HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 358-05the City, and the traffic signal and left-turn pockets were a necessary safety improvement.
Middlefield Road is classified as a residential arterial and carries approximately 18,000
vehicles per day between Oregon Expressway and Colorado Avenue. Blyson is a local
street and carries approximately 500 vehicles per day. The Midtown Shopping Center, .
which has a main driveway across Middlefield Road from Bryson, carries more traffic
than Bryson, with approximately 250 vehicles entering and exiting the driveway during
the p.m. peak hour as compared with 50 vehicles entering and exiting Bryson during that
time.
Prior to the installation of the traffic signal, Middlefield Road was an undivided four-lane
roadway within this segment. The road measures 46 feet from curb face to curb face,
which resulted in two 13-foot-wide outside lanes and two 10-foot-wide inside lanes. At
Colorado Avenue, the lanes along Middlefield narrowed to 9 to 9-112 feet to
accommodate five lanes (four through lanes and a left-tum pocket). The lack of a traffic
signal at the Middlefield/Bryson intersection, and the fact that vehicles turning left into
the shopping center or into Bryson were required to do so from the inside through lane,
resulted in numerous right-angle, rear-end and sideswipe accidents over the years.
When the traffic signal was installed, left-turn pockets were added on Middlefield at
Bryson; which required narrowing the existing through lanes because of limited right-of-
way. Consequently, the curb lanes were each narrowed to 9-1/2 feet wide, and each of
the remaining lanes were made 9 feet wide so as to fit within the available 46-foot curb-
to-curb width. The configuration was made almost identical to that already in existence
on Middlefield at Colorado. The Middlefield/Colorado intersection was not modified.
The new traffic signaland associated striping changes were completed in July, 2004. The
previous month, a Committee was formed with the purpose of (1) evaluating traffic flow
along Middlefield, including impacts resulting from the existing midblock pedestrian
signal, and (2) look for ways to improve the safety and quality of pedestrian and bicycle
travel along the segment. Implicit in both of these tasks, and consistent with Council's
direction, was the evaluation of a possible "three-lane" option on Middlefield. The three-
lane option involves the elimination of one through travel lane in each direction on
Middlefield between Oregon Expressway and Colorado Avenue (exclusive of these
intersections), in order to accommodate bicycle lanes. A two-way left-tum pocket would
be provided to allow for left turns. The three-lane option is consistent with the Bicycle .
.. Master Plan, which provides for bicycle lanes along the entire length of Middlefield
Road. The Committee had as its core the Traffic Action Committee of the Midtown
Residents Association and included merchants of the Midtown Shopping Center,
residents of nearby residential streets, Transportation Division staff, and Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Bicycle Advisory Committee (P ABAC) representation. The Committee met
approximately once per month.
Committee Recommendations
Midblock Pedestrian Signal
One task the Committee faced was to determine whether the existing midblock pedestrian
signal on Middlefield Road south of Webster (near Walgreens) should remain following
installation of the new signal at Bryson; The arguments in favor of removing the signal
were (1) because a new signal existed at Bryson, pedestrians who ordinarily used the
midblock signal would have a protected crossing only a short distance away, without
having to walk to Colorado, and so the midblock signal is unnecessary; and (2) with the
installation of the new signal, there were now three very closely-spaced traffic signals
along Middlefield Road in Midtown. These closely spaced signals could have a
perceived or a real detrimental effect on traffic flow through the area, resulting in delays
or additional neighborhood cut-through traffic. The arguments in favor of keeping the
signal were (1) the protected crossing afforded by the signal could provide a real
convenience for pedestrians, especially those coming from north of Webster. Removal of
the signal could result in an inconvenience for those pedestrians, as well as create a
potential safety issue if those pedestrians elect to still cross Middlefield at the same
location but without the benefit of the signal to stop traffic; and (2) there is a significant
cost involved in removing a traffic signal. There would have to be a real benefit to the
removal, in terms of safety or convenience, to justify the cost.
Staff conducted pedestrian counts at the midblock signal, as well as at the new Bryson
signal, to determine the usage of the midblock signal and to determine the impact of its
operation. Counts were conducted for one hour during the morning peak, two hours
during the lunchtime peak and one hour during the afternoon peak. Both the number of
pedestrians, and the number of corresponding signal cycles, were recorded. For example,
if two pedestrians crossed, it was noted whether they crossed at separate times or whether
they crossed together. Whereas two pedestrians were served in both cases, the latter case
would result in much less of an impact to traffic operations on Middlefield because the
signal only had to change once, rather than twice, to serv~ the pedestrians.
During the morning peak, a total of 10 pedestrians crossed at Bryson, and 19 crossed at
the midblock signal. The midblock signal cycled 14 times to serve the 19 pedestrians.
During the lunchtime peak, 49 pedestrians crossed at Bryson, and 18 crossed at the
midblock signal. The midblock signal cycled 13 times to serve the 18·pedestrians.
Finally, during the afternoon peak, 17 pedestrians crossed at Bryson, and 19 crossed at the
midblock signal. The midblock signal cycled 11 times to serve the 19 pedestrians.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
The results can be summarized as follows: an ·average of 19 pedestrians per hour crossed
Middlefield at Bryson, an average of 14 pedestrians per hour crossed Middlefield atthe
midblock signal, and the midblock signal cycled an average of 9.5 times per hour to serVe
those pedestrians.
Based on this data, it appears that the midblock signal is used regularly, such that its
removal would likely result in an inconvenience for many people. However, because this
signal turns red for Middlefield traffic an average of9.5.times per hour (or approximately
once every six minutes), its operation is not likely to result in any additional delay for
traffic on Middlefield. This signal, and the one at Bryson, have cycle lengths of about 60-.
70 seconds, and therefore the midblock signal would be expected to tum red for
Middlefield traffic about once for ev~ry six times the new signal at Bryson turns red for
Middlefield traffic. Consequently, any effect the midblock signal has on Middlefield
Road traffic is relatively infrequent and minor, and the safety and convenience benefits of
retaining the signal appear to outweigh the benefits of its removal. Additionally, this
signal is coordinated with the signals at Bryson and Colorado, so the incremental delay
resulting from the operation of this signal is insignificant for this reason as well. Finally,
during the time the evaluation was being performed, several pedestrians expressed their
desire that the signal remain. No complaints have been received by the Transportation
Division regarding the operation of the signal or its effect on traffic.
The Committee discussed this issue at length, given the above data, and voted
unanimously to retain the midblock pedestrian signal.
Three-lane option
As mentioned previously, the three-lane option involves eliminating one through lane in
each direction on Middlefield, the primary purpose being to allow room for bicycle lanes.
Because it is necessary to retain the existing vehicle capacity provided by the existing
two-through-lane approach configurations on Middlefield at Oregon Expressway and
Colorado, a three-lane option would not extend the entire distance between Oregon
Expressway and Colorado. Instead, it would extend roughly from Marion Avenue to just
north of Colorado. Because the traffic signal at Oregon Expressway/Middlefield Road is
operated and maintained by the County of Santa Clara, it is not possible to coordinate that
signal with the City-owned signals along Middlefield Road. Consequently, if a three-lane
conversion of Middlefield Road were to extend all the way to the Oregon Expressway
intersection, vehicle queues at Oregon Expressway and Colorado would be very long and
the operation of these two intersections, and consequently the operation of the
Middlefield Road segment itself, would be adversely affected. Under the three-lane
City of Palo Alto Page 4
scenario, a two-way center left-turn lane would be provided over the length of the three-
lane portion to safely accommodate left turn movements from Middlefield into the
Midtown Shopping Center, onto Bryson, onto Webster, or into otlier driveways along the
segment.
The viability ofthe three-lane option was determined by performing a real-world field
test. The test was performed on December 14,2004. The test was performed during the
p.m. peak hours of 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., which is the time of day during which there is the
heaviest traffic volume .along Middlefield Road. The period was chosen because it would
provide for a "worst case" scenario, as any permanent lane reductions would necessarily
have to accommodate peak hour traffic and so the effects at this time would be critical.
The curb lanes in each direction along Middlefield were closed with traffic cones from
Marion Avenue to just north of Colorado, emulating as closely as possible what the
effects to vehicle traffic would be if a three-lane section were permanently striped along
Middlefield. The closure was designed to maintain smooth traffic flow through the use of
gradual cone tapers, advance warning signs ·and openings at driveways. The desired
intent was to create a situation under which any vehicle delays would be a result only of
the lane closure, rather than a result of driver surprise at an unexpected traffic control
situation. The closure was not advertised to the general public in advance, so that drivers
would not be tempted to avoid the area and so typical traffic volumes would exist on the
day of the test. To confirm that typical volumes existed, traffic count hoses were placed
on Middlefield the day of the test, and on a subsequent "typical" day for comparison
purposes. The traffic volumes on both days were comparable.
The effect of the three-lane scenario was determined qualitatively by direct observation of
traffic conditions during the field test (by Transportation Division staff, the Committee as
a whole and other interested observers), and quantitatively by performing a travel time
study. The travel time study was performed by driving repeatedly (ten times in each
direction) up and down the segment of Middlefield affected by the lane closure during the
two-hour test period on the day of the field test, and again during a "typical" day without
the lane closures but during the same time period. The time taken to drive the segment
was recorded on each run. These times were then averaged, and the results from the day
of the field test were compared with the results from the "typical" day.
During the field test, significant congestion was observed along Middlefield Road,
especially in the southbound direction. Southbound vehicle queues along Middlefield
. repeatedly backed up from Colorado, to north of Moreno. Vehicles making left turns
onto Middlefield from Moreno or Webster had great difficulty, sometimes waiting several
minutes for a suitable gap ih Middlefield Road traffic. Additionally, safety seemed to be
City of Palo Alto Page 5
ATTACHMENT 2
1 Planning and Transportation Commission
2 Verbatim Minutes
3 July 27, 2005
4
5 DRAFT EXCERPT
6
7
8 NEW BUSINESS:
9 Public Hearings
10
11 Public hearing to review findings and recommendations regarding evaluation of performance
12 of the new traffic signal on Middlefield at the Midtown commercial center, the existing
13 pedestrian-actuated signal on Middlefield at Midtown, the feasibility of additional provisions
14 for bicycle and pedestrian travel along and across Middlefield at Midtown, and the desirability
15 of further review of transportation/planning issues associated with the Midtown area.
16
17 Mr. Joe Kott, Chief Transportation Official: Thank you very much Chair Cassel and members of
18 . the Commission. I am Joe Kott, ChiefTran~portation Official and I have with me this evening
19 my friend and colleague, David Stillman, Traffic Engineer within the Transportation Division.
20
21 You will note at places a revision to recommendation three which was contained in the Staff
22 Report mailed to you. The revision provides more elaboration and detail on recommendation
23 three. One of our City Attorney's, Donald Larkin, has a word or two about the revision.
24
25 Mr. Don Larkin, Senior Deputy City Attorney: Just as a clarification the revision recommends
26 the formation of a continuing stakeholders group and that could take two forms. That could be a
27 recommendation to Councilor the City Manager to create a City committee or it could be a
28 request to Staff to work with neighborhood groups in the area or neighborhood stakeholders on
29 the issues with regard to the Midtown traffic but the Commission itself doesn't have authority to
30 create a stakeholders group. .
31
32 Chair Cassel: Thank you. Joe, did you want to continue?
33
34 Mr. Kott: Yes, thank you Chair Cassel and Mr. Larkin. Just for the record that recommendation
35 three now read, "The formation of a continuing stakeholders group to advise the Transportation
36 Division on all issues related to access, egress, circulation, parking and travel safety for the
37 Midtown area."
38
39 A little bit of background to all three of the Staff recommendations tonight. In May of2003 the
40 City Council directed Staff in approving installation of a new traffic signal at Bryson Court and
41 Longs to evaluate the effects of that signal, to evaluate the additional needs that bicycle and
42 pedestrians and drivers for that matter might have in the ar~a. So Staff was directed as part of
43 that to review and evaluate the potential for converting the cross-section in front of Midtown of
44 Middlefield from four lanes to three,actually it would be from five lanes to three since we had
45 created a turning lane with this signal. Creating the extra turning lane required taking some of
46 the existing space without moving curbs .. The existing space needed to be acquired by narrowing
Page 1
1 travel lanes. We narrowed travel lanes down to nine feet in front of Longs so that is about what
2 it is at Colorado Avenue. We don't like to have a long distance of nine-foot travel lanes though
3 because drivers really need, especially drivers going through need some shy space from their
4 vehicles to the adjoining lane's vehicles. There was some concern that in improving safety for
5 drivers turning into and out of the Longs driveway and Bryson having really an assignment of
6 right-of-way by the traffic signal and most importantly the left turning pocket which got the
7 turning vehicles out of the through lanes and really reduced the potential for rear end collisions
8 and also by providing stop control for pedestrians crossing and striped crosswalks on both sides .
9 of the Midtown driveway to the north and to the south of the driveways. We would be
10 improving safety for pedestrians and drivers and their passengers perhaps at the cost of safety for
11 bicyclists. I think it was in Council's mind, I was at the meeting that night, and I think it was in
12 council's mind. So we were instructed to look at ways in which we could enhance safety for all
13 modes of travel. We went about in doing that in a convention process with computer simulation,
14 with counts of pedestrians and vehicles before and after, a field test that we did and the field test
15 itself. We coned off a section of Middlefield at Midtown to observe the effects of a five to three
16 conversion and in fact David and I drove that section repeatedly to collect data on travel times
17 and on difficulties entering Moreno, which is a cross street, which intersects with Middlefield.
18 All very important data collection to come up with some findings. We also worked with a
19 stakeholders group, people who live and work within the area, and that stakeholders group is
20 represented this evening. The Chair of that group is Sheri Furman of the Midtown Resident's
21 Association Traffic Committee. I believe Sheri is here this evening and will offer a statement
22 herself. So we did due diligence and technical analysis and our findings reflect the success I
23 think ofthe signal installation and its positive effects on travel in the vicinity of Midtown. David
( 24 Stillman will provide a lot more detail on our analysis and the recommendations that are founded
25 on the analysis. I would like to offer Sheri Furman a chance if she would like to make a
26 statement on behalf of the stakeholders committee we work with.
27
28 Chair Cassel: Why don't you finish your presentation and then I will go with her first Would
29 you fill out a card, Sheri?
30
31 Mr. Kott: If the Commission has no questions of me based on my preface I would like to hand
32 the microphone over to David Stillman.
33
34 Mr. David Stillman, Transportation Engineer: Thank you, Joe. Good evening Commissioners.
35 Our Staff recommendation this evening is that the Commission approve the retention of the
36 existing lane configurations along Middlefield Road between Oregon Expressway and Colorado
37 Avenue, the retention of the existing mid-block pedestrian crossing traffic signal in front of
38 Walgreens on Middlefield, and the formation of a committee for continuing review of Midtown
39. circulation, access, parking and safety issues as outlined by Joe a few moments ago.
40
41 Some history, some of this might repeat a little bit of what Joe was saying. I will try to be brief.
42 The traffic signal with left turn pockets at the Middlefield-Bryson intersection was approved by
43 the City Council on May 19,2003. ·At that time Middlefield Road was an undivided four-lane
44 roadway at Bryson. It had the fourth highest accident rate in the city. The traffic signal and the
45 left turn pockets were the attempt to mitigate the safety problems that we were having at that
46 intersection. The exact Council motion that evening is as follows. The City Council approved
Page 2
1 and Charleston and make sure that we don't have any unexpected unpleasantries there like we
2 had here. The last thing you need is to have people who are opposed to changing anything
3 coming down here and saying you should have known better because it all went bad in
4 Middlefield. So this is just a cautionary note that's all. Thank you.
5
6 Chair Cassel: Thank you. I will bring the discussion back to us and close the public hearing.
7 Do we have questions of Staff? Karen?
8
9 Commissioner Holman: I have just a couple or three. The accidents that did happen what time
10 of day did those happen? Do you have the information on that? I will just tell you where I am
11 trying to get to is in reading this I was thinking is there any advantage or would there be any
12 benefit to perhaps slowing the traffic in this shori distance. They are fairly slowed because ofthe
13 signals but if the speed limit was actually slower would that have any impact or would that be
14 something that you could look at going forward?
15
16 Mr. Stillman: I don't have specific times of day that the two accidents happened. They did
17 happen during daylight hours. I believe one ofthem was during peak hour, one was a rear end
18 accident. With regard to slowing traffic the speed limit currently on Middlefield is 25 and yes,
19 cars sometimes typicaliy drive more than 25. We wouldn't be able to lower the speed limit
20 below 25 miles an hour because of vehicle code regulations regarding any speed limits below
21 that number. We could look at stepping up the enforcement of Middlefield Road, we could look
22 at additional sign age, striping, to kind of highlight the 25 mile an hour speed limit for drivers in
23 an attempt to slow traffic down.
24
25 Mr. Kott: To just add on a point or two about safety the two major causes of motor vehicle
26 crashes are unsafe speed differentials, when you have a vehicle making a tum, slowing down,
27 stopping and making a tum and the following vehicle not prepared for that vehicle ahead to tum.
28 That is where the rear end collisions come in. The second is when vehicles seek unsafe gaps.
29 We will probably have a chance to talk about this conversion issue more, I hope that we will, but
30 with conversion you do help with the speed differential issue because you are creating these left
31 tum pockets. You remove that big issue of having people stop to make lefts and having through
32 drivers slam into.them. You have to be careful that your traffic stream is sufficiently gapped,
33 you have sufficiently small platoons of traffic so that there are safe gaps for turning vehicles on
34 the cross streets to use to get onto the main street. Those are things we are always very cautious
35 about.
36
37 Commissioner Holman: Okay, thank you. I remember the. data about the speeds at which cars
38 are traveling and this is such a congested area that the speed at which cars are traveling impacts
39 also the survivability of impact with pedestrians, so that's one. The other question is while it
40 wouldn't necessarily be the typical and it would only be for casual riders, again this is such a
41 congested area, would there be possibility for the committee to look at a for lack of a better term,
42 casual cyclist route that would go behind the shopping? Is there any possibility for that? It
43 seems like there is a lot of open space back there and real pro cyclists aren't going to use that but
44 for the casual cyclist is there any opportunity for the committee to look at that?
45
Page 8
1 Mr. Kott: There may be, Commissioner Holman and certainly Middlefield as it is now is not
2 particularly conducive to casual cycling.
3
4 Chair Cassel: Bonnie.
5
6 Vice Chair Packer: I don't know if you had any people raising concerns about the entry into the
7 driveway at Longs when you are Goming southbound and making a left. I find that very
8 confusing I am not sure where to go after I have stopped. I don't know when it is my turn to go.
9 Have you considered doing some striping so it is clearer for drivers at that intersection?
10
11 Mr. Stillman: Yes, that issue has come up and that is something that we are aware of. We have
12 witnessed that. The current configuration ofthe driveway is very unfortunate and we would love
13 to, as part of what we looked at as an upcoming committee issue as part ofthe overall circulation
14 in that parking lot a possible reconfiguration of the driveways. When the traffic signal was
15 installed and the striping was changed in an attempt to mitigate that problem we extended with
16 the yellow bots dots the centerline to guide people there making that left turn into the proper
17 driveway instead of into the exit driveway, which a lot of people are doing. That may have
18 helped a little bit. There are still people that are turning left into the exit driveway. Based on our
19 observations a good portion of those are folks that know it is the wrong thing to do but they are
20 heading towards the Baskin Robbins area and they don't want to go all the way around and come
21 back so they shortcut it into that driveway to avoid circumnavigating the parking lot. We had
22 some police enforce that and we should continue that. That is something that we will absolutely
23 look at as part of this ongoing committee.
24
25 Chair Cassel: Annette.
26
27 Commissioner Bialson: That was my area of inquiry because as you know a lot of that is
28 intentional and I don't know what you can do to physically stop that. Maybe make it really clear
29 and put up lots of signs but I doubt whether you will get the property owners to agree to
30 reconfigure their parking lot but good luck if you do.
31
32 Mr. Stillman: Thank you, we will need that. We really beefed up the signing as well as we
33 could when the signal went in to make it clear not to enter the exit driveway, one-way and that
34 'sort of thing and we are still finding it is an origoing problem. So we are still looking at ways to
35 manage that.
36
37 Chair Cassel: Michael.
38
39 Commissioner Griffin: Joe, I was pretty discouraged to learn about the negative impacts of the
40 County computer system that controls the expressway traffic lights. This· Commission has spent
41 a lot of time giving you support for a citywide computer controlled signal system and now by
42 reading this it gives the impression we have dueling computers. Is that in fact what we are
43 looking at?
44
45 Mr. Kott: Well, those are good observations. We have 96 traffic signals in town that we, the
46 City of Palo Alto, controls but as the Commission knows Cal Trans controls signals on El
Page 9
1 Camino Real and the County controls signals on Oregon Expressway, Page Mill and Foothill
2 Expressway. We work with the County amicably but their interest isn't optimizing the flow of
3 traffic on their mainline and ours is to provide our cross-street traffic as much opportunity to get
4 through safely. There is no perfect optimization in this case. We can optimize for our corridors
5 if we have all the signals in control but it is very difficult when you have a street with more
6 traffic on it crossing a street with less traffic similar to Charleston-Arastradero and EI Camino
7 Real where we are actually leaving a large swath of that street in its current configuration. One
8 of the big reasons, not the only reason, is we really don't control the E1 Camino Real
9 intersection. We can't guarantee we can optimize our flows for Charleston. So even though we
10 are automating our signal system it will be imperfectly done because we don't control all the
11 traffic signals in town.
12
13 Commissioner Griffin: It just raises the question in my mind anyway whether this is money
14 being poured down a rat hole. Is it worthwhile trying to fight two other systems, Cal Trans and
15 VTA?
16
17 Mr. Kott: Well, if you look at it from a corridor point of view, if you look at our Embarcadero or
18 our Charleston or Arastradero or Alma most of the extent of those streets are controlled by
19 signals that we own. Most of the time that drivers will be on those streets they will be going
20 through our signals. So the optimization won't be perfect but it will be very, very good. We are
21 expecting for example, as the Commission knows, on Charleston-Arastradero being able to
22 automate our signals in response to real-time demand will probably give us about a 20 percent
23 increase in efficiency at all the signals that we control on that corridor which my recollection is
24 nine signals. But the EI Camino Real signal we know with 50,000 cars a day EI Camino Real
25 has to have more time.
26
27 Chair Cassel: Pat.
28
29 . Mr. Stillman: If! can add something, there is a push among all the cities within Silicon Valley
30 to communicate with one another with respect to ITS, Intelligent Transportation System, issues
31 including traffic signals. Right now the different jurisdictions don't communicate with each
32 other in that respect.buthopefully they will at some point in the future. The citywide signal
33 upgrade that we are now in the process of completing gives us the opportunity to tap into that
34 system and communicate it at some time in the future .. With the older systems there was no way
35 that that could have been possible. So this gives us the ability to look at coordinating with Cal
36 Trans, with the County of Santa Clara with their roadways at some point in the future once this
37 gets worked out among all ofthe cities and jurisdictions.
38
39 Mr. Kott: Just a: quick point. When David talks about communication it is not person-to-person,
40 we certainly have that but it is electronic communication between signals we may own and they
41 may own.
42
43 Chair Cassel: Pat, you had a question? Go ahead, Lee.
44
Page 10
1 Commissioner Lippert: I have a question regarding the pedestrian signal. Before that had gone
2 in did you look at putting in either an illuminated crosswalk or using a signal that would be
3 activated by the pedestrian? Or is that working at cross-purposes?
4
5 Mr. Kott: Without a stop control, without signal control on a four-lane cross-section we would
6 not establish amid-block crosswalk. Research is clear about this it is just not very safe. Now,
7 the signal control makes it safe there. So we are fine about having a crosswalk there,
8
9 Now in terms of in-pavement lighting to increase visibility of pedestrians we can't really do that
10 if the crosswalk location is signalized because we don't want to send drivers confusing signals
11 about lights. Silly as that seems it can really disorient drivers. Any other location, mid-block,
12 four lane without signal control we would be very uncomfortable about creating a crosswalk and
13 we don't believe in-pavement lighting is sufficient protection for pedestrians in that
14 circumstance.
15
16 Chair Cassel: Go ahead, Pat.
17
18 Commissioner Burt: Joe, it is clear from the data that the three-lane option just isn't feasible
19 even though there is this desire to have better bicycle routes. When I look at the data that you do
20 have though there seems to be an appreciable difference in the southbound travel time and
21 average speed versus the northbound. So it led me to wonder is there any possibility that a
22 different sort of four lane option, I guess it would be two lanes southbound, one lane northbound
23 and a turning pocket would be a feasible option that would still create enough room for bike
24 lanes given that the one lane northbound is close to the same amount of travel time as the two
25 lanes going northbound. If you combine that with optimizing signals is that a feasible option?
26
27 Mr. Kott: Again, very good question. This Commission is quite a challenge sometimes to
28 appear before and David will want to chime in. We did our field test in evening peak hour and
29 our assumption which is usually backed up pretty well by data is that we would have a reversal
30 offlow, it wouldn't be dramatic but it would be a reversal of flow, in the morning so that the
31 heavier traffic would be going in the opposite direction in the morning. So you would still have
32 constraints for people, cross-street drivers, trying to get onto the main street. David?
33
34 Mr. Stillman: No, nothing.
35
36 Commissioner Burt: Okay, thanks.
37
38 Chair Cassel: You have a follow up on that?
39
40 Vice Chair Packer: Yes, I am intrigued by Pat's suggestion because earlier David, you said that
41 one ofthe problems southbound was the platooning, all those cars that come after waiting for a
42 long time at a light at Oregon and then there is a whole bunch going south. You don't have that
43 situation with northbound traffic. There are people coming in from Lorna Verde or way back
44 from Charleston. It is sort of a smooth flowing bunch of cars. So the AM peak hour situation
45 may be different. It might not be the reverse of what you saw PM so I think that is an intriguing
Page 11
1 idea that Pat has and if there :was a possibility if the committee wanted to look at that as part of
2 looking for an option for a bike lane.
3
4 Mr. Stillman: We could look at that. My sense is going along with Joe's point there is what
5 would probably happen is that the northbound in the morning wouldn't be quite as bad as the
6 southbound in the evening because the northbound traffic is a little more random, a little more
7 metered by the Colorado signal but it would still be congested.
8
9 Chair Cassel: Annette, do you have a follow up to that?
10
11 Commissioner Bialson: Yes. I have a comment and that is that I experienced that going
12 northbound in the morning. It isn't as bad as going southbound but almost and especially during
13 school time because a lot of that traffic coming northbound then goes into Jordan or down
14 California to the private elementary school down there. So you have very heavy traffic coming
15 northbound in the morning.
16
17 Chair Cassel: Pat, did you have another question?
18
19 C()mmissioner Burt: Yes. Bob Moss raised the concern on how these results might be
20 extrapolated to Charleston.· Do you have any comments on whether you think that there is likely
21 to be any correlation between what we saw here and Charleston or just thoughts on that in
22 general?
23
24 Mr. Kott: Thank you very much, Commissioner Burt, for that question. I was hoping to get it.
25 There are several big differences and one big difference is that Charleston-Arastradero through
26 many of the cross street intersections, of course not all, of course there are major tum streets with
27 turn pockets, but many of them lack tum pockets so the typical cross-section would be four
28 lanes, two through lanes in each direction. Just the mere fact of putting in turn pockets is not
29 only good for safety but is remarkably good for capacity. Some of the best research on this
30 · suggests if you reduce from four to three you are reducing through lanes by 50 percent but you
31 are only reducing capacity based on measured traffic in those conversions where they have been
32 done around the country by 10 percent. If you layer upon that increased efficiency in traffic
33 signal operations, now as Commissioner Griffin pointed out since we don't control all the
34 signals, we certainly don't control Cal Train which is another factor, we cannot fully optimize
35 that whole corridor but we can substantially optimize it. So we are looking forward to between
36 10 and 20 percent increases in efficiency just through automation at Charleston-Arastradero.
37 The third factor we are basically backing off from the dominant intersections, the dominant
38 locations. That whole section of west Charleston will remain as is. We are proposing to put in,
39 based on Council decision, some new center medians but they will not be at the expense of
40 through lanes. We will also give plenty of clear space for the other side of Alma, the other side
41 of EI Camino Real that is the west side of EI Camino Real and the east side of Alma. Oregon
42 Expressway is dominant in this location and on top of it just very difficult for us to coordinate
43 signals. That was a big factor in the Midtown experience. Another big factor as I mentioned
44 earlier is we began with the left tum pocket so the comparison was with an already more
45 efficient roadway to one that simply reduced the number of lanes without the countervailing
Page 12
, .
1 done to relieve frustration of automobiles and traffic along Middlefield Road will actually reduce
2 people wanting to further speed once they get out of that area. So I think this is an appropriate
3 solution to a very serious problem.
4
5 Chair Cassel: Karen.
6
7 Commissioner Holman: Just very quickly I would concur with the comments of the
8 Commissioners that have spoken to this and congratulate Staff and the area for having worked
9 with Staff collaboratively and the merchants as well. Also just very, very pleased to see that the
10 safety factor has gone up considerably for vehicle traffic and with Staff and the committee
11 considerable good luck in trying to increase the bicycle issue here so we can get more bicycle
12 friendly atmosphere along this avenue.
13
14 Chair Cassel: I use this part of the road since I have almost no choice in order to get any place in
15 town. I find the light has actually been helpful. That is has been easy to move through the area
16 and I would be delighted if they would look at the section from Middlefield south to Safeway
17 about turning down there. I wish the committee good luck and thank you very much to the Staff.
18
19 MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0)
20
21 I would like to call for a vote. All those in favor please say aye. (ayes) Opposed? Then that
22 vote passes seven to nothing. Thank you Staff for the good work and thank you for the
23 committee in Midtown and those of you who came to speak this evening.
24
25 Mr. Kott: Thank you, Commissioners.
Page 16