes and PM three hour peak period volumes have followed essentially the same pattern of variation. The two exceptions were Foothill/Page Mill and E1 Camino Real/Arastradero where, since 1993, the PM peak hour volumes have tended upward and the three hour volumes have tended downward. Even more interesting is the relationslfip of the 1985 traffic counts with the 1995 traffic counts. The table on the page preceding the first of the eleven graphs was distributed at the March 12 Policy and Services Committee meeting. In reviewing the table and graphs, CMR:218:96 Page 3 of 6 recoglaize that the traffic volumes fluctuate daily and weekly by up to 10 percent. Small changes in traffic counts do not necessarily indicate fundamental changes. The peak-hour traffic volumes at 7 of the 11 key intersections are essentially unchanged. Three intersection volumes have declined, and one intersection (Middlefield Road at University Avenue) has gone up. For the peak three hour period, traffic volumes at 6 of the 11 key intersections are essentially unchanged. The volumes for two intersections have declined, and three intersections (Middlefield/University, Middlefieldd/San Antonio, Middlefield! Oregon, and Foothill!Page Mill) have gone up. The relative stability of traffic volumes at the 11 key intersections, over a ten year period, probably relates to a variety of factors; only some of which can be identified. Certainly, one factor has been the decline in Palo Alto employment and the stability in Stanford employment. At the March 12 Committee meeting, a question was raised regarding the spreading of commute traffic beyond the traditional one hour period. The three hour peak period data that have been collected since 1985 respond to this question. While some commuting has and will continue to occur outside of the 3:30 to 6:30 peak period, the three hour calculations effectively measure the commute period spreading factor. Traffic Volume Data for Roadway Segments Full day (24-hour) traffic volume counts for various roadway segments are made on an ongoing basis for a variety of purposes. Attachment 10 illustrates a composite of traffic counts taken throughout the City, in the form of a 1993 Traffic Flow Map. Attachments 11 and 12 provide a summary of actual measured traffic count data for 20 selective roadway segments throughout the period 1969 to 1995. These data indicate that, l~storically, traffic volumes have increased an average of 4 to 7 percent per year on each of the two freeways ~oute 101 and Interstate 280) bordering Palo Alto, and an average of 1 to 3 percent per year on other selective roadways within Palo Alto. A similar comparison, for the period since the base year (1985) of the Citywide Study, indicates that traffic volumes have increased m~ average of 3 percent per year on each of the two freeways and an average of 1 to 3 percent per year on other selective roadways within Palo Alto. CMR:218:96 Page 4 of 6 At the March 12 Committee meeting, the question of whether the intersection monitoring of peak hour and peak three hour traffic includes 24 hour traffic counts. The technique used for the peak hour and peak period traffic counts does not include collecting 24 hour traffic totals. Traffic Accident Data There is a general public perception that driver behavior is becoming more aggressive and less civil in its character, resulting in concerns for safety. Based upon personal observation and experience, staff shares that same perception. Available information on accidents, however, indicates that the number of accidents, injuries and deaths have not worsened during the past several years. One indicator is the data available from the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) Report, which is a compilation of all types of reported vehicular traffic accidents. Attachment 13 is a tabular summary of all reported accidents within the Palo Alto city limits for the period 1984 through 1995. The data indicate that there has been a reduction in total accidents over Ks period of time, and the trend downward continues. While these data do not include unreported accidents or near misses, they do serve as a useful factual indicator. Another indicator, illustrated in Attachment 14, is the number of persons injured in traffic accidents. These data indicate that the number of persons injured in traffic accidents in Palo Alto has essentially remained constant for the five years shown (1989 to 1993). In addition, the rate for injury accidents (injuries per 10,000 population) for Palo Alto has been similar to other surrounding jurisdictions, and consistently lower than the Statewide average. Another indicator, illustrated in Attaclnnent 15, is the number of persons killed in traffic accidents. During the period 1989 through 1993, the number of persons killed in traffic accidents in Palo Alto has remained at three per year, except in 1990, when there were six. Again, the rate of fatal accidents (deaths per 10,000 population) for Palo Alto has been similar to other surrounding jurisdictions and consistently lower than the Statewide average. Part of the reason for reduced numbers of total accidents, as well as injury accidents and fatal accidents, is attributable in part to the mandatory seat belt law, air bags, improved brakes, and other vehicle improvements, as well as the mandatory motorcycle helmet law, bicycle helmet law and stricter DUI enforcement. CMR:218:96 Page 5 of 6 Traffic Speed Data Speed survey data from a sample of arterial and collector streets are provided in Attachment 16. The information indicates that the "85th percentile speed" (the speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving) is quite similar for similar type roadways, and is consistently higher than the speed limits that are posted in Palo Alto. Travel speed data monitored at several locations over a period of 13 years (I 977 to 1990) indicate insignificant changes in the "85th percentile speed." FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact to the City. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT No Environmental Assessment is required. ATTACHMENTS 2. 3. 4-9. 10. 11 12. 13 14. 15 16. Land Use Areas Eleven Key Intersections Summary Counts for Key Intersections Graphic Comparison of Counts and Projections 1993 Traffic Flow Map Historical Traffic Cotmt Locations Full Day Counts for Selective Roadway Segments Summary of All Accidents Summary of Injury Accidents Summary of Fatal Accidents Summary of Speed Surveys CMR:218:96 Page 6 of 6 Prepared By: Marvin L. Overway, Chief Transportation Official Department Head Review: City Manager Approval: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and C~ FLEMING Manager cc~Planning Commission CPAC Stanford University Stanford Management Company Chamber of Commerce Denny Petrosian Speakers at February 7, 1996 Council Meeting Robin Bayer Lynn Chiapella Yoriko Kishimoto Ed Po~ver Susie Richardson Herb Borock Pria Graves Bill Peterson Emily Renzel Joseph Violette CMR:218:96 Page 7 of 6 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE Commercial and Industrial EAST BAYSHORE SOUTH EAST PALO EL CAMINO/STANFORD RESEARCH PARK 16000 ,-4.14000 ~12000 D 10000 v 8000 L 6000 4000 0 2000 2 3 Legend Existing f987 Previous Zoning PoZential C.urren Zoning Potential 6 Study Areas 7 8 Source : Comparison of~erotal and Industrial Development Potentials Existing Development DevelopmentSquare Feet/Potentlal/Potential/~a~ 1987 Previous Zoning**New Zonin~ I. Downtown 3,313,200 350,000 350,0002. Urban Lane 578,100 2,50],600 34,4003. Midtown ]43,600 253,500 5,2004. East Bayshore 1,318,800 450,900 93,5005. Southeast Pale Alto 3,072,300 ],567,200 655,0006. South El Camino ],084,900 3,356,100 200,]007. Central Pale Alto ],878,900 2,526,900 (6,200}B. StanFord Research/ ECR 9,555,700 2,906,800 1,794,1009. Sand Hill Road Corridor 3,941,300 ]I,401,6OO 12].80__~0 TOTAL 24,885,800 25,314,600 3,257,900 .3 Am, ount of development which could be added Citywide Land Use & Transportation Study TRAFFIC Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ATTACHMENT 2 14000 Legend ...................... ~ ......................... 10000 8000 8000 L ........ 4000 I 2000 ~~ 10 15 21 23 I I 26 35 41 43 Intersection Reference Number 44 70 Source:Citywide Land Use & Transportation Study ATTACHMENT 3 TRAFFIC VOLUSLES AT ELEVEN KEY INTERSECTIONS 12NTERSECTION 4.Middlefield/Universi~" 10.Middlefield/Oregon 15.Middlcficld/San Antonio 21.Alma/Charleston 23.El Camino Real/Alma 35.Elamino Real/- Aa-astradero 41.Foothill/ Page Mill 70.E1 Camino Real/Page Mill 44.Santa Cruz/Sand Hill 43.Foothill/AJ’astradero 26.El Camino Real/- Embarcadero 1985 Measured Entering Volume 2012 3745 4497 4198 5623 5673 Measured LOSm ¢ E E F C E E E PMPEAKHOUR i ¯. " 1995 2010 Council l\leasured Enteriug Volume 2383 3826 4579 4231 4569 5467 App roved Reasonable Buildout Measured Projected Projected LOS (Yr)Entering LOS (~ Volme C (94)2806 E E (95)4650 E D (95)5405 E D (94)5531 F 13 (94)6860 E D (94)7404 F F {95) 6415 F D (95) 8903 F PM PEAK THREE HOURS 1985 1995 2010 Council ApprOved Measured Measured Reasonable Buildout Entering Entering Projected Entering Volume Volume Volume°~ 5819 6630 7408 10572 11146 12047 9613 11798 14060 10239 10465 14268 14967 12381 18062 14224 13687 19126 10345 11334 16459 19126 18210 23062 E 12443.12420 14723 F 8831 7805 13893 E 12366 12830 17796 4576 6867 4476 E 3680 E 5300 E 4772 6663 4411 3216 4919 E (94)5595 E (95)5494 D (94)6733 (1)1985 and 2010 LOS is calculated using’a different, but reasonably comparable, methodology than in 1994 and 1995. Refer to page VI.21 of Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study DEIR Final Addendum, February 1989. (2)With approved intersection capacity improvements. (3)From PC Aft computer printout 1/89, unmitigated, p. 2. ATTACHMENT 4 Middlefield/University (#4) C.Ityw~e St~ldy Key Intersec~on Monffodng Program PM Pk Hr Entering Volume PM 3-Hours Entering Volume 7~0 7000 65OO 6O00 55O0 5000 45O0 40O0 35O0 30OO 2500 Legend 5000 =.+= Projected PM Pk Hr -..=. Measured PM Pk Hr 3500 . ~. Measured PM 3 Hrs 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20 10 Year Middlefield/Oregon (#10) Citywide Study Key Intersection Monitoring Program PM Pk Hr Entering Volume 5OOO 450O 4OOO 350O 3000 2500 2O0O 1500 1000 50O 1985 199O PM 3-Hours Entering Volume 7000 6000 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year Legend =-+-- Projected PM Pk Hr ==- Measured PM Pk Hr , ~, Measured PM 3 Hrs ATTACHMENT 5 Middlefield/San Antonio (#15) Cltywlde Study Key Intersec~on Monitoring Program PM Pk Hr Entering Volume 1985 PM 3-Hours Entering Volume 13O00 12000 11000 1 (7300 9000 Legend 8000 "=+=" Projected PM Pk Hr 7000 -==. Measured PM Pk Hr 6000 , ._~, Measured PM 3 Hrs 5OO0 4000 30O0 20O0 1000 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year Alma/Charleston (#21) Cltywlde Study Key Intersection Monitoring Program PM Pk Hr Entering Volume PM 3-Hours Entering Volume 110(X) 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 50O0 40O0 3O00 20O0 1000 0 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year Legend ~ Projected PM Pk Hr =-=. Measured PM Pk Hr , ~, Measured PM 3 Hrs ATTACHMENT 6 Foothill/Page Mill (#41) Cltywlde Study Key Inter~ec~on Monitoring Program PM Pk Hr Entering Volume 70O0 35O0 3OO0 25O0 2OO0 1500 1000500° 1985 1990 PM 3-Hours Entering Volume 995 2(XX) 2005 2010 Year 14000 12000 legend 10000 ,,_~_ Projected PM Pk Hr 8000 --= Measured PM Pk Hr 6000 ’ ’~’ Measured PM 3 Hrs 4OO0 20O0 0 El Camino Real/Page Mill (#70) Citywk:le Study Key Intersec~on Monitoring Program PM Pk Hr Entering Volume 10000 - PM 3-Hours Entering Volume - 22000 9000- 8000- 7000- 6000- 5000- 4000- 3000- 2000- 1000- 0 t 1985 1990 1995 20O0 2005 Year -2O000 -18000 -16000 Legend -14000_+_: Projected PM Pk Hr -12000_=. Measured PM Pk Hr -10000 ,~, Measured PM 3 Hrs -8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0 2010 ATTACHMENT 7 PM Pk Hr 6000 55OO 5O00 450O 4000 350O 3000 25OO 1500 looo 5o0 0 Santa Cruz/Sand Hill (#44) Cltywlde Study Key Inter~ectlon Monitoring Program Entering Volume 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Year PM 3-Hours Entedng Volume 14000 ......13000 12000 11000 10O0O 9000 8OO0 7OO0 6OO0 5OO0 4OO0 -2000 -1000 0 Legend ~ Projected PM Pk Hr = =.- Measured PM Pk Hr ,~, Measured PM 3 Hrs 2010 Foothill/Arastradero (#43) Cltywlde Study Key Interse~on Monitoring Program PM Pk Hr Entering Volume PM 3-Hours Entering Volume 9000 2500 2000 1500 500 000 0 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year Legend ,--4-=, Projected PM Pk Hr -=- Measured PM Pk Hr ,÷, Measured PM 3 Hrs ~TTACHMENT 8 El Camino Real/Alma (#23) Cltywlde Study Key Inter=ectlon Monitoring Program PM Pk Hr Entering Volume 7500- 7000- 6500- 6000- 5500- 5000- 4500- 4000- 3500- 3000- 25OO 2000 1500 1000 500 0 PM 3-Hours Entedng Volume 16000 Ti I ~~1 I I Ib ~oooI i i ~;.~ I I I I I F12°°°I IIl-~’il!llllllK11°°° I IIlilllllll!lFl lll!l!!lliillK~°°° Ill ill I lilt till~°° !llllllll!tltlF~°° F 1000 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year Legend 10000-,.~ Projected PM Pk Hr .... Measured PM Pk Hr 7000 ’ "~’ Measured PM 3 Hrs El Camino Real/Arastradero (#35) Cltywlde Study Key Intersection Monitoring Program PM Pk Hr Entering Volume 8000- 7000- 6OO0 5OOO 400O 3OO0 2O00 1000 0 1985 1990 1995 2000 Year 2005 PM 3-Hours Entering Volume 16000 140OO 12OOO Legend -10000=.4.-, Projected PM Pk Hr -=- Measured PM Pk Hr-8000 ,~, Measured PM 3 Hrs -6000 2OOO ~0 2010 ATTACHMENT 9 El Camino Real/Embarcadero (#26) Citywide Study Key Intersection Monitoring Program PM Pk Hr Entering Volume 7000 - 6500 - 6000- 5500 - 5000 - 4000 - 3500 - 3000 - 2500 - 2000 - 1500 1000 1985 1990 1995 2000 Year 2005 PM 3-Hours Entering Volume 16000 ... 15000 14000 13000 120O0 11000 Legend lO000..=p= Projected PM Pk Hr -=-- Measured PM Pk Hr-8000 - 7000 ’ ~’ Measured PM 3 Hrs -6000 -5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 2010 ATTACHMENT 10 Hwy 101 Not to scale Actual size of 101 MENLO PARK HIDDLEFIELD STANFORD UNIVERSITY ALMA BOWDOIN O0 BAYSHORE FREEWAY(HWy I01) LOS ALTOS ’CALE SO& OvER VEHICLES PER 2& HOURS (THOUSANDS) ~SUMMER VOLUMES ON ~ -SEASONAL VARIATIONS ARE NOT REFLECTED HIGHWAYS 101 & 280 -NOT TO SCALE I.Hwy 280 Not to scale ¯ Actual size of 280 (3 I 1" Y O F P ALO A LTO , CALIFORNIA 1993"MAJOR STREET TRAFFIC FLOW 24 HOUR COUNTS ATTACHMENT 11 HISTORIC TRAFFIC COUNT LOCATIONS ATTACHMENT 12 SWITRS Accident Data for the City of Palo Alto ATTACHMENT 13 Category Unsafe Speed improper Turning Autos ROW Violation Fail to Yield at STOP & Signals Unsafe Starting & BackSng Others rOT.CLS 1985 %1986 %1987 %1988 % 428 27%429 26%431 29%349 25% 188 12%175 11%192 13%173 13% 303 t9%320 20%251 ~ 17%238 17% 134 8%133 8%124 8%103 7% 122 8%120 7%113 8%122 9% 435 27%461 28%375 25%392 28% 1,610 100%1,638 100%1,486 100% 1989 % 345 25% 179 13%152 12% 225 17%231 18% 110 8%104 8% 99 7%77 6% 398 29%378 29% 1990 % 1991 % 343 27%294 26% 151 13% 203 18% 94 8% 77 7% 301 27% 1992 % 278 30% 134 15% 136 15% 66 7% 61 7% 247 27% i,377 100% !,356 100%il,285 100% i;120 100% 922 100% 1993 %1994 % 242 30%268 30% 108 13%115 13% 125 15%151 17% 66 8%93 10% 42 5%50 6% 233 29%I 229 25% 816 100% 906 100% 1,500 1,000 500 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 I993 1994 Year ATTACHMENT 14 Persons Injured in Traffic Accidents by City & State (Per 10,000 capita) City[Population~1989 1990 1991 PaloAlto/58,090 553 (97.0)569 (99.8)540 (94.7) MenloPark!29,917 228 (78.6)309 (106.6)341 (117.6) Mt. View/71,026 "’767 (109.6)784 (112.0)728 (104.0) Los Altos/27,276 163 (60.4)167 (61.9)171 (63.3) Redwood City/70,535 709 (101.3)791 (113.0)748 (106.9) San Mateo/90,360 894 (100.4)976 (109.7)862 (96.9) Santa Clara/97,137 1035 (107.8)1059 (110.3)818 (85.2) Surmy~’ale/124,230 1088 (89.2)1054 (86.4)1003 (82.2) State of Califomia 363,645 1989/28,670,502 (126.8) State of California 365,758 1990/29,489,272 (124.0) State of California 350,068 1991/30,351,029 .~(115.3) 1992 581 (101.9) 392 (135.2) 737 (105.3) 158 (58.5) 668 (95.4) 895 (100.6) 770 (80.2) 1008 (82.6) 1993 543 (95.3) 349 (120.3) 749 (107.0) 20I (74.4) ¯ 674 (96.3) 727 (81.7) 815 (84.9) 824 (67.5) 1994 481 (82.8) 328 (109.6) 656 (92.4) 182 (66.7) 353 (50.1) 780 (86.3) 778 (80.1) 895 (72.1) State of California 338,154 1992/30,990,824 (109.1) State of Califomia 315,154 199-~/~ 1,4~6,,~9 (100.2) State of California 31.6,441 1994/31,965,410 (099.0) ¯ State Controller’s Office Rennrt fnr 190~ ATTACHMENT 15 Persons Killed in Traffic Accidents by City & State (Per 10,000 capita) CiDqPopulation1 1989 Palo Alto/58,090 3 (0.5) Menlo Park/29,917 5 (1.7) Mr. View/71,026 4 (0.6) Los Altos/27,276 ,1 (0.4) Redwood City/70,535 2 (0.3) San Mateo/90,360 8 (0.9) SantaClara/97,137 12 (1.3) Sunnyvale/!24,230 4 (0.3) State of California 5, 381 1989/28,670,502 (1.9) State of California 1990/29,489,272 State of California 1991/30,351,029 State of California 1992/30,990,824 State of California 199~/~ 1,436,2~9 State of California 1994/31,965,410 ~11 State Controller’s Office Report for ! 994 1990 6 (1.1) 2 (0.7) 7 (1.0) 0 1 (0.i) 1 (0.1) 6 (0.6) 3 (0.2) 5,173 (1.8) 1991 3 (0.5) 1 (0.3) 5 (0.7) 0 0 3 (0.3) 6 (0.6) 4 (0.3) 4,649 (1.5) 1992 3 (0.5) 2 (0.7) 5 (0.7) 1 (0.4) 5 (0.7) 5 (0.6) 4 (0.4) 6 (0.5) 4,185 (1.4) 1993 3 (0.5) 2 (0.7) 7 (1.0) 1 (0.4) 3 (o.4) 4 (0.4) 5 (0.5) 6 (0.5) 4,163 (1.3) 1994 2 (0.3) 0 6 (0.8) o 3 (0.4) 5 (0.55) ! (o.1) 5 (0.4) 4,212 (1.3) ATTACHMENT 16 SPEED SURVEY DATA FOR A SAMPLE OF ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR STREETS Speed survey data-from a sample of arterial and collector streets is as follows: 85th Posted Percentile Speed Speed Limit Arterial Streets Alma (3 sections)42/43/44 Hillview 43 Oregon 43 Page Mill 43 Sand Hill ~(2 sections)40/41 University 33 Collector Streets Colorado (2 sect$ons) Fabian Way Hanover Hillview Loma Verde (3 sections) Louis (2 section) Meadow (3 sections) Newell (2 sections) Welch West Bayshore (3 sections) 35 35 35 35 35 25 39 30 36 30 39 30 33/34/~4 25 34/34 25 34/34/33 25 32/33 25 34 25 39/42/41 30/351J5 Travel speed data monitored at several locations indicates insignificant changes over a period of 13 years, as shown below: Source:CMR:439:94 September 26, 1994 85th Percentile Speed Posted 1977 1978 1983 1990 Limit University 36 36 35 33 25 West of Hale Middlefield 41 37 40 -25 No. of Montrose Middlefield 38 35 35 -25 No. of Kingsley Middlefield 38 36 35 -25 So. of Hawthorne Embarcadero 40 40 41 40 25 at Morton Embarcadero 41 38 39 37 25 East of Cowper