HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-25 City Council (7)TO:
FROM:
~DATE:
SUBJECT:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
I 2
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
OCTOBER 25, 2004 CMR:432:04
FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT
TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN, INCLUDING SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS, PROJECT PRIO~TIZATION,
AND COST FUNDING REPORT
RECOMMENDATION
The Finance Committee recommends that Council adopt the proposed Transportation
Strategic Plan, including Transportation System Performance Indicators (Attachment A) and
Project Prioritization (Attachment B).
DISCUSSION
On October 8, 2003, the Finance Committee reviewed, revised and recommended Council
adoption of the Transportation Strategic Plan, including the performance indicators, project
prioritization, and cost and funding report. The Finance Committee suggested that staff
group the proposed strategic performance indicators and project prioritization into
functional categories and revise them as indicated below.
Categorization of Strategic Performance Indicators: Travel Safety, Vehicles, Bicycle and
Pedestrian Transportation, and Public Transportation.
Revisions to Strategic Indicators:
1. Add a travel safety objective to read "Promote a healthy and safe schoo! commute" and a
strategic indicator to read "Percent of students traveling to Palo Alto schools by foot,
bicycle, transit, and carpool."
2.Add a vehicles objective to read "Reduce the proportion of vehicles on arterials traveling
10 miles or more above the posted speed limit" and a strategic indicator to read
"Percentage of vehicles on arterials traveling 10 or more miles above the posted speed
limit."
CMR.4~2:04 Page 1 of 3
Add a public transportation objective to read "Enhance accessibility to public transit"
and a strategic indicator to read "Percentage of Palo Alto population within one-quarter
mile of a public transit stop."
The Committee also expressed a desire that the Transportation Division undertake a truck
route study next fiscal year to evaluate possible changes in routing and regulation of goods
movement within Palo Alto, and expressed an interest in staff providing Council with a
report on Palo Alto truck movement data.
Categorization of Project Prioritization System: Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation,
Public Transportation, Traffic Management, and Other Transportation.
Revisions to Project Prioritization:
1. Under bicycle and pedestrian transportation, revise the "Bike and pedestrian facilities
that prioritize critical links" project to include two formerly separate projects: "Bay-to-
Foothills path" and "Downtown alleyways for bikes and pedestrians." Retain this revised
project in the High Priority category.
Under Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation, retain the "Bike and pedestrian paths
under Alma Street and Caltrain" in the High Priority category, but add the notation that
"the location(s) of which would depend on results of future feasibility studies and
Council decisions."
3.Under Traffic Management, add "Feasibility Study of new vehicular grade separations of
Caltrain" as a High Priority.
4.Under Public Transportation, add "Palo Alto Shuttle enhancements and improvements"
as a High Priority.
5.Move "Light rail from Mountain Vie~v~alo Alto/Menlo Park" from High Priority to
Medium Priority.
The Finance Committee further recommends that the Transportation Strategic Plan Priorities
be translated into individual Capital Improvement Plan and Program projects with
implementation dates, cost estimates, and funding sources. Prior to identification of funding
sources and securing of funds, projects would be listed in an unfunded section of the Capital
Improvement Plan.
CMR:432:04 Page 2 of 3
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Transportation Strategic Plan orders and prioritizes transportation projects and
programs called for in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and one of its derivatives, the Palo
Alto Bicycle Transportation Plan. As each individual transportation project and program is
brought forward for approval, each will receive appropriate review pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Recommended Transportation Strategic Performance Indicators
B. Recommended Transportation Implementation Plan Project Prioritization
C. Palo Alto Transportation Strategic Plan
D. October 7, 2003 Memorandum to the Finance Committee with CMR:378:03 appended
E. Minutes of the October 8, 2003 Finance Committee meeting
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
(/ STEVE EMSLIE
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY H .~_ISON
Assistant ~ity Manager
cc: Planning and Transportation Commission
CMR:432:04 Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT A
of CMR:432:04
Recommended Transportation Strategic Performance Indicators
Travel Safety-
Objective: Promote a healthy and safe school commute
Strategic Performance Indicator: Percent of students traveling to Palo Alto schools by
foot, bicycle, transit, and carpool.
Objective: Improve travel safety
Strategic Performance Indicator: Injuries and fatalities
Vehicles-
Objective: Reduce vehicle trips
Strategic Performance Indicator: Annual vehicle trips
Objective: Reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles
Strategic Performance Indicator: Single occupancy mode or market share of Palo Alto
travel
Objective: Avoid increased automobile congestion
Strategic Performance Indicator: Vehicular level of service ratings
Objective: Reduce the proportion of vehicles on arterials traveling 10 miles or more
above the posted speed limit1.
Strategic Performance Indicator: Percentage of vehicles on arterials traveling 10 or more
miles above the posted speed limit~.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation -
Objective: Improve conditions for bicyclists
Strategic Performance Indicator: Bicycle level of service ratings
Objective: Improve conditions for pedestrians
Strategic Performance Indicator: Pedestrian level of service ratings
Public Transportation -
Objective: Enhance accessibility to public transit1
Strategic Performance Indicator: Percentage of Palo Alto population within ~A mile of a
public transit stop1.
~ the Finance Committee added this Objective and requested that staff suggest a suitable performance
measure.
ATTACHMENT A Page 1
ATTACHMENT B
of CMR:432:04
Recommended Transportation Implementation Plan Project Prioritization
Palo Alto Projects -
High Priority:
Bicycle/Pedestrian Transportation -
Bike Boulevards
Bike and pedestrian facilities that prioritize critical links~
Bike and pedestrian paths under Alma Street and Caltrain2
Public Transportation -
Palo Alto Shuttle enhancements and improvements
University Avenue Intermodal Transit Center
Traffic Management -
Citywide transportation demand management
Computerized traffic management
Feasibility study of new vehicular grade separations of Caltrain
Neighborhood traffic calming
Medium Priority:
Bicycle/Pedestrian Transportation-
Bike/ped path adjacent to Embarcadero Road
Connecting paths through dead-end streets
Easements for bicycle and pedestrian paths through new private developments
Off-road paths
Sidewalks and bike facilities in Stanford Research Park and other employment areas
Urban design to encourage walking and cycling
Wide outside lanes for motorists and bicyclists
~ The Finance Committee recommends folding in two formerly separate projects, "Bay-to-Foothills path
and "Downto~vn alleyways for bikes and pedestrians", into this larger project.2 The location(s) of which would depend on results of future feasibility studies and Council decisions.
ATTACHMENT B Page 1 of 3
Traffic Management-
Remove through traffic lanes in commercial areas
® Residential arterials
Low Priority:
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation -
Secure bike parking
Traffic Management -
"Gateways" where roads transition from freeway
Homer and Channing 2-way
Transportation information kiosks
Vertical curbs (Stand-alone project)
Regional Projects-
High Priority:
Public Transportation-
Better public transit to regional destinations
Bus service improvements in major bus corridors
Caltrain Baby Bullet
Caltrain electrification/downtown extension
Medium Priori~:
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation -
Regional bicycle plans
Public Transportation -
Amtrak between San Francisco, Salinas, and Monterey
Bus rapid transit on E1 Camino Real
California High Speed Rail
Extend Caltrain to Monterrey
Rail around the Bay, intra-county and transbay transit
Light rail from Mountain View - Palo Alto/Menlo Park
ATTACHMENT B Page 2 of 3
Low Priority:
Public Transportation -
®Amtrak Coast Starlight
o Bus stop amenities
Traffic Management -
Freeway information/monitoring/control systems
® HOV lanes on freeways and expressways
Other Transportation -
~ Relocate airport terminal building
ATTACHMENT B Page 3 of 3
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Transportation
Strategic Plan
April 2004
ATTACHMENT C
of" CMR:432:04
833 Market Street, Suite 900, San F~’~cisco. CA 94103
415.284-1544 Phone 415-28~-1554 FAX
In association with:
Table of Contents
PAGE
Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................1
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................3
2. Performance Indicators ................................................................................................3
3. Project Prioritization ..........~ .........................................................................................9
4. Funding and Implementation ......................................................................................28
Appendix A: Strategic Performance Indictors
Appendix B: Scoring Matrices
Appendix C: Advisory Panel Members
Appendix D: Peer Review
Page i ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Transportation Strategic Plan ¯Revised Draft
Table of Figures
PAGE
Figure ES-1
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Project Prioritization ......................................................................................2
Strategic Performance Indicators ....................................................................6
Potential Sub-indicators .................................................................................7
Comprehensive Plan Goals ............................................................................8
Proposed Transportation Projects and Programs ...........................................11
Scoring Criteria ............................................................................................21
Indicator Weightings ...................................................................................21
Key to Cost Ratings ......................................................................................23
Key to Project Readiness Ratings ..................................................................23
Project Ranking By Total Score ....................................................................25
Cost/Benefit Matrix ......................................................................................27
Transportation for Livable Communities - Sample Projects ..........................31
Transportation Enhancement Activities - Sample Projects ............................32
STP Regional 50% Share - Sample Projects .................................................32
Grant Funding Source Matrix .......................................................................34
Projects and Recommended Sources ............................................................39
Summary of Annual Implementation Revenue Estimate .............................,..40
Preli m i nary Cost Esti mates ..................: ........................................................42
Implementation Strategies Summary ............................................................44
Page ii ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
"te ic Plan . Revised DraftTransportation Stra g ...............
Executive Summary
This Transportation Strategic Plan is designed to complement the Transportation Element of
the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in 1998. It aims to provide
a framework to implement the broad policies and specific projects identified in the
Comprehensive Plan, considering the limited financial resources available to the City.
The Transportation Strategic Plan comprises three main elements:
Performance Indicators. It identifies ten Strategic Performance Indicators, which
operationalize the broader goals in the Comprehensive Plan. These indicators can be
tracked from year to year to provide a "report card" on the City’s transportation
system. They can also be used as the basis to prioritize transportation investment
decisions. The performance indicators are shown in Figure 1.
Project Prioritization. Each project and program identified in the Comprehensive
Plan, and subsequent regional and local plans such as the Palo Alto Bicycle
Transportation Plan, is scored against the performance indicators, using input from a
citizen advisory panel and the Planning and Transportation Commission. These
scores are used to divide projects and programs into high, medium and low priority
categories. The categorization is shown in Figure ES-1.
Funding Plan. Potential federal, state, regional and local revenue sources are assessed
for their suitability to fund projects detailed in this Plan. The amount of revenue
available for new projects and programs is estimated at $2.6 million per year, which
is enough to fund all high priority projects within a seven year timeframe, or all
medium and high priority projects within a 40 year timeframe. This essentially means
that the City must choose between breadth and depth - implement only the highest
priority programs, but do so in full, or implement scaled-down versions of a wider
range of projects.
An appendix documents a review of potential models for internal organization for
transportation planning in Palo Alto. This is based on a review of similarly sized cities with a
university presence and a strong track record of innovative transportation solutions.
April 2004 Page I . Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Transportation Strategic Plan ¯Revised Draft
Figure ES-1 Project Prioritization
1. CITY OF PALO ALTO LEAD
A. Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
Bicycle Boulevards Bicycle/pedestrian path adjacent to Secure bike parking
Embarcadero Rd
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities that Sidewalks and bike facilities in Stanford
prioritize critical links*Research Park/other employment areas
Bicycle and pedestrian paths under Easements for bicycle and pedestrian
Alma St and Caltrain**paths through new private developments
Connecting paths thru dead.end streets
I 0ff-road paths
B. Public Transportation
Palo Alto Shuttle enhancements and
improvements
University Ave Intermodal Transit Ctr
C. Traffic Management
Citywide Transportation Demand Remove through traffic lanes in ’Gateways’ where roads transition from
Management commercial areas freeway
Computerized traffic management Residential Arterials Homer and Channing Avenues to 2-way
Feasibility study of new vehicular Vertical curbs (in conjunction with Transportation information kiosks
grade separations of Caltrain development)
Neighborhood traffic calming t Vertical curbs (stand alone project)
2. OTHER AGENCY LEAD
A. Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
Regional bicycle plans
B. Public Transportation
Better public transit to regional Light rail from Mountain View- Palo Amtrak Coast Daylight
destinations Alto/Menlo Pk
Bus Service Improvements in Major Amtrak between SF, Salinas and Monterey Bus stop amenities
Bus Corridors
Caltrain Baby Bullet Bus Rapid Transit on El Camino Responsive private sector taxi service
Caltrain Electrification/Downtown Rail around Bay, intra-county and transbay
Extension transit
Extend Caltrain to Monterey
California High Speed Rail
C. Traffic Management
Freeway information/monitoring/control
HOV lanes on freeways/expressways
D. Other Transportation
Relocate airport terminal building
* Includes Bay to Foothills path and Downtown alleyways for bicycles and pedestrians.
** Locations depend on the results of future feasibility studies and Council decisions.
April 2004 Page 2 o Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
1. Introduction
The City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1998, setting out a broad vision
for transportation in the city along with a number of specific policies and programs. Over
the past five years, many of these have been implemented - such as the extension of Sand
Hill Road to El Camino Real - or at least fully funded.
Many other projects envisaged in the Comprehensive Plan, however, from additional
bicycle boulevards to the University Avenue Multi-Modal Transit Station, have yet to be
funded or designed. As a broad policy document, the Comprehensive Plan says little about
where the priorities lie, and many of the goals and policies - such as "improve public transit
access to regional destinations" - are too general to provide specific guidance.
This Transportation Strategic Plan aims to provide a framework for the City to take the
difficult decisions about priorities for limited resources. It sets out ten key performance
indicators (Figure 1) - objective criteria that can be used to assess the projects and programs
that will do the most to help the City achieve its goals. It also proposes a range of
subindicators to help analyze performance (Figure 2). The plan also details funding options
for the City to pursue.
The performance indicators are also designed to provide an overall "report card" on
transportation in Palo Alto. Providing they are tracked over time, they will provide an
objective assessment of whether the City is fulfilling the Comprehensive Plan’s vision to
provide an accessible, attractive, economically viable, environmentally sound transportation
system that emphasizes alternatives to the private automobile.
The performance indicators and weighting system have been drawn up in close consultation
with City staff and a project advisory panel, consisting of local residents and representatives
from advocacy groups, the City Manager’s office and Stanford University. Input was also
received from City Council Finance Committee. Pane[ membership is shown in Appendix C.
2. Performance Indicators
Why do we need performance indicators?
Performance indicators are a measure of the City’s success at meeting its transportation
goals. In very broad terms, these goals are set out in the Comprehensive Plan (Figure 3).
They range from reducing reliance on single occupancy vehicles to an influential role in
shaping and implementing regional transportation decisions. The Plan also expresses an
aspiration - although not a firm target - for individuals to reduce their automobile trips by
10% by 2010.
There are three specific areas where a comprehensive set of performance indicators would
be most useful to the City of Palo Alto:
April 2004 Page 3 o Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Provide an overall "report card" or Progress Report from year to year to inform the
community, city staff, Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council on
how the City’s transportation system is performing. Similar to the "Transportation
Metrics Report" produced annually by Boulder, CO, the Pro~ess Report would
review progress towards meeting objectives, and highlight areas where more action
needs to be taken if the objectives are to be reached.
Help prioritize projects for funding and staff time. Mechanisms for this prioritization
process are discussed later in this report.
Help assess the transportation impacts of projects when making findings under the
California Environmental Quality Act.
How is performance usually measured?
Traditionally, traffic engineers measure the performance of a transportation system through
the concept of (Motor) Vehicle Level of Service (LOS). This refers to the seconds delay
experienced by motor vehicles at intersections, or to average speeds on each segment of
highway. Vehicle LOS offers a widely accepted, standardized method of measuring
performance. However, focusing exclusively on this indicator can have unintended negative
consequences. For example, to improve LOS for cars, engineers may remove a bicycle lane,
narrow a sidewalk, adjust the signal timing so that the street is difficult for pedestrians to
cross, or limit buses’ ability to hold a green light in their favor.
If these more efficient modes of travel are penalized, the net result may be that fewer people
can move through the intersection - even if more cars are able to do so. In addition, as
biking, walking and taking the bus become more difficult, people will increasingly choose
to drive, exacerbating the congestion problem that the intersection "improvements" were
intended to address. Finally, by focusing on individual intersections rather than the traffic
system as a whole, reducing congestion at one point often just moves the problem
elsewhere in the system.
Vehicle LOS is still included as a strategic indicator, as a reflection of the importance of
avoiding increased congestion in Palo Alto. However, it would no longer be the sole
measure of success. In addition, the indicator would not be used to prioritize different
transportation projects, as discussed in the second part of.this Plan. This reflects Palo Alto’s
goals of reducing reliance on single-occupant vehicles, and the difficulty and undesirability
of expanding highway capacity in the city to accommodate more vehicle trips.
It should be stressed that the City would still require developers to mitigate impacts on
vehicular level of service at specific intersections, where traffic generated by a new
development would have a significant impact. In addition, given that many traditional
techniques to increase capacity at intersections, such as roadway widenings, are not
physically feasible in Palo Alto, one of the major mechanisms to improve vehicular level of
service will be through encouraging people to use alternative modes.
April 2004 Page 4 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
What are the indicators?
While it will still be very important to manage congestion in Palo Alto, this system of
strategic performance indicators seeks to address the root causes of congestion in a
systematic way. Figure 1 shows the ten strategic performance indicators, which have been
developed in close consultation with City staff and the Transportation Plan advisory panel.
They are grouped into four broader categories: Travel Safety; Vehicles; Bicycle and
Pedestrian Transportation; and Public Transportation. Full descriptions of the indicators are
provided in Appendix A.
The indicators were selected with several aims in mind:
Relate indicators to objectives. The indicators are designed to operationalize the
goals and objectives adopted in the Comprehensive Plan, and reflect the spirit and
tone of the Plan.
Minimize data collection costs.
Retain a high-level focus. While the indicators should be sufficient to encompass as
many objectives of the Comprehensive Plan as possible, the number should be kept
as low as possible to retain a high-level focus.
Ensure they are comprehensible to the public.
Once these indicators are in place and baseline data have been confirmed, it will be
important to develop specific short- and long-term targets for each.
While most of the indicators are self explanatory, a few clarifications need to be made:
The baseline for vehicle trips is 2004, which is likely to have lower than average
traffic levels due to the economic downturn. To account for this, the baseline would
be adjusted for normal economic conditions, as determined by an economic
analysis.
While the "Reduce reliance on single occupancy vehicles" objective is similar to
"Reduce vehicle trips," it takes greater account of the potential of carpooling to meet
the City’s transportation goals. In addition, the inclusion of both of these indicators
reflects the greater weight attached to these goals.
The Pedestrian Level of Service indicator has two components: level of service on
commercial streets, and level of service on other defined key pedestrian routes (such
as safe routes to school). This is to focus resources on the most important streets for
pedestrians, rather than measuring level of service on all City streets. The aim is to
increase the number of miles of street that are most attractive to pedestrians, i.e. that
meet level of service standards A or B.
April 2004 Page 5 o Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Tr~n "rate ic Plan .Revised Draft___sportatson St g .....................
Figure I Strategic Performance Indicators
Objective
Travel Safety
Promote a healthy
and sere school
commute
Strategic
Indicator Description
% students traveling i To increase the proportion of students
to Pale Alto schools by traveling to Pale Alto schools by foot,
foot, bicycle, transit or ,bicycle, transit or carpool to:
I carpool i
Improve travel safety l lnjuries and fatalities
Vehicles
Reduce vehicle trips Annual vehicle trips
Reduce reliance on Single.occupancy
single-occupancy , vehicle mode sharevehicles
Avoid increased Vehicular level of
automobile congestion service
I Reduce speeding Vehicle speeds on
!arterials
!Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
Improve conditions fori Pedestrian level of
mdestrians . service
Improve conditions for! Bicycle level of service
bicyclists
Public Transportation
Improve conditions for Transit level of service
transit users
TBD TBD TBD
To reduce the annual number of collisions
involving injury to:
I To reduce the annual number of traffic
]fatalities to:
To hold total vehicle trips at not more
=than 2004 levels adjusted for normal
i economic conditions, even with
!population and employment growth.
i To reduce the mode share of SOV trips
to:
i To maintain the number of key
!intersections operating at level of service
i A, B, C or D:
1% of vehicles on arterials traveling 10 or
!more miles above the posted speed limit
iTo increase the length of commercial
i streets that meet pedestrian level of
i service A or B to:
!To increase the length of other defined
I key pedestrian routes that meet
i pedestrian level of service A, B or C to:
[To increase the proportion of the Pale
i AIto bike network that meets bicycle
!level of service A or B to:
TBD TBD TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD .......
TBD
TBD
TBD TBD TBD
:=To increase the proportion of transit TBD TBD TBD
i service within Pale Alto that meets
!transit level of service A, B or C to:
Enhance accessibility Access to transit i% of Pale Alto population within ¼ mile TBD TBD TBD
to public transit ]of a public transit stop ]I
TBD: To be determined once baseline data have been confirmed.
April 2004 Page 6 - Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Transportation Strategic Plan . Revised Draft
Sub Indicators
As well as the key strategic indicators discussed above, it would be useful for the City of
Palo Alto to establish a bank of sub-indicators. These would not be associated with specific
targets, nor would they be subject to the same degree of focus as the strategic indicators.
Instead, their purpose would be to help explain the changes in the strategic indicators, and
analyze the reasons behind the success or failure in meeting the strategic goals. This
discussion would be ideally suited for the annual Progress Report.
These sub-indicators are designed to take maximum advantage of the data already available,
rather than warranting new survey or other collection efforts. Figure 2 shows some potential
sub-indicators, although this list is not intended to be exclusive.
Figure 2 Potential Sub-indicators
Travel by mode by trip purpose (residents and
commuters)
Vehicle miles traveled
Travel time by mode between selected destinations
Parking occupancy and length of stay in City-owned
garages
Transit ridership by route/select stops
Transit pass sales
City of Palo Alto Shuttle ridership
Vehicular traffic volumes for select links
Turning movement counts for select intersections
Traffic speeds for select links, and differential
between 85th percentile and posted speeds
Attractiveness and convenience of public and private
parking facilities
Number of Safer Routes to School plans implemented
Cycling volumes for select links, including Bryant St
Bike Boulevard and California Ave undercrossing
Palo Alto Bikestation usage
Pedestrian volumes for select links, including
California Ave undercrossing
In- and out-commuting
City of Palo Alto Commute Program Participation
Vehicle registrations
Sidewalk compliance with Americans with
Disabilities Act
Availability of accessible parking spaces
Pavement condition
Travel diary survey (required for key strategic
indicators)
Travel diary (required for key strategic indicators)
Field survey
Garages
Transit agencies
Transit agencies
Ridership counts
Currently collected by Transportation Division
Currently collected by Transportation Division
Speed surveys
GPS data from freight carriers
Possible windshield survey of parkers
Transportation Division
Currently collected by Transportation Division
Counts of bicycles stored
Pedestrian counts
ABAG, Census
Transportation Division
DMV
Field survey
Field survey
Department of Public Works
April 2004 Page 7 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Transportation Strategic Plan ¯Revised Draft
Relationship to Transportation Element Goals
Figure 3 shows how the objectives relate to the ten goals in the Transportation Element of
the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The majority of the goals are addressed through the
objectives to reduce vehicle trips, and to reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles.
Three goals (T-8, T-9 and T-10) are not specifically addressed by the objectives, and Goals T-
9 and %10 in particular are difficult to measure in a meaningful, quantitative way. Figure 3
indicates how all three goals might be monitored, but it may be most advantageous and
cost-effective to discuss them in a narrative manner in the Annual Report Card, rather than
pursue quantitative measurements.
Figure 3 Comprehensive Plan Goals
Less reliance on single-occupant vehicles.
A convenient, efficient public transit
system that provides a viable alternative
to driving
Facilities, services and programs that
encourage and promote bicycling and
walking
An efficient roadway network for all users
A transportation system with minimal
impacts on residential neighborhoods
A high level of safety for motorists,
pedestrians and bicyclists on Palo Alto
street
Goal T-I
Goal T-2
Goal T-3
Goal T-4
Goal T-5
Goal T-6
Mobility for people with special needs Goal T-7
A~active, convenient public and private Goal %8
parking facilities
An influential role in shaping and imple-Goal T-9
menting regional transportation decisions
A local airport with minimal off-site Goal T-10
impacts
Promote a healthy and safe school commute
Reduce vehicle trips
Reduce reliance on SOVs
Promote a healthy and safe school commute
Reduce vehicle trips
Reduce reliance on SOVs
Improve conditions for transit users
Enhance accessibility to public transit
Promote a healthy and safe school commute
Reduce vehicle trips
Reduce reliance on SOVs
Improve conditions for pedestrians
Improve conditions for bicyclists
Reduce vehicle trips
Reduce reliance on SOVs
Avoid increased automobile congestion
Improve conditions for pedestrians
Improve conditions for bicyclists
Improve conditions for transit users
Reduce vehicle trips
Reduce reliance on SOVs
Promote a healthy and safe school commute
Improve travel safety
Reduce speeding
Improve conditions for pedestrians
Improve conditions for bicyclists
Improve conditions for pedestrians
Improve conditions for transit users
Enhance accessibility to public transit
No specific target. Could monitor through
possible windshield survey of parkers
No specific target. Could monitor through
possible survey of regional agency staff
No specific target. Could monitor through
possible survey of nearby residents
April 2004 Page 8 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Project Prioritization
Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan includes more than 60 transportation projects and
programs. Added to this are various projects that have arisen since it was adopted in 1998,
for example through the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan. There are also a large number of
regional projects such as specific Caltrain improvements which are not always singled out
individually in the Comprehensive Plan.
Figure 4 provides an overview of all these projects and programs, divided into four
categories:
Not yet fully funded, where the City of Palo Alto is the lead agency
o Not yet fully funded, where the City will need to contribute funds but is not the l~ad
agency
Not yet fully funded, but where outside agencies are likely to provide all funding
Fully funded and/or completed
Projects and programs in the first category - where the City is the lead agency - are the
most critical to prioritize, since it is here that the City’s efforts will make all the difference to
implementation. However, it is also useful to prioritize projects that are being forwarded by
another agency, in order to direct local matching funds and City staff time to best effect.
In a number of cases, a program listed in Figure 4 covers a number of individual projects,
such as bicycle boulevards on various streets, or the neighborhood traffic calming program
which encompasses various discrete projects. In these instances, a system has already been
established to prioritize projects within these programs (Homer Avenue is considered one of
the top priority bicycle boulevards in the Bicycle Transportation Plan, for example), and
these internal prioritizations are not affected by the prioritization system below.
The list of projects has been compiled from the following documents:
1998 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (1998)
Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Plan (2003)
2001 MTC Regional Transportation Plan (December 2001)
2001 MTC Regional Transit Expansion Policy (December 2001)
Final Project Notebook for 2001 MTC Regional Transportation Plan (February 2002)
MTC Blueprint for 21st Century (March 2000)
Final Project Notebook for MTC Blueprint for the 21st Century (October 1999)
MTC Regional Bicycle Plan (December 2001)
V’]’A Short Range Transit Plan for 2002-2011 (October 2001)
VTA Valley Transportation Plan 2020 (December 2000)
April 2004 Page 9 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
VTA Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan (October 2000)
Sales Tax Expenditure Plan for Measure A in Santa Clara County (November 2000)
Caltrain Short Range Transit Plan for 1999-2009 (October 1999)
Caltrain 20 Year Strategic Plan (October 1997)
It is important to emphasize that Figure 4 only includes projects and programs that are
already included in City, county or regional planning documents. These projects have
already been through a process of review and public scrutiny, at least to some extent. While
there may be other worthwhile projects that the City or its partners should pursue, the
Transportation Strategic Plan does not attempt to include them, since this level of scrutiny is
not within the Plan’s scope. However, new projects should be included as the Plan is
revised and updated, once they have been approved through other processes.
April 2004 Page t0 o Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Figure 4 Proposed Transportation Projects and Programs
1 Pro acts/ rograms yet to be fully funded where the City Of Pale Alto is the lend ngency
Provide transportation information kiosks Program T-9 in the Pale Alto Comprehensive Plan calls for Ihe installation of interactive infom~ation kiosks along key transit routes to provide
real time transit information end transit schedules as well es computerized trip plomdng service~. These information kiosks could initially be
along University Avenue and California Avenue.
University Avenue Intermodel Transit Center:Progl T-14 in the Pale Alto Comprehensive Plan calls for implementation of the University Avenue MeltiModal Transit Station based on the
¯Design end conslract a new parkway and underpass for Design Study. This project would transform the existing University Avenue CeRtain station into a modern multi-modal transit center
University Avenue from the campus to downtown Pale Alto which efficiently facilitates cross-platform transfers between local and express treios as well as transfers helwoen trains and local and express
to improve bicycle, pedestrian end transit access to the
campus, Pale Alto Caltrain station and dowutown Pale Alto.
Upgrade passenger facilities nt the historic Polo Alto Caitrain
station, upgrade transit facilities for VTA, SAMTRANS,
Domharton Express and the Stanford Marguerite end Pale
Alto shntUo services.
Develop, periodically update, aud implement a bicycle facilities
p(ogram and pedeslrian facilities program that identify and
~rioritize critical pedestrian and bicycle links to parks, schools,
retail centers, and civic facilities
buses.=e development of this now modern multi.modal station would include:
¯~eplacing the existing rail bridge over Universily Avenue with a new bridge with four tracks
o ;onverting the existiog Alma Street overpass over University Avenue to a signalized at-grade intersection
¯Expanding the Bus Transit Cooler from five standard bays to six articulated double length bays and six standard bays located either at
]redo or underground directly beneath the Celtrain frocks and platforms
o Extending guarry Road to provide bus only access to the Bus Transit Center
¯;renting a new bicycle/pedestrian nndercrossiug of lho Caltrain tracks near Everett end Alma Streets
¯~econligoring University Avenue between Alma and Palm Drive into two one-way sections separated by a public park
¯~uplacing the existing University Avenue road bridge over El Coming Real
cost of lhe now University Avenge multi.modal Transit Station would he $195.7 million to $247.2 million depending upon whether the
now bus bays are located el grade or underneath lho Callrein tracks end platforms. A total of $52 million is currently available for the project
from the transportation sales taxes passed by the voters in Santa Clara County in 1996 and 2000. Full funding of the project would require an
odditioonl $55 million from Caltrein as well ns $93.2 million to 145.2 million in State end Federal grants. Provided this additional funding is
[ng, the project coold be completed by 2012.
The Pa!e Alto Bicycle Transportation Plan recommends the implementation of a comprehensive bicycle program to link critically important parks,
schools, etail centers and civic facilities. The plan recommends four new Class 1 Bike Paths, eleven now Class 2 Bike Lanes, nine new Class 3
Bike Routes, eight now Class 3 Bicycle Boulevards, and nomerous extensions end improvements to existing bicycle facilities. The plan prioritizes
recommended bike projects and identifies 20 high priority projects including now Caltrain bicycle undorcrossings at California, Everett,
ld Matadero and new Class 1 Bike Palhs, Class 2 Bike Lanes, Class 3 Bike Routes, or Class 3 Bicycle Boulevards on:
Program T-9 Pale Alto, transit
operators
Policy T.5, Program T-14,
T-15
Ilemor,
¯:1 Coming Real Park Boulovard/Wilkio Way
¯~tma Street BryantlRedwood/CarlsonlDuncanlCroeksidolNelsonlMackaylSan Antonio
=~liddlofield Road EverottlPalo Alto Avenue
¯tamer Avenue Chaecer/Boyce/Molvgle
¯Embarcadero Road Chedeston/Arastradero
o lanovor Street/Porter Drive Los Rabies Avenue
¯!1Ca~nioo Way/Mayhell/Donald Matedero Avenue/Margarita Avenue
o .’;alifornia Avenae West Arastradero from Alpine to Page Mill
The total cost of the high priority Bike Paths, Bike Lanes, and Bike Routes would be $2.9 million. The cost of the new Celtraio bicycle
ondercrossiugs ($20 million) and Bicycle Boulevards ($174,000) are considered separately below. Pedestrian facilities would represent an
additiooal cost.
Pate Alto, Valley
Transportation Authority
{VTA), Joint Powers Board
(JPB)
Pale Alto
April 2004 Page ~11 * Nelson\Nye=lzrd Consulting Associates
Transportation Strategic Plan ¯Revised Draft
Improve aud add attractive, secure bicycle parking at bulb public
and private facilities, incladJng multi-modal transit stations, ou
transit vehicles, iu City Porks, in private developments, end at
giber community dasliuatious.
Policy T-19 in the Pale Bile Campreheusiva Plan calls for adding secnre bicycle parking in multi-modal transit stelions, city parks, private
developments, and giber major commnnity destinations. The Pale Alto Bicycle Plan recommends a n,mbor of projects end programs for
increasing the supply of secure bicycle parking ia the City including:
Policy T-19
o Adding new hike racks at strategic locations along Bamor, Lytton and the cross streets to University Avenue
o Addiug carb bulb-outs at the intersections along Homer and Lytton to provide space for new bikn racks
=Adding new hike racks and curb bulb-mils at tba streets adjacent to California Avenno and along the streets crossing California Avenue
o Adding now racks along El Camino Real
.Addiug new bike racks on private properties set back from the slreet
,,Adding now bike racks at bus stops currently used by bicyclists
Policy T-2f and Program T31 in lhe Pale Alto Comprehensive Plan support the use of Downtown alleyways for bicycle and pedestrian use. The
Downtown Urban Design Guido should be used to facilitate this effort and vehicle access for loading and unloading should be allowed where no
alternatives exist.
Policies T-22 end T-23 end Program T.32 in Ihn Pale Alto Comprehensive Plan recommend utilizing nlban design improvements end amenities to
encourage walking and cycling. Improved lighting, sealing, bicycle and parking and street trees along bicycle end pedestrian paths can encourage
walking and cycling and improve safety.
Program T.38 in tim Pale Alto Comprehensive Plan calls for the implementation of computerized traffic management systems wherever feasible
1o improve traffic flow aud provide signal pre-emption for transit vehicles. The City is currently upgrading its signal system to provide the
Pale Bile
Support Ihn use of downtown alleyways for bicycle and Policy T-21 Pale Alto
iodostriau usa Program T-31
Introduce urban design improvamouts and amenities to encourage Policy T-22 Pale Altowalkiuo and cycling Policy T-23
Program T-32
Implement computerized traffic namagemont systems to improve Program T-38
traffic flow wizen feasible.
Establish
improvements, at the points where University Avenno and
_E_~ c_ a de r_o _R._o _a d_ t_r_a_n_s!_tio n_._f r o m_ _f.~’e e _w__a_ys_. ~_n~g b b ~ ~ ~ o d s. .....
Evaluale smoolhiag and slowing traffic flow in commercial areas
by reducing through traffic lanes and trading the area for
improved turning lanes, landscaping, and bicycle lanes
Policy T-30
Program T.41
Program T.42
Policy T-31
capability for traffic-activated signals and signal pre-emption for transit vehicles.
R=e-d~u~i~p~i~ ~i~iO~-i~ii~~~;~-n~re~-bi Policy T.30 and Program T-41 in lbo Pale Bile Camprebansivn Plan recommend designating the following streets as Residential Arterials 1o
designating corlain streets as Residential Artmials. reduce the impacts of through traffic:
,,Middlefield Road between San Franciscquito Creak and San Antonio Road
°University Avanae bnlween San Franciscquilo Creek and Middlefield Road
,,,Embarcadero Road botwonn Alma and West Baysbora
o ChartestonlArastradero between Miranda Way and Fabian Way
Landscaped medians, planted strips, traffic signal changes, and other modifications should be added to those streets to redaco travel speeds and
improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. These bnprovamants need to be implemented without appreciably reducing traffic capacily or
diverting traffic on to local neighborhood streets.
clear ’gateways’, using landscaping and other Program T.42 in the Pale Alto Comprehensive Plan calls for the establishment of gateways along University Avenue and Embarcadero Road
using landscaping and giber improvements to facgitato the transition from the freeway to the local neighborhoods.
Policy T-31 in tbn Pale Alto Comprehensive Plan calls for evaluating the feasibility of improving turning movements and facilitaling bicycle usage
in commercial areas by reducing the number of lanes for through traffic.
Pale Alto
Pale Alto
Pale Alto
Polo Alto
April 2004 Page 13 ¯ Nolso.\Hyeaard Consulting Assocl~tr~s
Transportation Strategic Plan ¯Rovt,sod Draft
Support doveloploont of Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle System,
and other regional bicycle plans.
Policy T-18 in tbo Pale Alto Comprehensive Plan supports the development of the Santa Clara Coentywide Bicycle System as well as other
regional bicycle plans. The Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan adopted by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) in Oclober 2000
recommends implementation of 16 Cross County Bicycle Corridors including leer which cross through Pale Alto:
¯North 101/Caltruin Corridor
e 1-280 Corridor to San Jose Airport
¯Bay Trail Corridor
o Alma Street/El Coming Real Corridor
Tbo Countywide Bicycle Plan also recommends implementing 19 Tier 1 Bicycle Projects including e new ADA compliant Bicycle/Pedestrian
undercrossiog at the California Avenue CaBrain Statioo. Tile Countywide Bicycle Plan recommends implementing 20 Tier 2 projects including a
new Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge across Highway 101 in the vicinity of the Sen Antonio Road to replace the seasonal Adobe Creek undgrcrossing
which is only open for 6 monlhs of the year. In addition, the Countywide Bicycle Plan recommends implementing 60 Tier 3 projects including
Bicycle crossing improvements at selected intersections on El Coming Real in Pale Alto, on off road Bicycle Path along Stanford Avenue between
El Coming and Escondido, and additional Bike Lanes in Stanford Research Park.
Policy T.53 in the Pate Alto Comprehensive Plan recommends that the City participate in a regional efforl to improve the roadway connection
between Highway 101 the Dumbarton Bridge which does not include a southern connection across environmentally sensitive Baylands. In
developing tbis regional solution, the City will need to work with Caltrans, Sanla Clara County, San Morea county, East Pale Alia, and Menlo
Park.
Policy T-18 VTA, Pete Alto
Participate in seeking o regional solution to improved roadway Policy T-53 Callrons, San Morea
connections between Highway 101 and the Dumbarton Bridge.County, Santa Clara
Coonty, East Pale Alto,
Menlo Perk, Pale Alto
3. Projects entirely funded by a different agency
Improve peblic transit access to regiooal destinations, including Policy T-6 in the Pale Alto Comprehensive Plan calls for improving public transit service to regional destinations. Implementation of this policy Policy T-6
those witbio Pale Alto could include supporting e number of regional transit projects including:
Support Plans for a quiet, fast rail system that encircles Ihe Bay,
and for intro-couoty and traeshuy transit systems that link
Alia to the rest of Santa Clara County and edjoiniog counties.
Policy T.7
o Extending Caltrain to Downtown Sen Francisco
=Extooding lho Tasman Light Rail Line to Pale Alto/Menlo Park
,,Creating a timed transfer betweoo Caltrain and the BART Shuttle Trains at the BART Millbrae Station
¯Creating a timed transfer at the Santa Clara CeRtain station between Celtrain end VTA Shuttle buses to the Sun Jose International
Airport
o Evaluating the feasibility of a Dumbarton Corridor rail service between Pale Alto and Alameda County
Policy T-7 in tbo Pe!o Alto Comprehensive Plan supports plans for implementing a fast end quiet rail system which encircles the Bay end links
Pale Alto to the rest of Santa Clara County end adjoining counties. Implementation of this policy could include supporting a number of regional
rail projects including:
,= Electrification of Caltrain
,,,The Ca!train Downtown Extension
¯The Caltrain’Baby Bullet" Express Service
°The California High Speed RaiIProject
o Amtrak service batweou San Francisco and Monterey
,,,The Caltrain Extension to Monterey County
¯Amtrak Coast DaylighlService
¯The extension of tbo Tasmau Light Rail Line from Mountain View to Menlo Perk
VTA, SomTrans, JPB,
BART, Altamont
Commuter Express, Polo
Alto
April 2004 Page 15 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Transport,~tlon Stratog|c PI;~n ¯Revised Dr.ft
Caltraio Electrification ned Downtown Extousion:Program T-17 in tbe Pale Alto Comprehensive Plan supports the electrification of Caltrain and its extension to Downtown Son Francisco to
o Full electrification of the Caltroin line from San Francisco to improve regional transit service for the Peninsula. The Peninsula Joint Powers Board {JPB) plans to electrify the entire 77-n|ila Caltraiu rail
Gilroy service between San Francisco and Gilroy by 2010. The electrification of tbn service will increase travel speeds, improve tel!oh!lily, and redoce
noise, vibration, and air pollution. The $452 million capital cost will be funded wilh $210 million in Measure A Sales Tax Revenue from Santa°Parchase of new electric locomotives Clara County, $108 migioe in Meosure B sales tax revenue from San Mated County, $65 million from State Inlarregional Improvement Program¯Extend Caltraio to tba Traosbay Terminal in San Francisco (ITIP) funds, and $43 million in Congestion Management and Air Qualily {CMAQ) or Surface Transportation Program {STP) funding from San
Francisco. The project is currently facing a $26 million sbortfall.
The extension to a now Transbay Terminal located at First and Mission Streets in Downlown San Francisco wilt provide a direct connection to
the region’s largest employment concenlrotioa in the San Francisco Financial District. The now multi.modal Transbay Terminal will improve
connections with existing local, interregional, and intarcity bus and rail services including BART, MUNI, Golden Gate Transit, SAMTRANS, AC
Transit, and Greyhound. Tba total cost is estimated to bo $1.9 billion including $850 million for the Caltrain Extension and $1050 million for the
new Transbey Terminal. Proposed funding includes $200 million from tim Federal New Rail Starls Program, $100 million from Bridge Tolls, and
$1.6 billion from land sales and tax increment financing. The proposed funding has not yel been secured.
Coltroio Baby Bullet Tba Peninsula Joint Powers Board {JPB) is currently implementing Phase I of tbe "Baby Bullet" Express service. The JPB will ba adding a third
and fourlb track at strategic locations along tbo existing Caltrain right-of.way to allow express trains to pass local trains at 79 miles per hour.
Total running times between San Francisco and San Jose on the Express Trains will be reduced to only 45 minutes. Express Trains will operate
on 30 to 60 minute headways and the total number of daily trains will be increased from 80 to 120. Phase I is fully funded with $127 million
from the Governors Traffic Congestion Relief Program and will ha completed in 2004.
Pbases II and III of the Baby Rugnt Express Service wil! add additional tldrd and fourth tracks covering two thirds of the line to further improve
the express service. These Pbases will also include construction of grade separations as well as procuring additional rolling stock. The additional
$628 migion ueedad to implement Phases II and 6 has not yet been secured.
California High Speed Rail: Proposed storewide High Speed Train The California High Speed Rail Authority is proposing e 700 mile $25 billion High Speed Rail system connecting San Diego and Los Angeles to
system linking Boy Area, Central Valley, and Southern California Sacramento and San Francisco. The High Speed Rail Line would share the Caltrain alignment between San Jose and San Francisco with Stations
cities,in San Jose, Paid Alto or Redwood City, SFO Airport, DUd Downtown Son Francisco. The system would use steel-wheel on steel track electrified
trains that can share track with otber rail services at reduced speed in heavily urbanized areas. Travel times between San Jose and Los Angeles
wmdd be approximately 2.5 hours. The High Speed Rail Authority is planning to implement the service in phases wilh the entire system
operating by tile year 2016. Tbo $25 billion needed to implement the system has not yet been secured. A $9 billion dollar storewide bond
measure will be on the ballot in 2004.
Program T-t7
Program T- ! 7, Policy T. 12
JPB
JPB
California High Speed Rail
Authority
April 2004 Pane 16 ¯ Nelson\Nyeaard Consulting Associates
Transportation Strategic Plan ¯Revised Draft
Amtrak between San Francisco end Salines and Monterey: two The Amtrak West Five Year Improvement Plan adopted i, 2000 and 20 Year Improvement Plan adopted in 2001 call for implementation of now
daily round trips between San Francisco end Monterey aed two State sponsored Amtrak Intercity Rail Service between San Francisco and Monterey beginning as early as 2005. The initial service proposed by
daily round trips between San Francisco and Salines. Project Amtrak would inchldo four daily ronnd trips between San Francisco and Monterey end two daily round trips between San Francisco and Salines.
includes pnrcbase of modern intercily rail train sets.
The San Francisco - Monterey lnlercity Rail Service Implomonlalion Plan adopted by the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) in
1998 proposes daily Amtrak Intercity Service between San Francisco and Seaside/Fort Ord with one train operating southbound in the morning
and nortbbmmd bl the evening. These daily trains would stop in San Francisco, Migbrao, Burlingamn, San Melee, Pale Alto, Mountain View, San
Jose Diridon, San Jose Tamion, Pajaro, Cestrovilln, end Seaside.
Tile Cnltrans 10 Year Operating Plan for State sponsored Amtrak Inlercity Service calls for two weekday round trips end three weekend round
trips between Sen Francisco and Monterey beginning in 2005.06. A total of $20.5 migion has been secured for Amtrak Intorcity Service
between Sen Francisco and Monterey including $14 migion from Proposition 116, $3 million from the State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) and $2.1 million frmn a Federal earmark.
Extend Celtrain to Monterey The Peninsula Joint Powers Board PB) is planning to extend the existing Collrain service south from Gilroy to Monterey County with stations
in Pajaro, Castrovillo, and Salines. The initial service wmdd include two daily round trips between San Francisco and Salines with a possible
increase to four round trips after 5 years. A total of $24.5 million has been secured for this Caltrain Extension including $20 million from the
Governors Traffic Congestion Relief Program, $3 million from Proposition 116, and $1.5 million from the Slate STIP.
Amtrak Coast Daylight: San Francisco to Los Anootes intercity The Amtrak West Five Year Imp lent Plan adopted in 2000 end 20 Year Improvement Plan adopted in 2001 propose implementation of new
passenger train service via the CeRtain and Union Pacific Coasl Amtrak Intercity service along the east Corridor between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Implementation of lba proposed Coast Daylight
lines service could begin as early as 2005 wilh a single train traveling each day in each direction between San Francisco and Los Angeles. The
Amlrak 20 Year Improvement Plan envisions investing over $900 million in track improvements and rolling stock in order to rednce overall travel
limes on the 470-mile route from boors to 8 hours. The proposed funding from the State Interreoional Improvement Program (ITIP) bus not
yet boon secured.
Evoloato extending light rail from Mountain View to Pale Alto and Program T.16 in the Pale Alto Corot ~hensivo Plan calL~ for evaloating an extension of Ihe Tasmon Light Rail Line from Monntain View through
Menlo Park Pale Alto to Mnnlo Park. The Valley ransportntion Authority (VTA) 2020 Implementation Plan recommends implementing at least two additional
Light Rail projects utilizing $1.1 billion in Measure A sales lax funding end $250 million in Federal Now Rail Starts funds. The Plan calls for
conducting Major Investment Studies for seven corridors to select the two projects for implementation. Tbo Mountain View to Menlo Park
Corridor is one of Ibe seven corridors slated for evaloatinn. Major Investment Studies have been completed for two corridors but no study has
been condncted yet for the Mountain View to Menlo Park Corridor.
Bus Service Improvements in Major Bus Corridors Policy T-12 in the Pale Alto Coml ;nsivo Plan supports improving bus service in major corridors to decrease wait times for intercity transit to
a maximum of 20 minutes between 6 AM and 10 PM. Funding from Mousing A passed by the voters in Santa Clara County wilt be used to:
¯Increase service fro=~ primary VTA forties
¯Expand service torespond increased demand
o Expaodcommute andexp ;bns service
o Expandbns rapid transit services
Program T-16
Policy T-12
Amtrak California,
Caltrans, TAMC
JPB
Amtrak California
VTA
VTA
April 2004 Pnee 17 ¯ Nelson\Nyeaard Consulting Associates
Transportation Strategic Plan ¯Revised Dr~ft
huprovo roadway and transit access to the Stanford Shopping
Center/Medical Center Area
Extend Sand Itill Read to El Coming Real and construct related
improvements oonsistenl with nnighborhood and community
interests.
Address the needs of people with disahilitios and comply with the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) during the planning and
ialplemontation o| transportation and parking improvement
_projects.
Re.stripe surface parking lots in order to gain additional parking
spaces
1,1111,-’J~;r~
Program T-35Implementation completed.
Implementatioe completed.Program T.36
This policy is being applied to all current projects.Policy T-42 Pale Alto
Pale AltoUniversity Avenue/
Downtown Pale Alto 13-
point parking program
Initiate short-term leases of vacant or underutilized private University Avenue/Polo Alto
parking Iols, such as the Caltroin lots Downtown Polo Alto 13-
point parking program
Parsee a now parking slrectero for lots S end L and any other University Avenue/Pale Alto
feasible sites.Downtown Polo Alto 13.
............................................................................................................... ....point parkinj] progpro ....ram
April 2004 Page 19 * Nelson~Nyaaard Consulting Associates
Transportation Strategic Plan o Revised Draft
Scoring process
Each project can be assessed for its contribution to meeting the objectives above using an
11-point scale, as shown in Figure 5. A positive score means the indicator is moving in the
desired direction. For example, a project that would reduce vehicle trips would be awarded
a positive score against this objective.
A number of comments should be made on the rating scale:
The rating refers to the relative city-wide impact of the project or program. Therefore,
even if there is a major local impact, a low score is awarded if it only covers a small
area and does not have a significant city-wide impact.
The indicators for pedestrian, bicycle and transit level of service have been designed
to be precise and easily quantifiable, and are based on new standards developed by
the Federal Highway Administration, Transportation Research Board and Florida
Department of Transportation. However, they may not capture some of the more
qualitative improvements to these modes. For example, bicycle level of service does
not take into account parking facilities or many urban design improvements.
However, the benefits of these projects and programs are still captured under the
objectives for vehicle trip reduction and reduced SOV reliance.
In practice, most of the ratings awarded are + 1 (very minor positive effect) or zero
(insignificant effect).
The scores are intended to reflect the relative positive and negative impacts of the
projects and programs when compared to each other. Given that even the largest
projects will only represent a small change in comparison to the extent of the city’s
existing transportation infrastructure, even the projects with the largest impacts will
result in little discernable change on their own.
Scorings were completed by City staff and advisory panel members, and - under time
constraints - by Planning and Transportation Commissioners at their October 30, 2002
study session. A scoring matrix produced by compiling the responses of staff, project panel
members and Commissioners is shown in Appendix B. These scores were subsequently
categorized as "High", "Medium" or "Low" (Figure 9). Note that scores were not completed
for indicators subsequently added by the Planning and Transportation Commission, and City
Council Finance Committee.1
While the process is qualitative and to some extent subjective, advisory panel members and
Commissioners independently achieved a high level of agreement on virtually all the
proposed projects. In all but a handful of cases, a majority of advisory panel members
agreed on a single score with other members varying by no more than a single point.
The qualitative nature of the process is also advantageous as it allows all the proposed
projects and programs to be considered on an equal footing - even if they are only at an
These are: Avoid increased automobile congestion, reduce speeding, and enhance accessibility to public transit.
April 2004 Page 20 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Transportation Strategic Plan ¯Revised Draft
early, conceptual stage and no detailed design work has been completed, in these cases,
more quantitative measurements of the project impacts would be inappropriate in the
absence of a specific project definition and more detailed design work.
Figure 5 Scoring Criteria
Score Description
+ 5 Very major positive impact
+4 Major positive impact
+ 3 Moderate positive impact
+ 2 Minor positive impact
+ 1 Very minor positive impact
0 Insignificant impact
-1 Very minor negative impact
-2 !Minor negative impact
-3 Moderate negative impact
-4 Major negative impact
¯ 5 1 Very major negative impact
Weighting
In order to facilitate comparison between projects, a single, composite measure is needed.
Rather than weight all indicators equally, however, advisory panel members considered that
some indicators, particularly travel safety, were more important than others. Figure 6 shows
the weights for each strategic indicator. A score under the "Promote a healthy and safe
school commute" indicator, for example, is given twice the weight of the score under
"Improve conditions for pedestrians".
Figure 6 Indicator Weightings
Strategic IndicatorlObjective
Reduce vehicle trips
Reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles
Improve conditions for pedestrians
Improve conditions for bicyclists
Improve conditions for transit users
Improve travel safety
Promote a healthy and safe school commute
Weight
1
1
April 2004 Page 21 o Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Transportation Strategic Plan ¯Revised Draft
Adjustments
While the scoring methodology provides the basis for the project prioritization, members of
the Planning and Transportation Commission were given the opportunity to make
adjustments based on a "straight-face" test, to ensure that the prioritization meets
community priorities. The following adjustments were made at the Commission’s March 19,
2003 meeting:
Computerized traffic management moved from "low" to "high," on account of the
ability of these systems to increase roadway capacity without widening intersections,
to smooth traffic flow, and to introduce signal priority for transit.
Citywide Transportation Demand Management programs added with a "high" status.
Vertical curbs separated into two programs: stand-alone projects to replace rolled
curbs with vertical curbs (remains ~low"), and curb replacement as development
occurs within the rolled zones (added with a "medium" status). This is to take
advantage of the low marginal cost of curb replacement when other construction
work is taking place on the street.
Other adjustments were made by the City Council Finance Committee at its meeting of
October 8, 2003, as follows:
Bicycle and pedestrian projects that prioritize critical links revised to subsume two
previously separate projects - "Bay to Foothills path," and "Downtown alleyways for
bicycles and pedestrians"
Bicycle and pedestrian paths under Alma Street and Caltrain - retained as high, but
noted that locations depend on the results of future feasibility studies and Council
decisions
Feasibility study of new vehicular grade separations of Caltrain added as a high
priority
Palo Alto Shuttle enhancements and improvements added as a high priority
Light rail from Mountain View to Palo Alto and Menlo Park moved from high to
medium priority
Cost and project readiness estimates
As well as scoring each project against each indicator, it is important to be able to trade off
these project benefits against cost. Since many of the projects are at an early stage of design
or broadly defined, a precise estimate is not appropriate, and order-of-magnitude cost ranges
are used to facilitate the comparison of projects and programs on an equal footing. A key to
the cost ranges is provided in Figure 7; the cost for each project is shown in Figure 9.
Project readiness is also important when making decisions on which projects to pursue.
However, it should be a secondary criterion, used once project scores and costs have been
assessed. Even if a project is at low readiness, a good score on benefit and cost criteria
April 2004 Page 22 o Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Transportation Strategic Plan = Revised Draft
indicate that more detailed design work and/or environmental clearances should be
pursued, and other barriers addressed. A key to the ratings is provided in Figure 8. Appendix
B shows the project readiness ratings.
Figure 7 Key to Cost Ratings
Rating Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate
Very low Less than $100,000
Low $100,001-$1,000,000
Medium $1,000,001 -$10,000,000
High $10,000,001 -$50,000,000
Very high More than $50,000,000
Key to Project Readiness RatingsFigure 8
Rating
Low
Medium
High
Readiness Estimate
Conceptual project only
Major design, environmental or other work remaining
Ready/almost ready subject to funding
Overall project ranking
A number of different techniques can be employed to produce an overall priority ranking
from the project scores and cost and readiness estimates. In essence, the goal is to produce a
useful ranking that gives City staff a clear understanding of which projects are most
important to pursue, while taking into account the qualitative nature of the prioritization
process. Two methods are used here:
Figure 9 shows the combined weighted score for each project and program, and the
"cost per point" which each achieves. This method gives a guide to the relative costs
and benefits of different project. For example a $500,000 project with a score of 5
would cost $100,000 per point.
Figure 10 is a matrix showing the cost of a project against its score. Projects in the
upper left corner are low-cost, high-impact projects. Projects in the bottom right
corner are high-cost, low-impact project. In essence, projects in the top left corner
are the most cost-effective; projects in the bottom right corner are the least cost-
effective.
A decision on which projects to most actively pursue will still to a great extent be
opportunistic, depending on the availability of specific funding sources and project
readiness. However, within these constraints, the matrices will provide an important guide
as to the most effective use of scarce City staff time and funding, particularly for projects
where local matching funds are required. Funding opportunities and constraints are
discussed in detail in the following section.
April 2004 Page 23 o Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Transportation Strategic Plan , Revised Draft
For example, neighborhood traffic calming, bicycle boulevards and citywide Transportation
Demand Management come out as some of the highest benefit, lowest cost projects, and
these are likely to be some of the most appropriate for the City to actively pursue. While
bicycle and pedestrian paths under Alma Street and Caltrain and the University Avenue
Intermodal Transit Center also have a high benefit, they also come with a higher cost
attached. These projects could be usefully pursued for external sources of funding,
particularly since the University Avenue lntermodal Transit Center project is at a high state
of readiness, with detailed design work completed.
April 2004 Page 24 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Transportation Strategic Plan = Revised Draft
Figure 9 Project Ranking By Total Score
HIGli (SCORE) PRIORITY
Neighborhood traffic calming
University Ave Intermedal Transit Center
Bike Boulevards
Bike/ped paths under Alma St and Caltrain (1)
Bike and ped facilities that prieritize critical links (2)
Computerized traffic management
Citywide Transportation Demand Management*
Feasibility study of vehicular Caltrain grade separations*
Pale Alto shuttle enhancements and improvements*
MEDIUM (SCORE) PRIORITY
Residential Arterials
Urban design to encourage walking and cycling
Sidewalks and bike facilities in Stanford Research Park
and other employment areas
Off-road paths
Easements for bicycle and pedestrian paths through new
]rivate developments.
Connecting paths through dead-end streets
Bike/ped path adjacent to Embarcadero Rd
Wide outside lanes for motorists and bicyclists
Remove through traffic lanes in commercial areas
Vertical curbs (in conjunction with development)*
LOW (SCORE) PRIORITY
’Gateways’ where roads transition from freeway
Secure bike parking
Transportation information kiosks
Homer and Channing Avenues to 2-way
Vertical curbs (stand alone project)
Order of :
Mag.
Cost Combined
Estimate score
Cost Per Cost/
Point benefit rank
Low 19 $25,862 2
Very High 16 $12,000,000 20
Low 16 $10,763 1
High 16 $1,271,186 15
Medium 16 $505,297 12
Medium 3 $1,754,386 16
Low N/A N/A NIA
Low N/A N/A N/A
Medium NIA NIA NIA
IHigh 12 $2,479,339 19
Low 12 $42,553 3
Medium 11 $465,116 9
Medium 11.$468,750 10
Medium 10 $1,963,993 18
Medium 10 $491,803 11
Low 10 $50,847 4
Medium 10 $517,241 13
Medium 10 $526,316 14
Very Low N/A N/A NIA
Low 9 $58,480 5
Low 9 $58,824 6
Low 6 $86,957 7
Low 4 $120,000 8
Medium 3 $1,818,182 18
*Score not provided as project added by Planning and Transportation Commission or City Council Finance Committee.
(1) The locations of these paths will depend on the results of future feasibility studies and Council decisions.
(2) Includes Bay-to.Foothills path and Downtown alleyways for bicycles and pedestrians
April 2004 Page 25 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Transportation Strategic Plan . Revised Draft
Order of
Mag.
Cost
Estimate
Combined
score
Cost Per
Point
Cost/
benefit rank
MEDIUM (SCORE) PRIORITY
Regional bicycle plans
Bus Rapid Transit on El Camino
LOW (SCORE) PRIORITY
Bus stop amenities
NEGATIVE (SCORE) PRIORITY
Regional solution to improved roadway connections
between 101 and Dumbarton Bridge
Medium 14 $363,636 2
Medium 12 $416,867 3
iLow 8 $64,516 1
Very High -2 ($46,153,846) Negative Score
HIGH (SCORE) PRIORITY
Caltrain Electrification/Downtown Extension
Better public transit to regional destinations
Bus Service Improvements in Major Bus Corridors
Caltrain Baby Bullet
MEDIUM (SCORE) PRIORITY
17
16
16
15
Light rail from Mountain View to Palo AltolMenlo Park
Rail around Bay, intra-county and transbay transit
California High Speed Rail
Amtrak between SF, Salinas and Monterey
Extend Caltrain to Monterey
LOW (SCORE) PRIORITY
HOV lanes on freeways and expressways
Responsive private sector taxi service
Relocate airport terminal building
Freeway information/monitoring/control systems
Amtrak Coast Daylight
NEGATIVE (SCORE) PRIORITY
20
13
11
11
10
4
4
2
2
1
Reduce congestion on freeways -3
Note: Where more specific cost estimates were available for an individual project (see Figure 4), these were
used to compute the cost/benefit ranking. In other instances, the mid-point of the order-of-magnitude cost
range was taken. For example, if a project is estimated to cost $100,000-$1,000,000, and scores "20" on a
specific indicator, the ’cost per point" will be $500,000 divided by 20, which equals $25,000.
April 2004 Page 26 o Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Transportation Strategic Plan ¯I~evised Draft
Figure 10 Cost/Benefit Matrix
HIGHEST
(SCORE)
PRIORITY
LOWEST
(SCORE)
PRIORITY
NEGATIVE
(SCORE)
PRIORITY
Score/
# points
High
(14+)
LOW COST PROJECTS
Less than
Medium
(t0-13)
Low (1-9)
Negative
score
$100,000
Vertical curbs (in
conjunction with
new development)
$100,000-$1 million
i Citywide Transportation Demand
I Management
Bike Boulevards
Neighborhood traffic calming
Feasibility study of vehicular
Caltrain grade separations
Urban design to encourage walking
and cycling
Embarcadero Rd bikelped path
$1-10 million
Bike and ped facilities that pri0ritize
critical links
Computerized traffic management
Pale Alto shuttle enhancements
’Gateways’ where roads transition
from freeway
Secure bike parking
Bus stop amenities
Transportation information kiosks
Homer and Channing Ayes to 2-way
Sidewalks and bike facilities in Stanford
Research Park and other employment
areas
Off-road paths
Bus Rapid Transit on El Camino
Regional bicycle plans
Easements for bike/ped, paths through
new private developments
Connecting paths thru dead-end streets
Wide outside lanes for motorists/bicyclists
Remove through traffic lanes in
commercial areas
Vertical curbs
HIGH COST PROJECTS
$10-50 million
Bike/peal paths under
Alma St and Caltrain
More than $50
million
University Ave Inter-
modal Transit Center
iResidential Arterials . i
Regional solution to
improved roadway
connections btwn 101
and Dumbarton Bridge
April 2004 Page 27 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Transportation Strategic Plan ¯Revised Draft
4, Funding and Implementation
In the previous section, an overall project ranking was established. Of course,
implementing the projects is not a case of simply working down the list a project at a time,
but has to consider funding constraints and opportunities. This section, therefore, focuses
on analyzing and recommending funding sources for implementing the plan.
After a review of the broader funding environment and the regional transportation funding
process, 13 possible funding sources are evaluated in detail. The emphasis is on the
process of allocating the funds, the appropriateness of each source for projects in this plant
and strategies for successfully securing competitive sources. Funding sources are
categorized by grant programs, formula allocations, and possible new local sources -
which are essential to winning competitive funds. Implementation strategies are then
formulated, comparing rough estimates of expected revenue to cost estimates.
Funding Context
Transportation Funding in Transition - "SAFETEA" and State Deficits
It is an uncertain time to evaluate funding sources and opportunities because of two
important factors. First, the federal law that currently governs transportation spending,
known as TEA-21, expired in the fall of 2003. The replacement law, now referred to as
"SAFETEA"~, has yet to be finalized and passed. Both the level of funding for and the
ability to fund projects in the Transportation Strategic Plan will be significantly impacted
by the terms of SAFETEA. However, the two previous federal transportation bills have
generally been considered popular successes and it is likely that most programs will not be
radically changed. Therefore, this analysis is generally based on TEA-21 provisions.
A second uncertainty is the current State financial crisis, which not only makes new state
funding programs for transportation projects unlikely, but also potentially threatens existing
sources. However, fiscal pictures can change rapidly over the course of a long term plan
and transportation is a sector that benefits from a number of "lock-boxed" sources that
cannot be used for other purposes such as filling general fund deficits.
Trends in Funding that Support the Transportation Strategic Plan
Despite these reasons for concern regarding transportation funding, there are many trends
and developments that bode well for the funding and implementation of many of the high
priority projects in the Transportation Strategic Plan. These trends include growth in
funding opportunities for projects focusing on bicyclists and pedestrians. Examples of
programs targeting funds towards "non-traditional" projects like bicycle!pedestrian projects
include the federal Transportation Enhancement Activities Program (TEA), the
Transportation and Community System Preservation Pilot Program (TCSP), the state Safe
Routes to School Local Assistance Program, and the regional Transportation for Livable
2 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act
April 2004 Page 28 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Communities Program. In addition, these programs often emphasize community based
planning processes, which fits well with Pale Alto’s planning philosophy and practice.
Regional Transportation FundinglProgramming/Planning Process
Before reviewing specific sources, it is worthwhile to summarize the broader transportation
planning process in the San Francisco Bay Area. Pale Alto’s success in securing funds for
this Transportation Strategic Plan depends on its ability to engage in this process. The
majority of federal and state funding sources are programmed at the regional level,
overseen by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). Note that the funding
process is extremely complex, and what is presented here is a limited summary. The two
primary processes for funding that take place at MTC are the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) and the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
Short Term Funding- the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
The TIP lists all Bay Area transportation projects that receive federal funds, which amounts
to most projects in the region, since projects are typically funded with a mixture of
sources. The TIP covers a three-year period and must be financially constrained, meaning
that the amount of funding programmed must not exceed the amount of funding estimated
to be available. The TIP is adopted by MTC every two years and is developed in
cooperation with a partnership of other federal, state and regional agencies, public transit
operators, and county congestion management agencies (CMAs) and their citizen-based
advisory committees.
For Pale Alto, the county CMA - the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) - is the key
point of entry into the regional transportation planning process. For its preferred projects
to receive outside funding, the City must impress their importance upon VTA.3
It is MTC’s policy to use flexible federal funds programmed in the TIP for preservation and
efficient operation of the existing system and for projects that would not be eligible for
other funding sources, such as small-scale, community-oriented development linking land
uses and transportation. A number of the Pale Alto Transportation Strategic Plan projects
are well positioned to meet this latter policy priority. The 2003 TIP adopted by the MTC
includes committed federal, state, and local funding of approximately $10 billion.
Long Term Planning- the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
The Bay Area’s TIP must be consistent with its long term Regional Transportation Plan.
The RTP outlines how federal, state, and local transportation funds will be spent over a 25-
year period. The MTC last adopted an RTP in December 2001 and updated it in
3 One interesting indication as to whether a city is receiving its "fair share" is to compare population to the amount of
revenue received. In Santa Clara County, $25 million was programmed in the 2003 TIP to 22 bicycle and pedestrian
projects, including two Pale Alto projects (the Pale Alto Medical Foundation /Bike/Ped Crossing and the
Caltrain/Homer St. Bike/Ped Undercrossing). These Pale Alto projects were programmed $3 million, or 12% of funds
programmed to the county. By comparison, Pale Alto’s residential and employment population is 4% and 15% of
Santa Clara’s, respectively.
April 2004 Page 29 o Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
November 2002. Of the total $87.4 billion in transportation revenues that MTC
anticipates coming to the Bay Area during the next quarter century, 77 percent ($67.7
billion) is devoted to maintaining and operating the region’s existing road, highway and
transit network. The remaining 23% ($19.7 billion) provides for new projects or system
expansion.
The most recent RTP tripled funding for land use-oriented initiatives such as the
Transportation for Livable Communities program (discussed in detail below) and the
Housing Incentive Program that promote transit- and pedestrian-oriented development.
Many Transportation Strategic Plan projects fit well under these smart-growth oriented
sources and should compete well. However, since the recent RTP was formulated in a
more optimistic funding environment, reductions in funding forecasts will limit the ability
to add new projects going forward.
The RTP process includes the same stakeholders as the TIP, again highlighting the
importance for Palo Alto to articulate its priorities to VTA. In addition, the RTP, which is
generally updated every three years, is formulated with a significant amount of public
participation. Therefore, Palo Alto would benefit from direct participation in this process
by its citizens and advocacy groups. An 18-month public outreach process for the next
RTP, dubbed "Transportation 2030," began in June 2003.
Recommended Funding Sources
This section specifies" the federal, state and local sources that are most applicable to
funding the Transportation Strategic Plan. It outlines a strategy for obtaining these funds,
assesses the likelihood for success, and provides rough estimates of expected revenue.
Because a number of funding sources run on multi-year cycles and it would be
unreasonable to expect annual appropriations given the competitive nature of some
processes, some revenue estimates are presented in an amount and rate. For example, one
source may be reasonably expected to provide $600,000 once every 3 years. Sources are
considered in three different categories: grant programs, formula based sources, and
potential new sources.
Grant Programs
The most relevant grant sources are briefly discussed below and summarized in detail in
Figure 14.
1. Transportation for Livable Communities
MTC created this innovative program to fund community-oriented transportation projects.
Capital projects are funded using regional Transportation Enhancement Activities funding
from the federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) of TEA-21 (and its eventual
successor). Funding has also come from the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality program
(CMAQ). Note that MTC is revising the current project evaluation criteria and application
process and the next capital grant cycle is for the Spring 2005. (The next planning grant
April 2004 Page 30 ¯ Neison\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Transportation Strategic Plan ¯Revised Draft
cycle is scheduled for April 2004.) The intent of the program is to improve neighborhood
livability and coordinate transportation and land use. Project sponsors are encouraged to
submit proposals that improve bicycling, and walking, and encourage transit ridership
through transit-oriented development. Current evaluation criteria for capital projects
include community involvement, benefits to bicyclists and pedestrians, support for
community redevelopment activities, and improved internal community mobility. The
Palo Alto Transportation Strategic Plan process, as well as the Comprehensive Plan, has
used similar criteria in prioritizing projects, placing the projects in a good position to
receive this funding.
To illustrate the importance of this program in implementing many of the projects in Palo
Alto’s plan, examples of projects currently funded by the TLC program in the MTC 2003
TIP in Santa Clara County are presented in Figure 11.
Figure 11 Transportation for Livable Communities - Sample Projects
Fruitdale Station Area Streetscape
River Oaks Bike/Pedestrian Bridge
San Fernando Light-Rail Station Plaza
2003 TIP Funding[
$400,000
$1,000,000
1 $885,OOO
Source: MTC 2003 TIP - http:llwww.mtc.ca.govlpubJications/tip/tJpind.htm
Funding
Source
STP funds
CMAQ funds
CMAQ funds
2. Surface Transportation Program (STP)
The Surface Transportation Program is a funding program governed by the TEA-21
legislation and administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Caltrans.
The funds can be used for a wide variety of capital purposes across all modes. The
approximately $680 million in annual funding for California STP funds must be distributed
as follows:
Allocation
10%
10%
5O%
30%
Category (Approx. Annual Statewide Funding.)
Safety Construction ($68 m)
Tra,~sportation Enhancement Activities (STP-TEA) ($68 m)
Regional STP and rural areas guaranteed return ($340 m)
State Discretionary ($204 m)
The Safety Construction allocation would generally not fund projects like those in the Palo
Alto Plan. The state discretionary portion is allocated by Caltrans in the STIP, or State
Transportation Improvement Program process and will generally fund projects of a larger
scale than those in the Palo Alto Transportation Strategic Plan, although a project such as a
major redesign of a state highway such as El Camino Real may qualify.
April 2004 Page 31 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Transportation Strategic Plan o Revised Draft
STP Transportation Enhancement Activities (STP-TEA) - 10%
Of particular interest to the implementation of Palo AIto’s plan is the STP Transportation
Enhancement Activities programmins. Examples of Bay Area projects funded from this
proBram in the most recent TIP are listed in Figure 12.
Figure 12 Transportation Enhancement Activities- Sample Projects
I 2003 TIP Funding
Oakland Bay Trail: Mandela Parkway I $836,000
Bay Trail (Baumberg Track Trail segment)I $293,000
San Pablo Ave Smart Corridor- Phase II !$31,000
Source: MTC 2003 TIP -- http:llwww.mtc.ca.gov/publica’~ons/*~p/t~pied.htm
Control over this funding source is divided between the region and the state. Regional
agencies - MTC in the Bay Area - control the funding of 75% of the statewide funds for
the STP-TEA program (i.e. 75% of the 10% allocated for this category), with the state
controlling the remaining 25%. The state’s 25% share is further divided into three areas:
the Caltrans Share (11%), the Statewide Environmental Enhancement Share (11%), and the
Conservation Lands Share (3%). Only very high profile projects would be expected to
attract the state share. An example of a Bay Area project funded by the state share of STP-
TEA funds is the Oakland Bay Trail Mandela Parkway ($66,000 in the 2003 TIP).
The regional enhancement’s share is allocated during the regional Transportation
Improvement Program process. In recent years, MTC has chosen to allocate the 75%
regional share via the Transportation for Livable Communities program, discussed
previously.
STP Regional- 50%
Half of STP funds are allocated to regional entities that allocate these highly flexible funds
during the regional Transportation Improvement Program process. In Santa Clara County,
this source has helped fund a number of Palo Alto plan-like projects (Figure 13).
Figure 13 STP Regional 50% Share- Sample Projects
I 2003 TIP Funding
Evelyn Ave Class II bike Lane t $170,000
Sunnyvale North-South Bikeways 1 $150,000
Palo Alto Medical Foundation BikelPed Crossing I $500,000
Source: MTC 2003 TIP -- http:l/www.mtc.ca.gov/publicafioes/tip/tipind.htm
3. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)
This flexible funding source for transportation is allocated primarily through the regional
planning processes described earlier. Transit agencies and local governments both
April 2004 Page 32 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
compete for these funds and in the short term these funds are oversubscribed. While the
focus of the Palo Alto Transportation Strategic Plan on reducing SOV trips will help it
compete for CMAQ funding, equally important to suc.cess will be articulating the benefits
of STP projects to MTC and VTA. In recent years, MTC has chosen to allocate a portion of
CMAQ funding via the Transportation for Livable Communities program, discussed
previously.
4. Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA)
Using a regional surcharge on motor vehicles, the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District provides grants to public agencies for a wide variety of transportation projects.
The focus of the Palo Alto Transportation Strategic Plan on projects that will minimize or
reduce single-occupant vehicle trips is aligned with the goals of the TFCA.
5. Safe Routes to School Local Assistance Program
Caltrans uses federal funds from the Hazard Elimination/Safety program for this local grant
program. Originally a pilot program, the Safe Routes to School Local Assistance Program
was extended for three years until 2005. While fiscal uncertainties may threaten this
program, it has been highly popular and is likely to be continued after its sunset. Many of
the street improvements and traffic calming concepts that Pa!o Alto wishes to implement
could qualify for funding under the Safe Routes To School Local Assistance Program.
6. Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA)
Through the Bicycle Transportation Account, Caltrans provided $7.2 million in 2002 to
local communities for capital projects intended to improve and increase bicycle
commuting. While this source is competitive, it is ideally suited to implement the bicycle
boulevards and other bicycle improvements outlined in the Transportation Strategic Plan.
7. Transportation Community and System Preservation Program (TCSP)
The federal TEA-21 legislation created TCSP as a pilot program. During the program,
federal agencies awarded grants for smart growth-type projects intended to reduce the
need for costly new infrastructure. The administration’s initial proposal under SAFETEA
would incorporate the TCSP program into the Surface Transportation Program, delegating
equal amounts of funding to the states, which would set up an allocation process including
regional transportation planning agencies.
April 2004 Page 33 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Transportation Stratog c P
Figure 14 Grant Funding Source Matrix
Source Funding Purpose / Description Eligible Uses Process
Transportation for projeets that improve neiohbodtood sponsors are encouraged to submit proposals that ....¯"aura o ira i proofs ~ augLivable Communities fivability and coordinate transportation ~mpfove bzcycbag, and wa k g, enc O ns I ......crtzerm are cm~eo,y(TLC)and land use. (Funded hy CMAO and STP fidership through transit-oriouted development,rowmked
~=~r~a~ ~n~mta~i~ -’ ~ ~l~x~le ~d~ ~n~o~a~ion f~tfigbly flexible. A wide variety of capital projects P,ogrammed tbrough MTC
Program (STP) -source admbdstered by Ibo FIIWA aud for ag modes including transit projects end TiP process with counlyRegional 50% Share,CaOrans. The regional 50% share is
......................... E~im~iOd ~oVO"UOLend Time I Likelihood of Success Potential .....~e2p._l.~p~oj~_~! ............
TBO. Next [$300,000 lx every 3 years.
Capital Grant J Very High if program emerges in a As previously structured,Los Gates Creek Bike/Podsimilar struclmo. CurrentlyCycle in capital grants ranged in size Trail, $750,000
Spring 2005. t competitive end wag.subscribed from $150,000 to $2 million.
$800,000 lx every 4 years.Good. Source is competitive and Generates about $680 million Pa!o Alto Medical Foundation2 Years currently oversubscribed, but viable per year for Ilia state, $57 Bike/Peal Crossing. $500,000
_e ~c_b~!u~ T~LLC_. !te~ di~n g~__ _p~’_o~r al~nm~e d_ 5 y_ M_T__: ..........................trausporlation enhancement aclivitios.CMAs funding option in the Iono-term.million for Bay Area.
Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality
Improvement Program
(CMAO), excluding TLC end pedestrian fac!litiesfunding
’ TO fund c0st~elfeclivo tiansp0rtatio~ ’ iiid~tiaiing piDgiums; Feedeii siiultie bus s~rvicoi ’ ~ply ~0 B~y Aie~ Aii ......
Transportation Fund for
Clone Air (TFCA)
Safe Routes to Scbnal
Local Assistance
Program
Transportation projects that improve air
quagly
Typical projects: public Irensit improvements; tfOV Grant application processlanes; employer-based transportulion ma~egemout through MTC working with=lans andiuceotivos; shared ride services; bicycle county CMAa
....................................................................................... ’ Good. Popular flexible funds but
compelilive end currently over-
subscribed. Requires demunstralion of
2 yams vebiclo trip reduclion and air quality
Quality Management
District. 00% disbursed
by BAAOMD through
competitive process. 40%
_tbr ouQh__count y_C~M An
Grant applicalion to
Caltrana
projocls and programs to reduce motor
vehicle travel aod vehicle emissions, The
TFCA is funded by a $4.00 per vebiclo
surcharge on motor vebicles rogislered in
Iho Bay Area
A capital grant program administered by
CaOruns to support bike/pod safety
projects linked to travel to and from
schools with the inclusion of tbo school
commanity. Two funding cycles remain
Year
1 Year. 5~"
Cycle
appgcations
due 5/30/04
1 Year
Proposal under SAFTEA
would require states to TBO. Likely
establish distribution year cycle.
recess with MPOs.
Local arterial management; Rag/bus integration;
Reoional lransit information systems; Clean air
vabicles; Demonstration of congestion pricing,
Smoking vehicles complaint line; Vehicle Ouy Back
~rogram; Bicycle facilities; Smart Growth projects
Sidewalk improvements; Traffic calming end
speed raduclion; Pod/bike crossin0 improvements;
On-street bike facilities; OIf.slroot bike/pad
facilities; Traffic diversion improvements
in rids prooram an t sunsets at 1 1 05
Aid to cities and counties for projects Any bicycle related facility that is expected to be Grant application toBicycle Transportation Ilmt improve safety and convenience for used by bicycle commuters and bas the potential CaltraneAccountbicycle commuters to iocrease bicycle commuting
............................................................ -~a~vernmonts and MPOs eligible forA federngy administered pilot program discretionary grants to plan/implement strategiesander TEA-21; as proposed under to improve efficieucy of Iransporlation system;Transportation SAFEFEA, slates will conlrol thisCommunity gad System reduce eavironmentol impacts of transportation;source. Tbe purpose is to reduce tbo rednce the need lot costly infrastructure; nndPreservation Program demand for new inhastruclure via ousuro efficient access to jobs, services, and tradeSmart-Growth style projects ~e_~" ...................................
improvement. Since Transporlation
Stralogic Plan projects focus on trip
ligh, Plan focus on reduced SOY use
will belp projects compote. Project
must demonstrate benefit to air quality
Good. Pale Alto Neighborhood Traffic
Calming Program is foundation for
successful application.
Fair. Pale Alto has required bicycle
~lan but limited funds make source
competitive.
Fair. Pale Alto projects relevant but
small size of SAFTEA program will
require projacls that ’stick-out’
$1,600.000 lx every 4 Pedestrian Access
years. Generates about $57 Improvements Near Tasman
million per year for tim Bay Light Rail, $500,000Area.
$150,000 lx every 3 yearn.
Grants to Iocagties in Santa Los Altos, Traffic Calming ofClara in 2002 ranged from El Monte Avenue, $40°000$23,000 to $280,000. Total
fund is $20 million annually
$100,000 Ix per year.Cupertino, In.pavement
Grants can fund up to 90% of crosswalk lights, bicycle
project cost. $25 million detectors, signagn, and raised
available per year crosswalk, $405,000
$200,000 tx every 5 years.Emeryvgla, Bicycle Commuter2003/2004 cycles each Corridor (Classirovidod $7.2 mggon Bikeways(, $350,000.stalowide
#100,000 la every 5 years.
Current SAFTEA proposal Ortega Street pod over-apportions $500,O00/yr. per crossing Gateway, $124,000stale (as opposed to $25
million per year under TEA-21).
Page 34 ¯ Nelson\Nyoa==rd Consultinu Associates
April 2004
Transportation Strategic Plan = Revised Draft
Formula-Based Sources
1. Transportation Development Act - Article 3 (Bicycle/Pedestrian)
The Transportation Development Act (TDA) levies a statewide 1/4 cent sales tax to
generate revenue for transportation. TDA Article 3 funds are allocated to Santa Clara
County by formula and generate about $1.4 million annually. The county uses the funds
to implement the Bicycle Element of the Valley Transportation Plan 2020, which was
adopted in 2002. The Bicycle Element consists of the Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle
Plan and a $31 million Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP). The California Avenue
Undercrossing is allocated $1 million in the BEP and is the sole Palo Alto project on the
list. The list of priority projects of the BEP (Tier 1 list), is reviewed and revised by the
Valley Transportation Authority (VIA) Board of Directors every two years, at which time
jurisdictions that do not currently have a project in Tier 1 receive priority consideration.
A number of other counties distribute a share of TDA Article 3 funds to cities. Palo Alto
could work with other cities to press VTA to do the same for local bike/pedestrian projects,
and the city should also be prepared to propose and advocate for projects during BEP
revision processes.
2. Transportation Development Act - Articles 4 and 4.5
TDA Article 4 and 4.5 funds are used for transit and are primarily claimed by the large
transit operators in the region. They are allocated by formulae based on population and
ridership. There are only a few transit related projects in the Transportation Strategic Plan,
therefore this source would not be a major focus. However, as a small transit operator
with the Palo Alto Shuttle, the city can position itself to gain a share of TDA and other
transit funding, and help pursue TDA funding for transit projects in the strategic plan led
by other agencies such as VTA and SamTrans.
3. Local Subventions of the State Gas Tax
Of California’s 18 cents per gallon fuel tax, 6.46 cents are allocated to cities and counties
for local streets and roads. This important source provides revenue for Palo Alto to
maintain and rehabilitate its streets. Local subventions are generally inadequate however,
because the rate has not kept up with inflation. The last 9-cent gas tax increase in 1990
only directed 2.07 cents to cities and counties. Historically, cities and counties shared
equally in the state gas. Nevertheless, projects in the Transportation Strategic Plan such as
restriping roads with wide outside lanes can be accomplished during maintenance work
funded by state gas tax subventions.
Potential New Sources
Finding outside funds for projects is naturally a more attractive option for any city,
compared to raising revenue locally. However, not only are outside funds competitive,
uncertain, and threatened by larger fiscal issues, but they also inevitably call for a local
"match." Therefore, Palo Alto will best be able to proceed with projects and programs in
April 2004 Page 35 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
the Transportation Strategic Plan if it can maximize its own contribution to projects.
General fund appropriations are possible, however the city must balance transportation
needs against those of other vital services that are not as well funded from outside sources.
Below is a short list of potential new sources that might be considered in order to advance
project implementation and make the City more competitive for outside funding.
It should be noted that some of these revenue sources have been previously considered
and rejected by the City, while others may be considered inappropriate for the Palo Alto
context. However, it is important to list them here for the sake of completeness, with the
proviso that a listing here does not necessarily constitute a recommendation to pursue.
1. Palo Alto Transportation Impact Fee
The City is currently formulating a new development fee that will be used to fund citywide
transportation improvements. Transportation impact fees are commonly used by local
jurisdictions in California. Use of the fee will be limited to improvements specified in the
fee ordinance. In addition revenues will be dependent on the rate of new development,
which tends to fluctuate markedly from year to year, complicating implementation. At this
point, it is difficult to estimate the revenue potential of a development impact fee.
In addition to the impact fee, it may be appropriate for the city to impose exactions on new
development for certain elements of the transportation plan in the site area, such as an
enhanced bus shelter, urban design improvements or intersection capacity improvements.
2. Transit Fares
Currently, the Palo Alto Shuttle does not charge a fare. While fare-free operation is the
most common practice among Bay Area shuttle operations, some shuttles (such as the
West Berkeley shuttle) do charge a nominal fare. There are good reasons for fare-free
operations, most notably social equity and operational ease. However, it may be useful to
consider in~’oducing fares at a future date, for example in conjunction with any expansion,
particularly since transit systems that charge a fare are more likely to attract outside
funding such as TDA Articles 4 and 4.5 funds.
3. Transportation Property Tax
A number of jurisdictions in California use property taxes for transportation purposes.
However, this source would require approval of a two-thirds majority of Palo Alto voters if
it were to be dedicated to transportation.
An innovative version in Austin, Texas, known as the "Transportation User Fee," is
calculated based on typical number of daily motor vehicle trips made per household. The
calculation factors in size and use of a property and there are exemptions for those who do
not own a car. Residential exemptions are possible if the user does not regularly use a
private motor vehicle for transportation, or if the user is 65 years of age or older. This
structure better reflects the rationale of using a property tax for transportation purposes
because it considers the impact of the use of a property.
April 2004 Page 36 o Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Transportation Strategic Plan o Revised Draft
4. Parking Revenue
Most on- and off-street parking, particularly short-term parking, in Palo Alto is provided
free to the user. There are good reasons for this, such as promoting the economic
competitiveness of the downtown and reducing overspill effects in residential
neighborhoods. However, like any product, demand falls as the price increases, meaning
that parking pricing offers great potential to for helping to reduce vehicle trips, and
maximize turnover in on-street spaces in front of commercial premises. In addition,
parking charges have the potential to become an important source of revenue for parking
and transportation improvements, including projects in the Transportation Strategic Plan.
Some potential mechanisms to introduce parking pricing include:
Parking meters (or a similar system involving a different technology, such as Pay-
and-Display) in the downtown and neighborhood commercial districts. Some
cities, such as San Diego, dedicate parking meter revenue to downtown
transportation and streetscape improvements.
Increased parking permit prices for long-stay users in the University Avenue and
California Avenue districts. One option is to increase prices in the lots in highest
demand, and encourage use of more remote lots by offering lower prices at
underused peripheral lots (such as, currently, the Caltrain and Holiday Inn lots
downtown). In other words, pricing rather than a waiting list would be used to
manage demand.
Residential Permit Parking zones, which could reduce the overspill impacts of
parking pricing as well as raising revenue, at least to cover administrative costs.
Parking tax on public and private parking facilities. (As a tax, this would require a
vote of the people to implement.)
In-lieu parking fees represent another potential source of revenue, on the grounds that
improved transportation alternatives will reduce demand for parking and reduce the need
for additional structures. Palo Alto’s current in-lieu fees are used exclusively for parking;
however, other cities such as Boulder, CO, also use this revenue source for transit and
Transportation Demand Management programs.
A more unusual but promising option is a workplace parking levy. On the rationale that
commute vehicle trips create the highest strain on the transportation system, a workplace
parking levy charges employers/property owners on a per commuter parking space basis.
The levy has the benefit of impacting behavior, and thus reducing congestion. In Perth
Australia, a workplace parking levy raises about $4.5 million for alternative transportation
improvements schemes annually. Since implementation, the number of parking spaces in
Perth has fallen by 10%. Many communities in Europe are planning workplace parking
levies. However, this idea has yet to be implemented in the United States.
April 2004 Page 37 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Matching Funding Sources to Projects
To serve as a guide for the city as it pursues project funding, Figure 15 assesses funding
sources against each project and program in the Transportation Strategic Plan. The
assessment is based on both the appropriateness of a source for each project and the
project’s ability to attract competitive funds. A source can receive one of three scores,
inappropriate or unlikely (blank cell), appropriate and feasible (’+’ in cell), and highly
appropriate and feasible (’#’ in cell).
April 2004 Page 38 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Figure 15 Projects and Recommended Sources
City of Palo Lead Projects
Neighborhood traffic calming
University Ave Intermodal Transit Center
Bike Boulevards
Bikelped paths under Alma St and Caltrain
Bike and ped facilities that prioritize critical links
Computerized traffic management
Feasibility study of vehicular Caltrain grade separations
~alo Alto Shuttle enhancements and improvements
Citywide Transportation Demand Management
Medium Prio/~ty
Residential Arterials
Urban design to encourage walking and cycling
Sidewalks and bike facilities in Stanford Research Park and
other employment areas
Off-road paths
Easements for bike/peal paths thru new private developments
Connecting paths through dead-end streets
Bikelpedestrian path adjacent to Embarcadero Rd
Wide outside lanes for motorists and bicyclists
]emove through traffic lanes in commercial areas
Vertical curbs (in conjunction with development)
Low Priority
Gateways where roads transition from freeway
Secure bike parking
Transportation information kiosks
Homer and Channing Avenues to 2-way
Vertical curbs
Pale Alto Contributes, But is Not Lead
Regional bicycle plans
Bus Rapid Transit on El Camine
Bus stop amenities
Improved roadway connections btwn 1011Dumbarton Bridge
++
+
++
+#
++
"4-
+ #
+ #
+ +
+ +
+
#+
++
+
# +
+ +
+
+ #
÷ ÷
+# +
++
+#+
#++
#++
++#
+.4-
+1 #+
++
+
+
+
+
#
I# ++I+#
#++ ++
++ ++
Note that shuttle fares would be used to fund shuttle operations, rather than the projects listed here. They are therefore not included in the matrix.
However, they could free up revenue currently used for the shuttle, allowing it to be devoted to other projects.
+ - Appropriate and feasible source # - Highly appropriate and feasible source
April 2004 Page 39 o Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Tr=n~nnrf~inn Strate(]ic Plan o Revised Draft
Implementation: Revenues, Costs and Phasing Strategies
Ideally, an implementation plan can apply estimates of incoming funding to estimates of
project cost to develop a timeline for implementation. However, the nature of
transportation project implementation makes this difficult to achieve. First, because of the
heavy reliance on outside funding - typically via discretionary grants awarded at the
regional, state and sometimes federal level - revenue streams are uncertain and likely to
be uneven. Second, funding and cost refinement are an iterative process in which project
cost is further understood once a baseline of funding has been achieved to explore the
project. That said, estimates of revenues and project costs can be used to estimate the
possible extent of implementing the projects in this Plan.
Implementation Revenue Estimate
Figure 16 summarizes an estimate of the annual revenue available for Transportation
Strategic Plan projects. Note that this includes estimates of success in obtaining outside
grant sources. As shown, approximately $2.6 million per year may be available to Palo
Alto. The assumptions are explained following the table.
Figure 16 Summary of Annual Implementation Revenue Estimate
Category Annual Estimate
Palo Alto Operations and Capital Budget (for Plan projects)$1,350,000
Grant Sources $910,000
Impact FeelOther New Local Sources $300,000
J Total $2,560,000
Palo Alto Operations and Capital Budget Est. Revenue: $1.35 million/year
Between FY 01-02 and FY 04-05, Palo Alto’s Transportation and Parking annual operating
expenditures or budget has ranged between $1.4 and $2.1 million. This budget would
include the formula allocations such as state gas tax subventions discussed above. Most of
this budget is dedicated to the management of the existing transportation system, although
a good portion of staff time and planning studies are dedicated to delivering new projects
like those outlined in the Transportation Strategic Plan. Assuming that around one-third of
operating resources can be dedicated to new projects, about $500,000 per year can be
expected from the Palo Alto operating budget for Plan implementation.
For FY 02-03 through FY 04-05, the city’s Transportation Capital Improvement budget
ranges between $764,000 and $914,000. Assuming an average capital budget of
$850,000 per year, together, operating and capital resources can provide about $1.35
million per year toward implementing projects in this Plan.
April 2004 Page 40 o Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Transportation Strategic Plan ¯Revised Draft ...................
Grant Sources Est. Revenue: $0.91 million/year
This estimate is based on an annualization of the ~Estimate of Revenue Potential" provided
for each source in Figure 14. Using past experience as a guide, the estimate of $910,000
per year appears reasonable to conservative. Nevertheless, the Transportation Strategic
Plan could struggle for grant sources because it is filled with smaller scale projects and
programs, which tend to struggle for funding compared to "big-ticket" projects, despite
being arguably more effective. To the extent that the city can advocate for stronger
support of smaller projects within the regional planning process, the Transportation
Strategic Plan’s likelihood of implementation on large scale will improve. One alternative
strategy to overcome this is to combine smaller projects into larger "packages," such as
Safe Routes to School or Safe Routes to Transit.
Impact Fee/Other New Local Sources Est. Revenue: $0.30 million/year
As mentioned previously, Palo Alto is developing a Transportation Impact Fee. The
amount this source will raise has not yet been estimated. The estimate of $300,000 is a
placeholder for sketch planning purposes, covering both the impact fee and other potential
new local funding sources.
Implementation Project Cost Estimates
The total estimated cost for all the projects and programs in the Transportation Strategic
Plan that the City of Polo Alto will need to lead is estimated at $319 million (Figure 17).
This excludes a possible Polo Alto share for other projects led by a different agency, such
as Bus Rapid Transit on El Camino. While these costs are for sketch planning purposes
only, rather than representing the results of detailed engineering studies, they provide a
sense of the scale of the resources needed to implement the Transportation Strategic Plan
in full
It should be noted that more than half of the total ($196 million) is accounted for by the
University Avenue Intermodal Transit Center, which due to its scale and special nature is
likely to attract funding from sources that would not otherwise be available for Polo Alto
projects.
While obtaining large grants for high profile projects is possible, comparing the estimated
available annual revenue of $2.6 million with the total cost estimate of $319 million yields
the immediate conclusion that full implementation of each Plan project in a long-term
planning timeframe (typically 20 or 25 years) is unlikely. The next section provides
implementation and phasing options that reflect this revenue versus cost reality.
April 2004 Page 41 o Neison\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Figure 17 Preliminary Cost Estimates
Preliminary
Cost EstimateProject
High Pdority
Neighborhood traffic calming
University Ave Intermodal Transit Center
Bike Boulevards
Bike/ped paths under Alma St and Caltrain
Bike and ped facilities that prioritize critical links
Computerized traffic management
Citywide Transportation Demand Management
Feasibility study of new vehicular grade separations of Caltrain
Palo Alto Shuttle enhancements and improvements
High Priority Subtotal
Medium Pdority
Residential Arterials
Urban design to encourage walking and cycling
Sidewalks and bike facilities in Stanford Research Park and other employment areas
Off-road paths
Easements for bike/peal, paths through new private developments
Connecting paths through dead-end streets
Bike/pedestrian path adjacent to Embarcadero Rd
Wide outside lanes for motorists and bicyclists
Remove through traffic lanes in commercial areas
Vertical curbs (in conjunction with development)
Medium Priority Subtotal
Low Priority
Gateways where roads transition from freeway
Secure bike parking
Transportation information kiosks
Homer and Channing Avenues to 2-way
Vertical curbs
Low Priority Subtotal
I Total
$500,000
$106,000,000
$174,000
$20,000,000
$7,950,000
$5,000,000
$500,000
$500,000
$5,000,000
$23~624,000
$30,000,000
$500,000
$5,OOO,OOO
$5,000,000
$20,OO0,OO0
$5,000,000
$500,000
$5,000,000
$5,OOO,OOO
$50,000
$76,050,000
Readiness
High
High
High
Medium
High
High
High
High
High
Low
Medium
High
Low
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
Low
High
$500,000 Low
$500,000 High
$500,000 t Medium
$500,000 Low
$5,000,000 High
$7,000,000
$319,674,000
Note: Preliminary cost estimates are given as the rounded mid.point of a range, in order to arrive at the total. For example, a
project with =Low Cost" is assigned a $500,000 figure for placeholder purposes. Where more detailed engineering estimates
are available, these are used instead.
April 2004 Page 42 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Transportation Strategic Plan ¯Revised Draft
Implementation / Phasing Options
It should be no surprise that a reasonable estimate of funding resources shows a significant
shortfall in the amount required to fund the entire plan. Indeed, this is why the plan has
focused around ranking and prioritization of projects and programs. This section considers
three possible strategies for using this prioritization process to identify individual projects
for funding. These strategies focus on projects in which Palo Alto is the lead agency.
1. High Focus
In this strategy, Palo Alto would focus on the implementation of the nine "High Priority"
projects and programs. These nine projects have a total estimated cost of $236 million;
excluding the University Avenue Intermodal Transit Center, the total is $40 million. This
means that all high priority projects could be implemented within 15 years, assuming that
separate funding were to be obtained for the University Avenue Intermodal Transit Center.
This strategy would yield full implementation within a relatively short timeframe at the
tradeoff of only implementing the highest priority projects.
2. Medium Focus
The Medium Focus strategy would target both the "Medium Priority" and "High Priority"
projects and programs. The total cost of these 19 projects is estimated at $312 million, or
$116 million excluding the University Avenue Intermodal Transit Center. Because it is
unlikely that revenues would be sufficient to completely implement all of the programs,
their scope would need to be scaled back. For example, only one or two bicycle
boulevards or a portion of the traffic calming program would be implemented. Basically,
this strategy is choosing breadth over depth.
3. Cost-Benefit Based
This strategy would also consider the relative costs and benefits of each project, in effect
prioritizing the high benefit-low cost projects in the top left-hand corner of Figu.re 10. A
total of ten projects are either high priority and very low to medium cost; medium priority
and very low to low cost; or low priority and very low cost, amounting to $21 million.
Focusing on these projects would allow full implementation of each in eight years.
While this strategy would theoretically maximize the number and benefit of projects and
programs implemented, there are significant drawbacks. First, higher cost, higher profile
projects such as the University Avenue Intermodal Center are more likely to attract
competitive grant sources, increasing the revenue available to implement this Plan. In
reverse, many of the high cost-benefit ranked projects would not have the high profile to
attract these funds, thus reducing the overall amount available for implementation.
Summary of Implementation Strategies
Figure 18 below summarizes the three possible implementation strategies. There is no
strategy for low focus that includes all of the Transportation Strategic Plan programs
April 2004 Page 43 ¯ Neison\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Transportation Strategic Plan ¯Revised Draft
because reasonable expectations of revenue would result in implementation on only a
limited scale over a very long time period.
It should be emphasized that the strategies are not intended to be rigid or mutually
exclusive, but rather to provide an overall framework for determining which projects and
programs to prioritize for staff resources and external funding. Within this, a great deal of
opportunism is likely to be available to put forward projects that are most competitive for a
specific funding source. In addition, the transportation funding environment (and thus the
level of available resources) is likely to change significantly in future years, for example as
federal transportation legislation is reauthorized and the City pursues new local funding
opportunities. These frameworks are intended to provide the flexibility to adapt and
maintain priorities in response to changing conditions.
Figure 18 Implementation Strategies Summary
Cost-BenefitStrategyHigh Focus Medium Focus Based
Number of Projects 9 19 10
Estimated Cost of Projects $236 million $312 million $21 million
Implementation period*I 15 yrs**44 yrs**8 yrs I
*Based on $2.6 millyr rev estimate. Assumes that projectslprograms are implemented in full, and are
not scaled back.
** Assuming that additional funding is available for the University Avenue Intermodal Transit Center.
April 2004 Page 44 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Appendix A:
Strategic Performance Indictors
Ao Travel Safety Measures
Improve travel safety
The objective for travel safety should focus on collisions that involve injuries and fatalities,
rather than total collisions.
Data requirements
Data on collisions are currently collected by the Palo Alto Police Department.
Promote a healthy and safe school commute
Travel to school is to a great extent a beacon of the wider success of the transportation
system and travel patterns in a community. Parents are only likely to allow their children to
walk or cycle to school, for example, if the streets are sufficiently safe. The school trip also
influences the mode that a parent uses for subsequent trips throughout the day; after
driving the children to school, he or she is unlikely to return home, leave the car and take
the bus to the shops or work.
The school trip is also one that has great resonance with the community. For these reasons,
this specific trip should be singled out and elevated to a strategic indicator.
The specific indicator would be the proportion of students that travel to school by foot,
bicycle, transit or carpool. In this context, carpools would be defined as the escort and
student plus at least one other passenger, or at least two students for those that can drive
themselves.
Data requirements
Data could be collected by schools themselves through surveys of students. Particularly if
conducted as part of a wider Safer Routes to School initiative, the survey itself could be an
educational experience and integrated into the curriculum. In addition, data on school
commute patterns will be available through the travel diary.
B, Vehicle Measures
Reduce vehicle trips
The City of Palo Alto should aim for zero growth in vehicle trips among residents and
commuters. Assuming population and employment growth continues, this represents a
reduction in the number of auto trips per household and per work site.
This indicator will also capture the increase in transit ridership and pedestrian and bicycle
trips, to the extent that these replace trips that were formerly made by car.
April 2004 Page A-3 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Data requirements
This objective refers to vehicle trips, rather than vehicle miles traveled. Existing data on
vehicular travel volumes on select links cannot therefore be used. Travel diaries, for both
commuters working in Palo Alto and residents, will be needed.
Travel diary surveys are not currently conducted in Palo Alto. The base year for the targets
therefore needs to be 2004. Due to the economic downturn, this should be adjusted for
normal economic conditions based on an economic analysis.
Reduce reliance on single=occupant vehicles
This objective refers to the mode share of all trips made within Palo Alto, including those
by commuters and visitors as well as residents. As the share of trips made by walking,
biking, transit and carpooling goes up, the share of SOV trips will go down.
The actual targets need to be set once baseline data are collected.
Data requirements
Travel diaries, for both commuters working in Palo Alto and residents, will be needed to
measure progress towards this objective. Travel diary surveys are not currently conducted
in Palo Alto. The base year for the targets therefore needs to be 2004.
Vehicular Level of Service
Intersection level of service for vehicles is defined by a nationally accepted methodology
that is updated every few years, in the form of the Highway’ Capacity Manual. It refers to
the average seconds delay experienced by a vehicle passing through an intersection. Palo
Alto uses the Traffix software package to perform the complex calculations required. This
package was adopted by the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program, and is
commonly used by other counties and cities.
Data requirements
Vehicular/intersection level of service is currently calculated by the City for 22 major
intersections. No additional data collection or modeling would be required.
Reduce Speeding
The selected indicator is the percentage of vehicles on arterials traveling 10 miles or more
above the posted speed limit. This is a more meaningful measure than the traditional 85~
percentile speed, which often fails to indicate the scale of speeding.
Data requirements
April 2004 Page A-4, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
The City of Palo Alto Transportation Division currently undertakes regular speed surveys,
which could be used with some possible adjustments to survey locations and reporting.
Co Bicycle and Pedestrian Measures
Improve conditions for pedestrians
A wide variety of factors, such as sidewalks, traffic volumes and crossing facilities,
determine how attractive a street is to pedestrians. To ensure that any objective does not
narrowly focus on one aspect of pedestrian quality, a single measure of Pedestrian Level of
Service can be used to bring all these factors together. One measure has been developed
by the Florida Department of Transportation, rating LOS on an easy-to-understand scale of
A to F. This rating is based on three broad groups of factors:
Sidewalks
o Presence and width of sidewalk
Lateral separation of pedestrians and motor vehicles
o Widths of outside lane and any shoulder or bike lane
o Presence of on-street parking
o Presence and width of buffers between sidewalk and travel lane (e.g. trees)
Motor vehicle volume and speed
o Motor vehicle traffic volume
o Number of through traffic lanes
o Average motor vehicle speed
The relative weight of these factors was determined through actual surveys, which
involved volunteer walkers rating each walkway segment on an A to F scale, depending on
how safe/comfortable they felt. These observations were then used to model the factors
affecting pedestrian level of service.
The model does not apply to off-road facilities. However, Florida DOT encourages
analysts to use discretion when assigning a pedestrian LOS to a roadway, where adjacent
off-road paths exist.
A handbook and software package for determining Pedestrian LOS has been developed by
the Florida DOT, and is included in its 2002 Quality/Level of Service Handbook. Given
the expense of developing such indicators from scratch, Palo Alto should use this Florida
model. As the City develops experience in using the indicators, it may wish to refine the
indicators to more closely reflect the values that people in Northern California place on
different aspects of the pedestrian environment.
April 2004 Page A-5 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Transportation Strategic Plan = Revised Draft
The Pedestrian LOS indicators might usefully be incorporated into the City’s environmental
review procedures for specific projects. At a strategic level, it is most useful to see what
proportion of major pedestrian routes are at each grade level.
Data requirements
To determine the level of service of each route, field surveyors note characteristics and
facilities, such as sidewalk width, on-street parking and crossing facilities, on a checklist.
The following specific variables are required:
Width of outside lane, rated qualitatively on three-point scale of wide, typical or
narrow
Width of shoulder or bike lane
Percent of segment with on-street parking
Buffer width (distance between edge of sidewalk and pavement), if any, rated
qualitatively on a three-point scale of adjacent, typical or wide
Width of sidewalk
Volume of motorized vehicles in the peak 15 minute period
Total number of directional through lanes
Average running speed of motorized vehicles
FDOT’s spreadsheet software then calculates the LOS grade, based on these data. Due to
the costs of these surveys, LOS objectives should be set for a defined "key pedestrian
network", consisting of all commercial streets and any other major pedestrian routes,
including key routes to schools.
Surveys could be updated every two or three years, on a rolling basis. However, much of
the data (such as sidewalk widths) will only need to be collected once, and can be updated
as necessary.
Improve conditions for bicyclists
In a similar way to the Pedestrian LOS indicator, a Bicycle LOS indicator can be used to
measure the quality of the cyclist’s travel experience. The Florida Department of
Transportation has developed one indicator, which may be useful once it is validated more
in the field. In particular, it takes into account pavement quality, unlike most other bicycle
LOS indices.
The most comprehensive and best-validated methodology, however, is perhaps that
contained in the Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCl) developed for the U.S. Federal
Highway Administration. Use of the BCI in determining significant transportation impact
thresholds was considered by the Planning and Transportation Commission on September
19, 2002, and is likely to be brought to the Commission again in the coming year.
April 2004 Page A-6 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
The A to F scale is based on the following factors:
Geometric and roadside data:
o Number of through lanes
o Curb lane width
o Bicycle lane or paved shoulder presence and width
o Area character (residential or not)
Traffic operations data
o Posted speed limit
o 85th percentile speed of motor vehicles
o Average Annual Daily Traffic volume
o Percentage of traffic constituted by trucks
o Percentage of vehicles turning right into driveways or minor intersections
Parking data
o Presence of on-street parking
o On-street parking occupancy
o Parking time limit
As with Pedestrian LOS, data would be collected by field surveys. Many of the specific
variables required are the same as for Pedestrian LOS. In view of the costs of data
collection, LOS objectives should only be set for streets on the City’s bike network.
D. Public Transportation Measures
Improve conditions for transit riders
As with the Pedestrian and Bicycle LOS indicators, Transit LOS measures the quality of the
transit rider’s travel experience. While various indicators are available, including one from
the Florida Department of Transportation, the closest to a national framework is provided
by the Transit Quality and Level of Service Manual, developed by the Transportation
Research Board.4 It considers various factors, including:
Frequency
Span of service
Reliability
Transportation Research Board (2004), Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual ~d edition. TCRP Report
R-IO0. Available at www.tcrponline.org.
April 2004 Page A-7 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Transportation Strategic Plan o Revised Draft
Loading
Travel time
An alternative indicator, developed by Florida DOT, places greater weight on pedestrian
access to transit, as well as the quality of the transit experience itself. It takes into account
Pedestrian Level of Service on routes to bus stops, pedestrian crossing difficulty at bus
stops, and obstacles to bus stops. However, the Transportation Research Board measure is
more comprehensive, and has greater national recognition; it is thus recommended as the
one that the City should pursue.
The targets should be expressed in terms of the proportion of service hours with LOS
above a certain threshold, rather than the proportion of routes with LOS above a certain
threshold. This will ensure that greater weight is given to busier routes.
While many of these factors are outside the direct control of the City, it can still make a
significant contribution to improving transit level of service through introducing transit
priority measures, and by improvements to the Palo Alto Shuttle. The indicator can also
be used as an advocacy tool to pressure outside agencies to make specific improvements.
Data collection
Although transit operators could
collected by field surveyors.
provide much of the data, some would need to be
Enhance accessibility to public transit
As well as the quality of transit service, an additional indicator would measure transit
coverage - in other words, how many Palo Altans are served by a nearby bus or rail route.
The selected indicator is the percentage of the Palo Alto population within a quarter mile
of a public transit stop.
Data collection
Provided suitable Geographic Information System (GIS) layers with population and transit
stop data are available and up to date, this indicator can be computed automatically.
April 2004 Page A-8 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Apper di× Project Scorings
Wei~jhti~j of i, dicu/or
l’~ansportation information kiosks
Uuiversity Ave Intermodal Transit Center:
Bike and ped facilities that prioritize critical links
Bike/peal paths gorier Nma St and Caltrain
Bike Boulevards
Sidewalks and bike facilities in Stanford Research
Park and other employment areas.
Wide outside lanes for motorists and bicyclists
Easements for bicycle and pedestrian paths through
new private developments.
Cmmecting patbs through dead-end streets
Off-road paths
Bay-lo-Footbills path
Secure bike parking
Downtown alleyways for bikes and pedestrians
IJrban design to encourage walking and cycling
Computerized traffic management
Residential Arterials
Gateways’ where roads transition from freeway
I]emove through traffic lanes in commercial areas
Neigl~borbood traffic calming
Homer aml Channing Avenues to 2-way
Vertical curbs
Bik~ped patb adj,cent ~0. Emb~[cad~° Rd ........................
Project Scores
I
Order of Mag.Reduce I Red|ice SOV Travel School Comhined
Cost Estimate vehicle trips J relia.ce Bilges Transit safety Commute score
1 I 3 2
Readioess Peds
2 I I
Low Medium 1 t 1
Very Higb Itigb 2 2 2
Medium Higl!2 2 2
High Medium 2 1 3
Low High 2 2 1
1
1
2
3
3
2
3
1
1
1
0
1
2
3
2
1
1
3
3
3
t6
23
16
16
Medium I-ligb 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 11
Mediom Medinm 1 1 0 2 1 2 2 10
Medium Low 2 t 1 2 1 1 3 10
Medium Low 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 f O
Medium Low 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 11
Medium Low 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Low High 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 9
Very Low Medium 2 1 2 2 1 1 0 8
Lew Medium 2 t 2 3 1 1 1 12
Medium I-lig!~1 1 1 1 0 2 1 3
tligh Low 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 12
Low Low 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 9
Medium Low -1 -1 2 2 1 2 1 10
Low High 0 0 2 2 1 3 2 19
Low Low 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 4
Medium High 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 3
Page B-1 ¯ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Order of Mag.
Cost Estimate
B~Js stop ame~ities Low
l~us Ropid Transit on El Camino Medium
Regional bicycle plans Medinm
Regional solntion to improved roadway connections
between 101 and Dnmbarton Bridge
getter public transit to regional destinations
Rail aronnd Bay, intra-connty and transbay transit
(~allrain Electrification/Bowotown Extension
Caltrain Baby Belier
California Ilioh Speed Rail
Amtral{ between SF, Salinas and Monterey
Exteod Caltrain to Monterey
Amtrak Coast Daylight
I ioht rail from Moontain View- Palo NtolMonlo PI(
Bos Service Improvemeots in Major Bns Corridors
Responsive private sector taxi service
tlOP lanes on freeways and expressways
Rednce congestion on freeways
F= eeway information/monitoring/control systems
lielocate airport terminal bnilding
Project Scores
Bednce Flednce SOY Travel School Combined
Beadiness vehicle trips reliance Peds Bikes Transit safety Commute score
I-ligb 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 8
tligb 2 2 1 1 2 1 f 12
Medinm 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 14
Very High Low -1 -1 1.1 1 1 1 -2
3 3 1 1 3 1 1 16
3 3 1 1 3 0 0 13
4 4 0 1 4 2 1 17
4 4 0 1 4 2 1 15
3 3 0 1 3 2 1
3 3 0 1 3 2 1 11
3 2 0 0 2 2 1 10
0 0 0 0 O 0 0
5 5 0 1 5 3 2 20
3 3 0 0 3 1 2 16
0 1 0 0 1 1 0 4
1 3 0 0 0 0 0 4
-1 0 0 0 1 0 0 -3
1 2 0 0 1 1 0 2
2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
Page B-2 o Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Transportation Strategic ~]an ¯Revised Draft
Paio AJto Residents
George Browning
John Ciccarelli
Kathy Durham
Paul Goldstein
Pria Graves
Bob Moss
Stanford University and Medical Center
Charles Carter, Stanford Planning Office
Brodie Hamilton, Parking and Transportation Director
Paul Watkins, Stanford Medical Center
Citer of ,~alo Alto Staff
Joe Kott, Chief Transportation Official
Chris Mogensen, City Manager’s Office
Heather Shupe, Department of Planning, Community and Environment
April 2004 Page C-1 ¯ Ne|son\~|ygaard C~nsulting Associates
This Appendix reviews the organization and staffing levels of transportation divisions
within five "peer" cities. The objective is help Palo Alto polio/ makers assess the
appropriate Transportation Division staffing levels to implement the projects and
programs of the Strategic Transportation Plan.
In consultation with the Transportation Division, we selected peer cities using two broad
criteria:
Similar context: This includes somewhat similar size, the presence of a
university, and regional context (i.e. a smaller city within a major
metropolitan area)
Reputation for good multi-modal transportation planning
The cities selected for review are: Berkeley, CA; Boulder, CO; Cambridge, MA; Davis,
CA; and Santa Monica, CA. Note that similar to Palo Alto, the cities of Berkeley, Santa
Monica and Cambridge are considered "built-out." Boulder and Davis are cities whose
growth is predominantly on their edges.
The peer review was conducted by first reviewing U.S. Census and other data. Second
we reviewed city websites for organizational background and responsibilities. Finally,
telephone interviews were conducted with one or more senior members of city staff at
the appropriate division(s). The telephone interviews were primarily aimed at
ascertaining the responsibilities and staffing levels within each city for the equivalent
responsibilities of the Palo Alto Transportation Division. In some cases, these
responsibilities were spread among multiple divisions and departments. In other cases, a
department or division had greater responsibilities than Palo Alto’s Transportation
Division. The telephone interviews were used to create as is best possible, the staffing
comparison summarized in Table 1.
ConsultingPage D-I ¯Nelson~Nygaard Associates ¯February 2002
The findings are summarized in tabular form below and presented by city following the
section. Here we present key observations and conclusions. First, Berkeley ’is the only
city where the head of transportation planning activities is at "department level." In
Berkeley, the head of the Office of Transportation is an assistant city manager. This is a
recent organizational change at the City of Berkeley and it reflects the high priority of
transportation issues at the city. At each other city, including Palo Afro, the primary
division managing transportation is a level below department level. Cambridge and
Santa Monica mirror Palo Alto in that transportation planning is primarily conducted
within a division of the Planning/Community Development Departments. Transportation
planning in Boulder and Davis takes place in the Public Works Departments.
Palo Alto’s Transportation Division is responsible for both traffic engineering and
planning for alternative modes. To varying degrees, each peer city other than Cambridge
has also consolidated these activities. However, Boulder and Santa Monica have
separate offices within their transportation divisions for dealing with traffic engineering
and multi-modal planning.
As can be seen in Table 1, four of the five peer cities have staffing levels for
transportation planning and traffic engineering that are greater than Palo Alto’s. The
margin is significant in that staffing levels at these cities exceed Pa[o Alto by between 25
to over 100 percent. Of course it is difficult to easily compare activities and
responsibilities to staffing levels. Some cities have made a stronger commitment to
certain areas than others. For example, in Santa Monica, enforcement and operation of
its innovative TDM ordinance includes the commitment of three FTEs. Boulder’s very
aggressive approach to alternative modes is reflected in the eleven FTEs dedicated to its
"GO (Great Options) Boulder" program. Further tasks in the Transportation Division
Strategic Plan will explore Palo Alto’s program demands versus staff capacity and provide
recommendations for gap closure, including possible recommendations for additional
staffing, reallocafion of responsibilities and organizational structure changes.
Page D-2 ¯Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates ¯FebruaP.~ 2002
Transportation Strategic Plan
P0pnlati°" of.City: 2000 ............... 58,598 102,743 102,659 ....................... !0!~3~5 61,363 84,084
Percent Change 1900:2000 5% .......................... 0°~ ’ 23% 6% } 27% = (3%)
0ndergraduate St~ dents~ 6,637 22,677 22,224 10 880 ~ 21,294 i 25 328
~ ~;; ~i~ ~ ~ i~,~ ...............................................................................................................3~ ~- ~ .............~ ~-~ ~~-’- .......~ 5 478~#~ ....................~-~" J .........~....... .......................I ....... ......... ........... ............................. .................. ............. .......
Land Area 23.7 10.5 25.4 6.4 9.9~8.3
~edi~n tlnusehold Income $90,377 $44,485 $44,748 33,140 $41,299 $50, 714
~edian FamiIv Income $117,574 $70,434 ~70,257 ~9,990 $65,513 $75,989
Tfa~lm.r[~d~[ niv!~i~!~ ~f~ti!e .................................... ; ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................
Transportation Envffonmenial and Public Works TransportationPrimary Transportation Planning’ Division/Department Transportation Office of Division / G0 Transportation ManagementDivisionTransportation. Boulder Planning Division Department Division
’’Division ofr rimary organ~zationai ,~ocalio~;, M ~ransporta~im~ Planning Division of Deparlment Level Division within Division of Staff in Pnblic Planning andEnBinee[ing Activities Planning aml -- Director is an Public Works Community Works CommuoityCemmnnityassistant City Depa[tment Development Department BevelopmentEnvironment Dept.Manage[Department Department
Trm~slmrtaiim~ Planning m~d Traffic Engineerin~Yes Yes Yes ~o Somewhat YesConsolidated?
Full Time Eqnivalents w/BesponsibiliUes of Palo Alto T[ansportation Division:
....~a~ ~E- ...................................................................................................~ ......................................~0~ ................~-~ ...................]~- ~.5 7~13.25
FTE pe~ i0,000 ~esidents ...........................1~ .......................1.0 1.7 ~ .................1~~ .................1.1 1.6
FTE mr 10~000 jo~s ...........1 ........................~ .....................]1.4 1~6 l ...........i~i ....................2.5
FTE p~r i 0~000 ;es~den~~ am] j~bS~ ...........................................~ ..........................0.6 " 0~8 0 ~0.B 0.9
1 Figures for Davis Area Primary Market wl~ich is Davis and El Macero
2 Undergraduate students rather then entire student body is used because the data is more readily available and comparable. Figures for Cambridge represent
Harvard and MIT combined.
3 Figures for 2002. Includes area expected to be annexed by the City of Boulder. Excluding area to be annexed jobs are 101,294.
4 Year 2000. Source: Massachusetts Division of Employment & Training
5 Figures for 2001. Source: State of California Employment Development Department Labor Market Information, 200!. 2001 value is estimate based on final
figures for first three quarters of 2001.
Page D-3 ¯Nelson\Nygaard Consulti=~g Associates ~ Febreary 2002
The following section examines each of the five peer cities in detail and compares program
and staffing levels to Palo Alto.
Palo Alto’s Transportation Division is set within the Department of Planning and
Community Environment along with the Planning Division. The Transportation Division is
responsible for traffic operation in the city, the bicycle system, neighborhood traffic
calming, area transportation studies, public transit service, travel demand management,
analysis of traffic impacts of land proposed development/redevelopment, school traffic
safety and regional transportation activities.
Specifically, the Transportation Division performs the following for Palo Alto:
Manages traffic operations, includihg engineering for traffic signals, roadway striping
and signage; roadway capacity analysis; truck routing; vehicle speed surveys; and
roadway safety engineering
Manages public parking program supply, including authorizing issuance of permits for
use of public parking lots and structures, parking usage surveys, valet parking, special
event parking and review of parking lot and structure design
Responds to citizen complaints about traffic including reviewing requests for stop
signs, traffic signals, red curb (prohibited parking) zones, crosswalks, etc.
Implements traffic calming throughout the city through a neighborhood petition
program, including liaison with residents’ working groups, traffic analysis, and
preparation of plans and specifications.
Completes area-wide trave! management studies and projects
Manages transportation data collection effort, including motor vehicle volumes and
speeds, intersection levels-of-service, Shuttle bus ridership, and cycling volumes
Reviews land development/redevelopment and proposals and develops supply
mitigations (turn-pockets, signals, etc.) and demand mitigations (transit programs,
carpool, etc.); establishes traffic impact fees required; reviews and comments on
transportation section of land development!redevelopment environmental impact
reports; recommends transportation significance thresholds under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Reviews and helps develop travel demand management (TDM) programs for area
employers
Reviews and approves traffic control plans for work on street rights of way
Issues oversize vehicle permits for time and route limited travel
Page D-4 ¯NeJson\Nygaard Consulting Associates , Februa~ 2002
Administers alternative commute incentive program for city employees and manages
City-owned bicycle lockers
Manages city interest in privately operated, city subsidized downtown bicycle station
(valet parking)
Manages a shuttle bus system. Operations are contracted out, but the transportation
division does planning, marketing, and fields customer complaints
Planning for bicycles and pedestrians
Manages traffic safety education programs
Manages school commute safety efforts, including liaison with City-School traffic
safety committee, both school site and school commute corridor traffic safety studies,
and bicycle/pedestrian safety training for children
Promotes transportation alternatives through the "Way 2 Go" program
Serves on numerous city and regional transportation and infrastructure planning
committees
Occasionally oversees design and construction of infrastructure projects
Multi-modal transportation planning
While Palo Also contracts out its small local transit service, the Transportation Division is
responsible for its oversight. An example of a recent Transportation Division project is
managing the study and implementation of changes to the entire traffic signal system. The
table below summarizes the staffing level at the Transportation Division.
Table 2: Pato Alto Transportation Staffing by Responsibility
Director - Oversight and Management 1
Traffic Engineering and Parking Program 2
Traffic Calming and Development Review 2
Travel Demand Management (TDM) Program and 1
Traffic Safety Education
Public Transit and Bicycle Planning 1
6eneral Administration (clerical and customer 1
service)
Total r]epartment Staffing 8
The Public Works Department is responsible for maintenance and rehabilitation of streets.
At times, the Transportation .Division shares responsibility with Public Works managing
infrastructure projects, aiding in design and overseeing contracting. Parking enforcement is
handled by the city’s Police Department.
Page D-5 *Neison\Nygaard Consulting Associates -F_~brua~J 2002
The City of Berkeley is home to the University of California at Berkeley, which is the
dominant force in its economy. Berkeley and its university are far more tightly
interdependent than Pale Alto and Stanford. Berkeley is also a popular place to live for
workers both in San Francisco and throughout the region.
In January 2002, the city created the Office of Transportation, consolidating a number of
transportation planning and management activities. Within the City of Berkeley’s
management structure, the Office of Transportation is department-level, reporting directly
to the city manager. (The Director of the office is an Assistant City Manager position.) The
Office of Transportation has responsibilities similar to those of Pale Alto’s Transportation
Division. The department oversees citywide transportation planning, traffic engineering,
and alternative transportation programs. In the near future, the Office of Transportation will
assume responsibility for managing parking, including off-street parking (garages and
surface), the residential parking permit program, and parking policy. Related changes in
staffing are not yet determined. Current staffing levels by responsibility are shown below.
Table 3: Berkeley, Stalling with Responsiibilit,] (Equivalents to Pate Alto
T~ans!portat~n Division):
Oversight and Management Office of Transportation 1
Senior Planning Office of Transportation 1
Bic’tcle and ?gdestrian P]anning Offic~ of Trans ]ortation
Public Transportation Office of 7rans ]ortation 1
Planning Assistance Office of Trans ]ortation .5
Transportation Demand Management Office of Trans ]ortation 1
Traffic Engineering and Operations Office of Trans ]ortation 4
General Administration Office of Trans]ortation 1
Total Department Staffing 10.5
"Two interns considered .5 FTE in this case.
The Office of Transportation has a limited oversight role in the mitigations related to
development/redevelopment, which is mostly handled by the Current Planning division of
Planning and Development Department. The Advance Planning division manages plan
development with some input from the Office of Transportation.
Transit related activities at the Office of Transportation are limited to working with AC
Transit to provide planning support on the bus shelter program and Bus Rapid Transit
initiatives. The City of Berkeley does not operate transit services other than some limited
paratransit services provided by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Consultants are used mostly for the purpose of obtaining special expertise, however
consultants are also used to provide additional capacity for activities that could be
Page ~-6 ¯Neison\Nygaard Consulting ,.~sseciatas o FebruaPj 2002
accomplished by staff. Examples of consultant use are implementing bike boulevard
signage and stenciling, administering a commuter check program, and on-call traffic
counting services.
Compared to Palo Alto’s Transportation Division, Berkeley’s Office of Transportation has a
higher level of staffing with equivalent to slightly lower levels of responsibility (limited
data collection responsibility, smaller role in transit and currently tess responsibility in
parking management.)
The City of Boulder is located approximately 40 miles northwest of Denver. The
metropolitan region has a population of approximately 2.3 million. The rapidly growing
city of 100,000 is home to the University of Colorado and a host of national scientific
centers. Boulder is the hub for research and development in a number of advanced
technology disciplines.
The Transportation Division at the City of Boulder is one of three divisions within the
Public Works Department. The other two are the Utilities Division and Planning and
Development Services. The Transportation Division has 67 FTEsdivided into three
primary areas of responsibility: engineering!capital projects, maintenance, and
transportation planning/operations. There are 25 FTEs devoted to transportation planning
and operations. Eleven of these staff members are dedica~ted to transportation planning
activities under the banner of GO Boulder. GO Boulder consists of staff dedicated to
providing alternatives to the private automobile, "Great Options" in transportation. The
transportation planning and operations group is responsible for traffic signal operations and
other traffic engineering. Two engineers and two field technicians manage this section.
This staffing level for transportation far exceeds Palo Alto and refle~s Boulder’s dedication
for providing quality alternatives to the automobile. The remaining staff of the
transportation planning and operations group is dedicated to traffic engineering, traffic
signals, signs and markings, etc.
Augmenting the work of GO Boulder is a current planner in the Planning and
Development Services Division of Public Works whose responsibility is to coordinate
transportation requirements in conjunction with development review.
The City of Boulder also has two General Improvement Distri~s which are administrative
units organized under the city manager. Currently, two staff members are devoted to
transportation issues at the GIDs doing outreach and coordination, distributing
transportation related materials, and administering the city’s Eco-Pass program. The GIDs
are also responsible for parking structure management, parking enforcement, and the
Neighborhood Parking Permit program.
The table below summarizes the staffing by department of activities that are the general
responsibility of Palo Atto’s Transportation Division.
Page D-7 ¯Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates ¯FebruaPj2002
T~nsport~ion Division):
’,Responsibility i Department/Division .i FTEStaffing ~
Over.sight and Management Transportation Division GO Boulder 1
Senior Planning Transportation Division GO Boulder 3
Transit Planner / Transit Village Planning Transportation Division GO Boulder 1
Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects Transportation Division GO Boulder 1
Transportation Demand Management Transportation Division GO Boulder 1
Long R.ange Planning Transportation Division GO Boulder 1
Corridor Planning ] Public Process Support Transportation Division GO Boulder 1
Transit Coordination with RTD Transportation Division GO Boulder 1
Traffic Engineering and Operations Transportation Division 4
Development Review / Mitigations Planning and Development Services 1
Promotion of Alternatives / Eco-Pass General Improvement District 1
Public Parking Management; Parking Permits General Improvement District 1
Total Department Staffing 17
The Denver Regional Transit District provides transit services, althoughBoulder has had a
large role in planning and implementing local fixed route services.
Consultants are used by the city to facilitate specific projects and plans. While Boulder is a
larger city than Paio Alto with a larger university, its staffing levels and therefore depth of
programs well exceeds those of Pa]o Alto. Boulder has made a strong commitment to
alternative transportation as evidenced by its staffing of the GO Boulder program.
Cambridge is set in the Boston metropolitan region, tt is -a city of over 100,000 people and
is famous as being the home of Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. One-.fourth of its residents are college students and one-sixth of its jobs are in
higher education. Outside of education, the Cambridge economy has evolved from a
manufa~uring center to a desired location for firms in biotechnol~gy, computer software
and other emerging technology.
Transportation in Cambridge is managed and planned in two primary areas:
The Environmental and Transportation Pianning Division of the CommuniW
Development Department
The Traffic, Parking and Transportation Depa,~tment organized under Public Safety
The Environmental and Transportation Planning Division of the Community Development
Department is responsible for improving the city’s quality of life, by working to protect and
Page D-(3 = Nelson\Nygaard Consulting ~ssociates ¯February 2002
improve the city’s environment and natural resources and by planning improvements to
the city’s transportation system. The division primary activities are:
Managing the design of the transportation system to improve travel for all
transportation modes, particularly high occupancy and non-motorized modes;
Promoting walking, bicycling, ridesharing, and public transit;
Implementing the city’s Vehicle Trip Reduction Ordinance and Parking and
Transportation Demand Management Ordinance to reduce congestion and improve air
quality;
Planning transportation infrastructure projects including traffic calming projects;
Reviewing development proposals to ensure that natural resources are protected and
that mitigation strategies are implemented;
Promoting energy efficiency, reduced use of toxic products, and other environmentally
sound practices;
Preventing childhood lead poisoning; and
Answering general questions about environmental issues.
The division does not operate transit services but is a funding conduit for a shuttle
operated by the local Transportation Management Agency. The division assists in the
planning of the service. The division does not have its own administrator; it relies on the
wider Community Development Department.
Cambridge’s Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department is responsible for managing
public right-of-ways for vehicular and non-vehicular use; for allocating curb space through
regulation, curb uses and for enforcing and adjudicating the regulations. More specifically,
the department has the following responsibilities:
Traffic Engineering Parking
Signals
Curb regulations
Permits to close! occupy a street
Signs and pavement markings
Development reviews
Traffic studies
....Curb cuts and access/egress
Safety
Meters
Resident permit parking
Ticketing and vehicle
impoundment
Parking ticket processing and
adjudication
Facilities (Garages and Lots)
The Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department is separate from the Department of
Public Works, which is responsible for roadway and sidewalk construction and
maintenance throughout the city. In the table below, responsibilities of the Environmental
and Transportation Planning Division and the Traffic, Parking and Transportation
Page D-9 ¯Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates ¯February 2002
Department comparable to those of Pato Alto’s Transportation Division are listed with
staffing commitment levels to these activities.
Trans~or~ation OMsion):
Depa~ment 1 Division. ....’ FT~.= Staffing’"
Oversight and Management Environmental and Transportation Planning 1
Transportation Demand Management Environmental and Transportation Planning 2
Pedestrian and Bic’fcte Projects Environmental and Transportation Planning !.5
Traffic Calming Environmental and Transportation Planning 1
Infrastructure Projects Environmental and Transportation Planning 2
Environmental Programs*Environmental and Transportation Planning 1.5
Traffic Engineering Traffic, Parking and Transportation 1
Traffic Signal issues Traffic, Parking and Transportation 1
0ff-Street Parking Registration Traffic, Parking and Transportation 1
Support and Administration i Traffic, Parking and Transportat on .5"*
Total Department Staffing 12.5
*Environmental programs includes introducing alternative fuel vehicles
** Partial assignment of Director of Traffic, Parking and Transportation vvho oversees other activities as well as those
listed above.
On the planning side, Cambridge’s 9 FTEs far exceeds the staffing leve! in planning at Palo
Alto’s Transportation Division. The extent of Cambridge’s commitment to transportation
alternatives is similar to what Palo Alto wishes to accomplish as set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Implementation Plan.
Page D-IO o Nelsen\Nygaard Consulting "~ssociates . Februa~r :2002
Transportation Strategic
Davis, a city of nearly 61,000, has a less urban character than Palo Alto, as does the
Sacramento region in which it sits. The rural Central Valley and the University of California
Davis are the main defining characteristics of the city. Davis has been rapidly growing due
to easily developable land; however, it is nearing build-out. Despite its size and relatively
low density, the city has very high rates of alternative mode usage and is considered one of
the best places for everyday cycling in the country.
The Public Works Department maintains the city’s streets and bikeways and is responsible
for traffic engineering. It is the primary transportation planning entity in the city. Staff
includes a full-time bicycle/pedestrian coordinator. The city engineer estimates that one-
half of an FTE is dedicated to traditional transportation planning activities. The traffic
engineers (2.5 FTE) handle issues such astraffic calming.
The Planning and Building Department coordinates the general plan and area plans which
serve as the main transportation planning tools. It guides transportation decisions
regarding street classifications, bike lanes and ways and key projects for incorporation into
capital improvement projects. There is no single staff member devoted solely to
transportation planning. The senior planner estimates that transportation planning activities
aggregate to less than one full-time equivalent employee.
Consultant use is limited to traffic impact analysis, traffic engineering, pedestrian and
bicycle system impact analysis related to development projects.
The Davis Parks & Community Services Depa~ment is responsible for a number of
transportation planning activities, its Social Services Division is responsible for Davis
Community Transit, which provides door-to-door demand response service to the general
public, seniors and the disabled. Two administrators manage this service. The
Neighborhood & Communffy Services Division provides education on environmental
planning policies such as electric vehicles and trip reduction.
The city does not run transit services in Davis other than the demand response system. UC
Davis operates Unitrans, connecting the University with various points in the city. Yolobus
provides route service and special charters between Davis, Woodland, West Sacramento
and Sacramento.
Parking enforcement is handled by the city’s Police Department. The police department
also handles applications for residential and employer parking permits.
~ge O-1~] ¯Ne!son\Nygaard Consulting~ssociates ¯Februan./2002
Traffic Engineering and Traffic Calming Public Works Department 2.5
Transportation Planning Public Works. Department ,.5
Transportation Development Mitigations Planning and Building Dept.- 1
Oversight of Transit Services Social Services Division 2
Promotion of Alternatives Neighborhood & Community Services 1
Total Department Staffing I 7
While Davis is successful at encouraging bicycling and incorporating bicycles into its
infrastructure, the city has less extensive l~rograms than Pato Alto and the other peer cities.
This is partially a result of its size and a less urban character. However, it is also do the
fact that UC Davis has such an extensive role in transportation planning even beyond the
campus. The University’s Transportation and i~arking Servi~:es Department has a broad
set of multi-modal programs. This includes an FTE for an Alternative Transportation
Coordinator, and three FTEs for the University’s Bicycle Program.
Santa Monica is situated at the Western edge of Los Angeles County at the Pacific Ocean.
The city atZracts both tourists and regional shoppers. Santa Monica is also the home of
many businesses specializing in information technology, film and television production, e-
commerce, and other hi-tech businesses. It is less assodated with its neighbor university,
UCLA, than the other cities in this review, however, the relationship is important
nonetheless.
Santa Monica’s transportation planning and traffic engineering activities take place in the
Transportation Management Division of the Planning & Community Development
Department. There are a number of groups within the division with distinct
responsibilities. These include the Transportation Planning Office, the Transportation
Management Office, the Traffic Operations Office, and the Parking Office.
The Transportation Planning Office, consisting of a senior planner add three transportation
planning associates, is responsible for:
Project management for many capital improvement projects that provide pedestrian
amenities and infrastructure
Fielding pedestrian comments and complaints
Working with the Planning Division to review transportation elements for
Environmental Impact Reports
Pa~e D-12 ¯Ne|son~Nygaard Consu|ting -.,lss~.c,;ates o February 2002
Consulting on building permit application with respect to physical transportation
requirements (e.g. circulation, access, parking)
Managing the process of adding new residential permit parking areas
Consulting with city staff at the Big Blue Bus (Santa Monica’s transit system) on
planning issues particularly those related to street operations, stop locations and bus
shelters.
The Transportation Management Office, known as the TMO, is responsible for the
implementation and administration of Santa Monica’s unique city TDM ordinance. The
ordinance requires employers to undertake TDM measures such as parking cash out and
implement trip management plans. The TMO enforces the ordinance by reviewing
employer plans and reports and performing audits. In bi-monthly meetings with employers,
staff members promote transportation alternatives and programs, and answer questions.
The office is also involved in planning for bicycles and pedestrians. Three FTEs staff the
TMO. One staff member is focused on encouraging alternatives among city employees.
Traffic engineering responsibilities are not handled out of a particular office within the
Transportation tvtanagement Division. These responsibilities are handled by two
transportation engineers, a special projects engineer and a transportation planning
technician.
The Traffic Operations Office, consisting of nine FTEs, is responsible for the physical
oper,~tions of traffic infrastructure including traffic signals and parking meters. In Palo Alto,
the Transportation Division provides only oversight of this activity; therefore, we have
included only one FTE from this office in the comparison between offices.
The Parking Office is funded for four FTEs. The office manages and oversees the private
operating contracts for the city’s six downtown parking structures, surface lots and beach
parking. The office also manages capital improvements to city parking facilities. This
staffing is not included in the comparison with Palo Alto’s Transportation Division.
The entire Transportation Management Division is led by a manager with the support of an
administrative analyst and two administrative assistants. The assistants are responsible for
the issuance of residential parking permits. Only the division manager is included in the
comparison between offices because of the number of responsibilities of the division
outside of the scope of F~alo Alto’s Transportation Division.
The table below summarizes the staffing of Santa Monica’s Transportation Management
Division in roles comparable to the responsibilities to Palo Alto’s Transportation Division.
Page D-13 o Nelson\Nygaard Consulting .~,ssociates ° Februar,./ 2002
Transportation
Responsibility Department / Division FTE
Staffing
Oversight and Management Transoortation Management Division (TMD)1
Transportation Planning Transportation Planning Office of TMD 4
Traffic Engineering Transportation Management Division 4
Traffic Operations Traffic Operations Office 1
Transportation Demand Managernent Transportation Management Office of TMD 3
Transit Management*Big 91ue 9us [.25]
Total Department Staffing 13.25
*Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus has a larger management staff (approximately 17 FTE) however we are only including the equivalent to Pate Alto staffing. This
is to aid in the comparison and adjust for the large [ocaily run transit system in Santa Moeica versus the more modest system in Pale Alto.
A separate city division is responsible for managing The Big Blue Bus, a moderately sized
and well-regarded transit system operated by the city. WhiTe Palo Alto’s Transportation
Division does oversee its contracted shuttle transit system, we have only included the
staffing at the Big Blue Bus equivalent to Palo Alto’s transit service staffing in the
comparison because of the extent of the service and to remain conservative.
The city uses consultants on a project-by-project basis, primarily for transportat.ion
engineering.
In comparing Santa Monica with Palo Alto’s Transportation Division, Santa Monica’s
programs are more extensive in some areas, like TDM, but are less extensive in others like
bicycle planning and traffic calming. Santa Monica’s programs are being accomplished
with a much higher staffing level than Palo A!to’s Transportation Division.
Page D-~4 = Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates ¯Februar~j2002
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Memorandum
ATTACHMENT D
of CMR:432:04
October 7. _00.~
TO:CITY COU~-NCIL MEMBERS
SUBJECT:ADOPTION OF A TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN DESIGNED
TO IMPLEMENT THE TP~4NSPORTATION POLICIES AND
PROGRAMS IN THE 1998-2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Attached please find CMR:378:03 refelTed by the full Council on September 22 to the
Finance Committee. Chapter 4 of the appended Transportation Implementation Plan
contains detail on funding and implementation. Note that the section on Palo Alto Traffic
Impact Fee (page 35 of Chapter 4) should be updated to reflect staff’s cun’ent (and
conservative) annual estimate of $500,000 in revenues per year from a prospective cityavide
transportation impact fee.
Please also note that the proposed Palo Alto Transportation Strategic Plan is similar to long-
range transportation plans of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority, in that a furore transportation program of
improvements is specified along with a projection of future funds available to finance the
pro~am. Thus, this is a planning document, not a budgeting document or request for
funding of any individual project or N’oup of projects.
In the future, as grant opportunities (and with them grant agreements) arise, the Capital
Improvement Program is presented, specific budget requests are prepared, and contracts for
project implementation are sent to Council for approval, Council will have the opportunity
for discussion and decision regarding the funded transportation program. The Transportation
Strategic Plan lays out a road map to the furore based on Comprehensive Plan goals,
policies, and pro~ams, to guide staff in seeking grant funding, participating in regional
transportation planning, and evaluating future projects for Council consideration.
The proposed Performance Indicators are an important step toward increased accountability
and transparency in transportation planning. If adopted, they will guide staff work toward
specific, quantifiable Comprehensive Plan aims and allow staff to report to Council and
ach year on progress toward these aims.
SJ~EVE EMSEIE FPd~NK BENEST
/Director of Planning and City Manager
Community Environment
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 CMR:378:03
SUBJECT:ADOPTION OF A TRANSPORTATION STtL~kTEGIC PLAN
DESIGNED TO IMPLEMENT THE TRANSPORTATION POLICIES
AND PROGRAMS IN THE 1998-2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Transportation Commission and staff recommend that City Council
officially adopt the Transportation Strategic Plan for Palo Alto, comprising the following
tbaee components:
1.Transportation Systein Performance Indicators (Attachments A and C)
2.Transportation Implementation Plan-Project Prioritization (Attachments B and C)
3.Transportation Plan Cost and Funding Report (Attachment C)
BACKGROUND
The Transportation Strategic Plan for Palo Alto is comprise of three elements desigiaed to
implement policy objectives set forth in the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and
other Council-adopted plans and policy documents, including the Palo Alto Bicycle
Transportation Plan. The first is a set of Transportation System PerformanceIndicators to
measure progress toward implementing the policy objectives. The second is a
Transportation Implementation Plan setting forth in broad terms priorities for
implementation of projects and programs. The prioritization will guide staff in pursuit of
external funding, programming future capital improvement projects, and allocating staff
time resources most efficiently. The third is a funding plan for implementation of the
transportation project and programs over time. This suite of elements is intended to guide
and track implementation of Council’s transportation policy direction. As .projects are
specified in more detail, they will be proposed for inclusion in the City’s five-year Capital
Improvement Program and ten-year Infrastructure Management Plan, as appropriate.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On March 19, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed and voted
unanimously to recommend to Council the proposed Transportation System Performance
Indicators and the Transportation Implementation Plan-Project Prioritization (Attachment
C~,LR:378:03 Page i of 3
D). The Commission recommended adding citywide transportation demand management as
a ~high priority" program and raising computerized traffic management to "~High Priork~~"
status. ~he Commission also recommended adding "Wehicular level of se~wice"~ to the
proposed list of transportation performance measures. In addition, the Commission voted
unanimously to ~receive and accept" a companion ~Peer Review:~ comparison of the Palo
Alto Transportation Division with comparable urban transportation divisions and
departments across the country. Staff has included the Peer Review of the proposed
~i’ransportation Implementation Plan (Attachment C, Appendix D}.
On June 11, the Planning and Transportation Commission voted unanimously to recommend
to Council the proposed Transportation Plan Cost and Funding Report (Attachment E).
RESOURCE IMPACT
The Transportation Strategic Plan will be implemented within resources already
programmed through the City’s Infrastructure Management Plan, as well as a significant
amount of external funding from federal, state, and regional transportation grants, and
proceeds from the proposed citywide transportation impact fee. For example, the first phase
of the city,vide traffic signal system upgrade, one of the projects in the transportation
strategic plan, is fully funded by federal and state transportation grants and is currently
being implemented. It should be noted that Council has recently applied for full funding in
the amount of $100,000 from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for the next
phase of this project, traffic si~o-nal retimings (see CMR:361:03). Similar efforts will be
undertaken to obtain external resources for other Transportation Strategic Plan projects.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Since they were developed and prioritized to implement the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
these recommendations support and conform to all of the Comprehensive Plan
transportation provisions, but most especially the following:
"Goal T-2: A Convenient. Efficient. Public Transit System that Provides a Viable
Alternative to Driving
~Goal T-3: Facilities. Services. and Programs that Encourage and Promote Walking and
Bicycling
’Goal T-4: An Efficient Roadway Network for All Users"
Goal T-6: A High Level of Safety for Motorists, Pedestrians. and Bicyclists on Palo Alto
Streets"
CMR:378:03 Page 2 of 3
ATTACHMENTS
A. Strategic Performance Indicators
B. Implementation Plan Prioritization
C: Pinal Drat~ Transportation Implementation Plan
D. June 11,200_3.Planning and Transportation Commission Report and Minutes
E. March 19. 200_3 Planning and Transportation Commission Report and Minutes
PREPARED BY:
JOSEPH KOTT
?ortation Official
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
STEVE EMSLIE
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
Planning and Transportation Commission
Strategic Transportation Plan Advisory Panel
CMR:378:03 Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT A
of CMR:378:03
Strategic Performance Indicators
Reduce vehicle
trips
Reduce reliance
on single-
ocupancy
vehicles
Improve
conditions for
pedestrians
Annual vehicle
trips
Single-
occupancy
vehicle mode
share
Pedestrian
level of service
To hold total vehicle trips at not more than
2003 levels adjusted for normal economic
conditions, even with population and
employment growth.
To reduce the mode share of SQV trips
to:
To increase the length of commercial
streets that meet pedestrian level of
service A or B to:
TBD
TBD "
TBD
TBD
To increase the length of other defined
key pedestrian routes that meet
pedestrian level of service A, B or C to:
To increase the proportion of the Palo
Alto bike network that meets bicycle level
of service A or B to:
To increase the proportion of transit
service within Palo Alto that meets transit
level of service A, B or C to:
To reduce the annual number of collisions
involving injury to:
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Improve Bicycle level of TBD TBD TBD
conditions for service
bicyclists
Improve Transit level of TBD TBD TBD
conditions for service
transit users ,Improve travel Injuries and TBD TBD TBD
safety fatalities
TBD
To reduce the annual number of traffic
fatalities to:
To increase the proportion of students
traveling to Palo Alto schools by foot,
bicycle, transit or carpool to:
To maintain the number of key
intersections operating at level of service
A, B, CorD:
% of students
traveling to
Palo Alto
schools by foot,
bicycle, transit
or carpool
Vehicular level
of service
TBD
TBD
Promote a
healthy and safe
school commute
Avoid increased
automobile
congestion
TBD
TBD
TBD
ATTACHMENT B
of C~1R:378 03
Transportation Implementation Plan - Project Prioritization
HIGH PRIORITY
Neighborhood traffic calming
University Avenue Interm0dal Transit Center
Bike Boulevards
Bike/pedestrian paths under Alma Street and Caltrain
Bike and pedestrian facilities that prioritize critical links
Computerized traffic management
Citywide Transportation Demand Management .
MEDIUM PRIORITY
Residential Arterials
Urban design to encourage walking and cycling
Sidewalks and bike facilities in Stanford Research Park and other employment areas
Off-road paths
Easements for bicycle and pedestrian paths through new private developments.
Connecting paths through dead-end streets
Bike/pedestrian path adjacent to Embarcadero Road
Wide outside lanes for motorists and bicyclists
Remove through traffic lanes in commercial areas
Vertical curbs (in conjunction with development)
LOW PRIORITY
Gateways where roads transition from freeway
Secure bike parking
Downtown alleyways for bikes and pedestrians
Transportation information kiosks
Homer and Channing Avenues to two-way
Vertical curbs (stand alone project)
Ba -to-Foothills path
’ MEDIUM PRIORITY
Regional bicycle plans
Bus Rapid Transit on El Camino
i EOW PRIORI~
Bus stop amenities
NEGATIVE PRIORITY
HIGH PRIORITY
Light rail from Mountain View to Palo Alto/Menlo Park
Caltrain Electrification/Downtown Extension
Better public transit to regional destinations
Bus service improvements on major bus corridors
Caltrain Baby Bullet
MEDIUM PRIORITY
Rail around the Bay, intra-county and transbay transit
California High Speed Rail
Amtrak between SF, Salinas and Monterey
Extend Caltrain to Monterey
LOW PRIORITY
HOV lanes on freeways and expressways
Responsive private sector taxi service
Relocate airport terminal building
Freeway information/monitoring/control systems
Amtrak Coast Daylight
NEGATIVE PRIORITY
Reduce congestion on freeways
ATTACHMENT C
CMR:_~78.0_~
The Final Draft Transportation Implementation Plan dated September 2003
has been superceded by the April 2004 Revised Draft Transportation
Strategic Plan which is attached to CMR:4_~_:04 as Attachment C.
ATTACHMENT D
0 i ~f CMR:.~78:03
TRANSP OR TA TION DIVISION
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:JOSEPH KOTT DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
AGENDA DATE: JUNE 11, 2003
SUBJECT:TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: PRESENTATION
OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PER~OP~MANCE INDICATORS
AND STUDY SESSION ON TRANSPORTATION PROJECT
PRIORITIZATION
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend to City
Council adoption of the proposed Transportation Implementation Plan. The Implementation"
Plan includes Project Prioritization, Strategic Performance Indicators (both recommended
by the Commission on March 19, 2003) and a Funding and Implementation Plan (not yet
reviewed by the Commission).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Palo Alto Transportation Implementation Plan is part of the Transportation Division’s
strategic planning process, which includes the following:
Transportation Implementation Plan-Project Prioritization
Transportation System Performance Indicators
Transportation Plan Cost and Funding Report
The strategic planning process is intended to operationalize the Palo Alto 1998-2010
Comprehensive Plan, the Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Plan adopted in 2003, and other
Council policy directives, and alig-n the Transportation Division work pro~am activities
accordingly.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
H:\CMRS’~T-C~,Strategic Transportation Plan 6-11-03
DISCUSSION
The Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element, Palo Alto’s Council-adopted
transportation policy framework, COl’nprises more than 60 progams and projects. Council has
since added transportation project and policy directives, including adoption of the Bicycle
Transportation Plan. While a comprehensive and authoritative guide to transportation policy,
the Transportation Element and other Council-adopted transportation policy and program.
plans do not provide relative priorities, timelines, or order-of-magnitude costs for adopted
lists of transportation improvement projects. Thus it is often difficult to derive from the
Transportation Element or other official Council actions a program for practical action
sufficiently detailed to guide staff in capital improvements investment planning, grant
applications, regional transportation planning, and other activities.
Transportation system performance indicators are equivalent to an aeronautical guidance
system. Like such a system, transportation performance indicators show the direction and rate
of change in important "real-time" variables. Instead of feedback on altitude, speed, and
direction of travel, fuel consumption, etc., transportation performance indicators show the
changes in the amount and mode of travel, travel safety, and other relevant data. Just as it is
difficult to have a successful flight without access to essential data on aircraft performance,
it is difficult to succeed in transportation system management without strategic data on
system performance. "Strategic" in this context is the relationship of system performance to
strategic goals, objectives, and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. To be useful
over time, however, these strategic data on transportation system performance need to be
relevant to the goals, objectives, and policies whose prowess they are meant to monitor, cost-
effective to collect and update, and both meaningful and comprehensible to the community
at large and to its appointed and elected officials.
Transportation Division staff and consultants worked with an advisory panel of stakeholders
and the Planning and Transportation Commission (in an October 30, 2002 study session) to
develop weighted scoring criteria for evaluating projects and pro~ams in the Comprehensive
Plan Transportation Element, as well as weighted performance indicators for charting
progress in transportation system management. On March 19, 2003 the Commission voted
to recommend Palo Alto Transportation Implementation Plan - Project Prioritization, as well
as a set of Palo Alto Tra.nsportation System Performance Indicators. Staff promised to return
with a Transportation Plan Cost and Funding Report along with the entire Transportation
Implementation Plan, which is appended to this staff report as Attachment A.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Comprehensive Plan
The draft Transportation Implementation Plan operationalizes the goals, policies, and
programs contained in the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, as adopted by Council
on July 20, 1998. The proposed Transportation System Performance Indicators will provide
City of Palo Alto Page 2
H:lCMRS\PT-C\Strategic Transportation Plan 6-11-03
a monitoring devise for measurement of progress toward achievement of these goals and
policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental review has already taken place on the constituent transportation plans that
make up the Palo Alto Transportation Implementation Plan, iflcluding the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan and the Bicycle Transportation Plan.
NEXT STEPS
Staff will forward the Planning and Transportation Commission recommendation to Ci~
Council for action at date to be determined.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
A. Draft Palo Alto Transportation Implementation Plan
COURTESY COPIES:
City Council
Strategic Transportation Plan Advisory Panel
Prepared by: Joseph Kort, Chief Transportation Official
Division Head Approval:J e~ph K~ief Transportation Official
City of Palo Alto Page 3
H?,CMRS\PT-C\Strategic Transportation Plan 6-11-03
ATTACHMENT A
of PTC Report 6/11/03
Revised Draft Transportation Implementation Plan dated June 2003 is
superceded by the Revised Draft Transportation Strategic Plan dated April
2004 and attached to CMR:4.~_:04 at Attachment C
Excerpt of June 11, 2003 Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes
o Transportation Strate2ic Plan: Commission consideration and recommendation on a
proposed Transportation Strategic Plan. SR Weblink:
Mr. Kott: Thm~ you velT much Chair Bialson and members of the Commission. The item
before you has come before you for the third time. On October 30, 2002 this Commission
participated in a study session on our Strategic Transportation Plan including a mock exercise on
prioritization of transportation projects and programs that are contained in the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element. On March 19 this Commission formally voted a
prioritization of those transportation projects and plans as well as a proposed set of transportation
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
system performance measures by which we would be able to gauge our pro~ess and
achievement of transportation objectives as put forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
We promised we would come back to you on the third piece which is funding in the strategic
sense that is where funding sources are to be located to finance the very ambitious transportation
progam which is outlined in our Comprehensive Plan and also of course in our Bicycle Master
Plan that this Commission recommended to Council and Council has recently adopted. So we
have come back to you with that third piece and also asking the Commission to forward the
entire strategic planning document including the already approved or recommended by this
Commission performance measures for our transportation system, prioritization of our
transportation pro~ams and project and this third piece the funding plan.
I should note for the Commission that we have made the changes as Commission has
recommended on the Transportation Plan Prioritization. We have added at Commission’s
request the item on computerized traffic management as a high priority item as well as the
citywide transportation demand management pro~am. In terms of our strategic transportation
performance measures we have added in response to Commission recommendation to track, as
we do now but, to continue to track vehicular level of service at our major intersections in Palo
Alto. That entire list of performance measures is Figure 1, page five of the attachment on the
Transportation Implementation Plan. So just to confirm to the Commission we have made the
changes that have been indicated by the Commission.
This evening we have with us to discuss the funding plan that is the funding sources, we are not
asking the Commission to adopt any budgets here. We are asking the Commission to review and
in a sense validate the various funding sources that are available. We have Adam Malard Ball
who has been working with us and with this Commission for some time now on this plan here
this evening to present information, about funding sources.
I should say this topic is especially timely these days because the competition for funding and
transportation projects has certainly gotten much more difficult. We think having plans in place
particularly our Bicycle Master Transportation Plan and this plan, which sho~vs some indication
of priorities for projects, ~vill help us in the competition for funding. So if the Commission
doesn’t have any questions of me particularly in response to what you asked us to do last time I
would pleased to introduce Adam Malard Ball from Nelson\Nygaard.
Mr. Adam Malard Ball. Nelson\Nygaard Associates: Thanks Joe and thank you Commissioners.
I don’t want to spend too long on this because I think that most of the recommendations here are
really for Staff to pursue in terms of which specific funding sources are the most promising. I
did want to take the change to just give an overview of the funding picture regionally and
nationally and also to concentrate on some of the local sources that might be-most appropriate for
Palo Alto.
As Joe said there are three components of the plan. There is the performance indicators and the
project prioritization and those we brought to you before and we made the changes to reflect the
Commission and resolutions. Otherwise that is as it stood in March. The third piece ,which is
being presented here today, is the financial plan.
Cio~ of Palo ,4 !to Page 21
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
1!
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
First a little background on the funding context. It is quite an uncertain time to be considering
transportation funding right now most importantly because the federal transportation legislation,
%21, is currently being reauthorized. So a lot of the programs that are available currently
particularly those that were introduced and before to support bicycle, pedestrian and land use
project. We don’t know for certain yet whether those will be continued. The past trend has been
toward more emphasis on these types of projects, which fits well with Palo Alto’s priorities. So
there are some grounds for optimism there. I think the current administration proposal would
keep those largely as is.
The third point is that most funding is actually programmed regionally and through the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission so that is really the key venue both directly to MTC
and trough VTA for the City to press the importance of its priority projects. That is not really
just at a Staff level it is also through the local advocacy community. MTC takes a lot of public
input directly from community members. There is a kick-off for the next Regional
Transportation Plan for the public input there on Saturday. It seems just like yesterday that we
adopted the last Regional Transportation Plan but the next three-year cycle is already coming up..
So to the extent that local community groups in Palo Alto can impress the importance of these
projects directly to MTC the better the chances of getting some of these projects implemented.
There are three broad categories of funding sources. There are the grant programs, which are
competitive. There are the formula based sources, which come to the City as of right. Then
there are new local sources. I will talk briefly about each of these in turn. The grant programs,
some are regional, some are state and some are federal. I am not going to talk about these
individually unless Commissioners have specific questions. These are the ones that are really
out there for the City to pursue. The formula based sources, there is sales tax revenue from a
Transportation Development Act, which comes to the City automatically, the state gas tax, which
is primarily for maintenance of local streets, and roads, which is also allocated by formula. Then
there are the local sources and those are important not just for the revenue they can generate but
because the greater the local match that the City can provide the more competitive local projects
will be for these regional competitions and state and federal competitive sources.
Potential sources include the transportation impact fee, ~ghich you are all aware of and we wil! be
talking about that in more detail in the next item. Transit fares, emphasize that we are not
necessarily recommending these, these are just some of the sources that other local cities do and
really for the sake of completeness we are putting them on the table now. There are good
reasons for having free fares on the local shuttle but some cities don’t do it that way. Again, it is
not the best time to be talking about new property taxes but again it is something that other cities
in the reNon do. Parking charges are also important to consider, not just meters and permit
pricing but also as some cities do using in lieu parking fees not just to fund new parking
construction but also to fund other transportation improvements which might reduce the demand
for the parking. Again, not necessarily recommending these or asking you to recommend or
make your decision on these tonight just putting them on the table as some possibilities.
Adding all these up, again there are significant uncertaintiesright now, but we come to a broad
total of the best estimate is there is about $2.5 million available for new transportation projects in
the City per year. That is really a drop in the ocean when it comes to comparing ~hat to the total
cost of all the projects, which are in the Comprehensive Plan and subsequent plans. The total
there is $314 million. Even the high priority projects are $225 million although by tar the
CiO’ of Palo Alto Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
biggest chunk of that is for the University Avenue Intennodal Center. Because of its nature
hopefully there will be some sort of separate funding available regionally or nationally for that
project. Even so, revenue over 25 years is about $2.5 million comes out of $64 million. So there
is a big shortfall really whatever way you look at it.
So it really rneans that the City needs to take some decisions, not here tonight, but as projects
come up and as these competition deadlines for applications are due as to which projects to really
pursue. One way of looking at it is an issue of breadth versus depth. Do you want go for the
high priority projects and concentrate on those and implement all of those in full or you take a
broader view and say not implement all of the bicycle boulevards that are recommended, not
implement all the critical bicycle and pedestrian links but take some of those and take some of
the medium focus ones?
We’ll go through the ones which are high priority and also cheapest. I think you can see from
the Table that just taking the low and medium priority ones would mean that none of them would
be fully implemented for more than 40 years at current funding levels. So really just to provide
an overview of the scale of the challenge there that yes we can probably implement all of the
high priority ones fairly quickly .within 10 to 12 years but not necessarily much of anything else.
Again, to emphasize that is the best estimate under current funding conditions and it is a time of
change right now.
Just a few comments to conclude. One of the issues is a question of breadth versus depth. The
second is how can these projects be packaged to attract funding particularly the very small ones
if they can be combined into a broader pro~am it might make them more attractive regionally
and for state and federal funding. There is a need for opportunism and flexibility that as
competitive applications deadlines come up and as new sources come along there is some degee
of opportunism there is not a rigid plan here though it can take advantage of putting the projects
forward that are best placed to succeed and maximize the City’s share of these reNonal and state
and federal funding sources. That is .all I have to sum up. Did you have anything to add, Joe?
Mr. Kott: I would like to add, Adam that those of us in transportation are used to seeing these
enormous unfunded or under-funded transportation pro~ams. I know when I first started in
transportation working for North Carolina Department of Transportation we had the biggest state
road system with the largest number of center line miles in the whole country. The amount of
unfunded and under-funded capital needs we had was just incredible. Across the board it is
always the case. It is alarming to see what we have to face but transportation is generally,
generally, under-funded in the United States. We would hope that there would be other funding
mechanisms not on that list implemented in the future perhaps including a regional gasoline tax
which would be a very good idea indeed certainly from the standpoint of the environment but
also from the standpoint of rectifying some of these funding gaps. A statewide transportation
bonds as the Commission may recall that idea ~vas floated several years ago. There may be other
sources yet to be revealed. It is clear we face, every jurisdiction faces, a very hearty appetite and
very meager resources by which to meet our appetite overall.
Chair Bialson: Do we have questions from the Commission before we go to the public?
Michael.
Cio" qYPalo A 1~.o Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Griffin: Joe, perhaps you could explain a little bit. Adam has pointed out this is
the third time we have seen this docmnent. Is that right?
Mr. Kott: Yes, this is the third time the Commission has seen the prioritization of projects and
the strategic performance measures but the first time the Commission has seen the funding
sources. We were very keen to bring you the whole package before we go to Council. An
obvious question with a big pro~am that has been prioritized is where in the world will the
funds come from.
Commissioner Griffin: I found it a fascinating discussion on exactly where do the funding
sources lie, meanwhile I am wondering about our recommendation tonight. If we as PTC have
already approved the project prioritization and the performance indicators then what does that
leave us to decide this evening?
Mr. Kott: This evening we are asking the Commission to recommend, we call this package the
Strategic Transportation Plan for Palo Alto, to Council. We didn’t have the funding plan ready
last time and we wanted to give the Commission a chance to have a go at it in proper form. Also
is if the Commission wishes to revisit any of its earlier decisions it is certainly in the
Commission’s ability to do that.
Chair Bialson: Any other questions before we go to the public. Okay, let’s hear from Joy
Ogawa to be followed by Bob Moss and you will each have five minutes.
Ms. Joy Ogawa. 2305 Yale Street, Palo Alto: I live in College Terrace in Palo Alto. I am here
again to urge the inclusion of reduction of cut-through traffic as a strategic indicator. At the very
least I think data collection of sub indicators should be geared to provide as much information as
possible about cut-through impacts. It sort of feels like whistling in the wind and it can be
frustrating but I am going to keep at it because I think the record needs to reflect these other
opinions. The Staff Report does little to do that. So I guess I want the record to reflect that this
is the third Commission meeting on this item at which I have spoken about cut-tt~rough traffic
yet you would never be able to tell that from the Staff Report.
Again I will refer to Policies T-28 and T-30 of the Comprehensive Plan, which talk about
reducing or preventing cut-through traffic. I think we all "know that levels of service and
volumes for major intersections do not by themselves give a full picture of traffic impacts if there
is any diversion of traffic from that intersection into adjacent streets especially local streets. Mr.
Kott has previously responded that a cut-through traffic study is too difficult and expensive in
order to have cut-through traffic be a reasonable indicator, however, it makes sense to me that
measurement of traffic volumes on adjacent streets can serve as a reasonable substitute indicator
of cut-through traffic. In College Terrace the amount of non~-non-cut-through traffic remains
fairly constant at a given time of year. Certainly on Cambridge and Yale, both local streets,
where the cut-through traffic was recently measured in a comprehensive, I though relatively
comprehensive, cut-through traffic study was measured at over 80%. On these streets any
change in traffic volume is almost entirely attributable to changes in cut-through volurnes.
Frankly if diversion or shifting of traffic which is what I think cut-through traffic is a form of, if
diversion of traffic to local streets was included as an indicator perhaps neighborhood traffic
calming would not score so high on the list of projects and progams.
City of Palo A Ifo Page 24
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
I personally am still waiting to be convinced that neighborhood traffic calming can be
implemented in a way that meets the goals that I have heard claimed that neighborhood traffic
calming is supposed to meet. One of those goals is supposed to be little or no diversion onto
nearby local streets but if the City does not make a concerted effort to measure that diversion
then I really cannot have any confidence in any claims that traffic calming doesn’t result in such
a diversion. Again, I want to point out that the neighborhood traffic cahning scored at the
bottom of the list in a recent City budget priority survey and yet it appears on the top of the list
when we are using these performance indicators. So again there is some disconnect in what this
is telling us and what our residents are saying. So food for thought for you and for City Council.
Thank you very much.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. The next speaker is Bob Moss and I have no other speaker request
cards.
Mr. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, Palo Alto: Thank you. First I would like to say I think it is a very
good report but it is also rather depressing when you look at the funding required and the funding
sources. If you exclude the Transit Center we are talking about on the order of $1 t0 or $120
million taken over a period of time. I just don’t see where we are going to get that amount of
money unless we can convince the Feds that all of the work will be done by Bectel and
Halliburton and all the profits will go to people who make more than $1 million a year. In which
case I am sure they will fund it enthusiastically.
There are a few holes in the report that need to be filled that I am sure you are aware of. Figure 1
on page five has the targets and the targets are all TBDs. One of the problems I see with filling
in some of those blanks is you will fill it in and then some outside source will come along and
pull the rug out from under us. One of them for example is improve traffic conditions where
VTA is talking about cutting the number of bus lines and buses significantly in six months. That
kind of an impact on transit is going to cascade all the way down through anything you talk
about in terms of traffic, single occupancy vehicles, t~-ips driven and all that. I don’t know how
you get around it and I don’t know what you do when something like that happens. If for
example the gas tax is increased and all of the money goes to the state and none of it goes to
local government that will skew the amount of money we have available. So one of the
suggestions I have is that we look at this periodically in terms of outside influences and changes
in particularly financing and tax policies and how it may or may not impact our ability to do
anything.
Second comment I have is on selecting which of the overall policies we should be looking for.
Should we be looking for high impact or should we be looking for cost benefit or something in
between? I agonized about this for quite awhile and I finally decided that probably we would get
the most recognition from the community and the most sympathy if we went with the high
impact and spent the money over about a 12- year period. There is another reason for selecting
that rather than the cost benefit, which would be only five years. I am hopeful that over 12 years
the financing situation will loosen up and we will have more money available so that first of all
we can accelerate that and do it in less than 12 years and second of all we can take some of those
cost!Senefit items and move those forward and actually spend money on them. So my
recommendation is to go for the high impact but not so wildly enthusiastic that if you went for
cost benefit I would say you were all way out of it.
CiO, ofPalo Alto Page 25
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
lg
19
20
21
22.,
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
The last comment I have on this item is on the Appendix A on page two, Improving Traffic for
Pedestrians. This is one of the favorites for people in Bah’on Park where it says the first one is
the existence of a sidewalk. Of course that certainly is not true in Bah’on Park. People ~valk
everywhere and there are very few sidewalks. I see people walking up and do~vn Los Robles,
which is a major collector street all the time. Nobody has any problems. We walk down Los
Robles, we walk down Laguna and in fact on Laguna there are a couple sections that have
sidewalks and nobody walks there, everyone walks in the street. So I don’t we should take
Florida too seriously in getting the ranking of conditions. It is just a caution, I wanted to put that
on the record, I know I have said it during some of the sessions we have had.
And finally I want to go back to the item one you talked about. In terms of the traffic accidents
the Police Department did pass out a map last year at a meeting of the Midtown Association that
showed traffic accidents citywide and also in Midtown. It did show them up and down, I think it
was all the way from 101 to Page Mill on Oregon Expressway. You can take a look at it and you
can see how many there were but I do recall the maximum number of accidents seemed to be in
the vicinity of Middlefield and there were not too many on the other intersections. That is online
and I believe you can find that. If you can’t you can go to the Police Department and they can
give it to you. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. I have no other speaker request cards so I will close the public input
and take this back to the Commission. Any questions or comments Commissioners or do we
have a motion? Pat.
Commissioner Burr: First I would like to ask if Joe might respond to a couple of the issues
raised by public speakers first regarding the cut-through traffic and that as a measurement tool
and then second relating to the importance of side~valks for pedestrian safety. I have my own
question and that is also the relationship of which is more detrimental to pedestrian safety, traffic
volume or traffic speed. So I have three questions there.
Mr. Kott: Number three, traffic speed. In terms of cut-through traffic if we were to adopt this as
an indicator and be serious about it, and I appreciate the motivation, which is very good behind
the suggestion, being serious about it we would need to designate a subset of our street system,
which is subject to cut-through traffic mainly because intersections are crowded nearby. We
would have to then collect data on that subset. We know about the data collection first-hand.
College Terrace in fact volunteered a tremendous effort to collect data on cut-through traffic. In
fact a near neighborhood and Downtown North we had a cut-through traffic analysis done for
Downtown North. It is labor intensive in the sense that you really have to match license plate
numbers. The first four digits is conventional but you have to match them at a place of entry
which is an intersection coming into the neighborhood and a few minutes later, assuming some
transit time to get through the neighborhood, you have to match up plate numbers. The plates
that match within the prescribed transit time, all other vehicles you assume have business in the ¯
neighborhood are the cut-throughs. Take my word for it, it is an extremely labor intensive
project so we either have to mobilize a large number of volunteers as we did for Downtown
North or pay folks to sit there with clipboards and note all the data down.
Our own view is it is not cost effective to use that as an indicator because of that reason.
However, in traffic calming we do routinely as good practice do data collection on before and
after conditions, mainly traffic on the street before and after a traffic calming measure is in place
Cio’ of Palo ,4 lto Page 2 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
and on nearby streets to measure traffic shift. So that seems to me a case-by-case basis a better
approach. I do understand the motivation behind the suggestion.
Commissioner Butt. what was the second question?
Commissioner Burr: It had to do with two aspects of improving conditions for pedestrians. One
was the question of the criticality of sidewalks and the second had to do with the ranking of
priorities that we have where we are stating that vehicle volume is of geater importance toward
pedestrian safety than vehicle speed.
Mr. Kott: Yes. Commissioner Burt we get into trouble with Barron Park all the time about
sidewalks and we should know better by now. In general we accept the conventional wisdom
that it is better separate pedestrians from the roadway. However there are certainly exceptions.
If the street has a low traffic volume and low speeds, if the drivers all or mostly live on the street
and the pedestrians by custom are used to using that street that combination seems to work okay
for safety. I guess it has for Barron Park. But all things considered equal we would rather have
sidewalks.
Speed is definitely correlated with safety. There is a geometric relationship between speed and
the likelihood of getting killed if you are a pedestrian or being seriously hurt. So vehicle speed is
a real concern. Volume not so much. Think of your own example walking across University
Avenue at a crowded time of day. It is a reasonably safe place to cross even though there are a
lot of cars on the street.
Commissioner Burt: Well, as I read the Staff Report on Appendix A, page two and then over on
page three it says this reading is based on four factors listed here in order of decreasing
importance. The least important is listed as vehicle speed, the second least important is iisted
vehicle traffic volume. What you just said seemed to be consistent with my own understanding
is that those two should be reversed. Did I understand you correctly?
Mr. Kott: Yes, I think that just as we had with the bicycle level of service proposal before the
Commission we would adapt any national model to what we think suits us and what we believe
based on our experience.
Commissioner Burr: In this particular circumstance do you see where folded over the top of
page A-3 is Appendix A at the top>?
Mr. Kott: Yes.
Commissioner Burt: It says that the third most important factor is vehicle volume and the fourth
most important is vehicle speed. Should those be reversed?
Mr. Kott: Well in my judgTnent they should. It could very. well be that in other places they have
different experience. It would be awfully hard to convince me that speed is not far more
important than 9olume.
Commissioner Burt: But these are our proposed indicators, correct?
Cin,, oj’Palo A lio Page .., "~ 7
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Mr. Kott: Yes, we would need to alter those and adapt them better. Yes.
Chair Bialson: I think our consultant wants to say something.
Mr. Ball: Just a clarification. The methodology here is just the example methodology that is
used in Florida and it is one of the best examples. But the indicator, which we are
recommending for adoption, is pedestrian level of service and the Staff flexibility to adapt that to
local conditions.
Mr. Kott: May I add Commissioner Burt Adam’s response is more precise. Just as with bike
level of service we will come to you with a recommendation that would become ours for your
consideration as an official standard for Palo Alto. Basically this is illustrative but we do give
the impression that this is our recommendation, which is unfortunate.
Commissioner Butt: So as I understand it these as of right now are standardized kind of national
recommendations that you may come back later with some modifications that you would
recommend to Appendix A. Is that correct?
Mr. Kott: The state-of-the-art in pedestrian level of service analysis is not standardized
nationally, no. Florida DOT is ahead but that does not suggest at all that that’s the best model
for Palo Alto.
Commissioner Burt: So then maybe I will try another way to characterize it. What we have in
Appendix A, which is presently described as Palo Alto Draft Implementation Plan, is modeled
off of Florida which in genef-al is a pro~essive well-thought of progam but that you may very
well come back with some proposed modifications to this in the future.
Mr. Kott: We will and it will be part of our CEQA thresholds recommendation to you. We will
come again with the bike LOS and we will propose a pedestrian LOS that we believe suits Palo
Alto.
Commissioner Butt: That is good to hear because Florida as admirable as they are in many ways
we know that for instance they don’t count votes the same way we do and other things.
I have one other issue that I would like to address in some depth but if other Commissioners have
other items first I want to let them go.
Chair Bialson: Thanks a lot. Do we have any other Commissioners? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: On page four of the Implementation Plan the second grouping of
bullets, the first bullet there talks about the baseline for vehicle trips is 2003 which is likely to
have lower than average traffic levels. To account for this the baseline would adjusted for
normal economic conditions. What will Staff use to determine what normal economic conditions
are?
Mr. Kott: Thank you, Commissioner Holman, you are throwing me a real hardball there. I think
last time we said we would consult with people in the community who have economic expertise,
Cin.’ ofPalo Alto ?age 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2.1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
really expertise about the business cycle. We would pick out a year based on their judgsnent that
for Palo Alto it represented normal economic conditions.
Commissioner Holman: Non:hal more or less acknowledging average not a particular high or a
particular low?
Mr. Kott: Yes, Commissioner Holman, not boon and not bust.
Commissioner Holman: Then something else that I think might run a little bit tangent to one of
Pat’s comments to come. The Comprehensive Plan mentions so many times about reducing
single occupancy vehicle trips and I have mentioned this several times so I ask the Commission
to bear with me here but I have been really, really interested in encouraging first source hiring
practices. I do understand that we cannot require that. That has been my understanding in the
past and continues to be, however, we don’t do much of anything to encourage it. There is one
business that I know of that employs that practice and as a result of that they have very, very few
employee parking spots necessary at their place of employment. So just as the Architectural
Review Board has been very, very successful in encouraging sustainability practices in
development I would like to know what we can do and why we aren’t doing more to encourage
first source hiring practices.
Mr. Kott: Commissioner Holman in the sense of hiring people who have short commutes or live
a short distance away while that is a good way to address the job/housing imbalance there is no
doubt about that, clearly if you look at it from that point of view our commute patterns are quite
irrational. It is hard to ima~ne how we can intervene in the labor market that way because
people in. this country are so used mobility and the freedom to choose jobs, freedom to choose
places of employment. The best we can do I think is to encourage the Palo Alto employers, as
we do, to adopt incentive progams so that people who live nearby can take advantage of the
alternative modes which are much more useful for shorter commutes. For example, cycling, an
example using bus transit. The longer bus transit trips are not competitive even the rail trips tend
to be less competitive if you have to link them with a long access trip at the origin then. So I
think probably the indirect or second best approach works best. I think thinking out of the box
you are right to address this weird jobs/housing imbalance in the Bay Area preference progams
along those lines would really be a useful tool. But I can’t imagine how we could in
transportation effect that.
Chair Bialson: I appreciate the discussion on this point but I would like to come back to the item
before us, ~vhich is the Implementation plan. I think that perhaps we need a separate agenda item
to address your concerns which I think are good ones but I would like to bring us back to trying
to bring this forward and get onto the next items on the agenda. Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I would just like to remind all of us that this Implementation Plan is
limited to the projects that are in the Comp Plan as I understand it or ones that have been
identified already. It says in here that when new projects come up they will be analyzed with
these indicators and put in the priority list. I think our role as Commissioners was to look at this
plan to see if it is a good format, a good tool to use, in order to analyze the projects and that we
weren’t going to discuss whether the projects where appropriate because that has already been
discussed separately in identifying them as appropriate projects in the Comp Plan and in other
plans. I think our purpose of looking at this was to see whether the whole process made sense as
Cio, of Palo ,4 ho Page 29
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
.3..3
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
a strategic tool as opposed to evaluating any specific project to accomplish the goals. That is
done in other context. So that might help us in any discussion that we have or in raising any new
items for discussion. Maybe how we raise new items for discussion and how we bring new ideas
up will be a subject in our retreat.
Chair Bialson: Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: I will just express some trepidation here. I recognize fully that the
Comprehensive Plan aspires to a ten percent reduction in auto vehicle trips. I am wondering
really how many of our Palo Alto citizens realize that that’s what we are trying to do. When they
see this list of alternative transportation modes or rather when they see the City’s money is aimed
at enhancing these alternative modes to the detriment, so to speak, of auto related enhancements
is this going to cause a political push-back. It seems to me we need to start selling folks on the
desirability of these more efficient modes, as you call them Joe, otherwise they may question
why all the money goes to bike paths, sidewalks and a huge train station. I realize that City
Council, Boards, Commissions and City Staff we get it. We have been to school on this subject.
You have done a good job. I am concerned about how the City voters are going to appreciate the
amount of money spent on bicycles and sidewalks. Obviously there are a lot of people out there
that are well schooled like we are but I wonder about the silent majority. I just bring this to
Staff’s attention as something I think needs to be addressed.
Mr. Kott: May I make one comment, Con~nissioner Griffin. We are very keen as the
Commission knows on improving vehicular operation and all efficiency through out signal
system upgrade project, which is a $1.5 million project with two-thirds funded from outside
monies. We are convinced we can wring the most efficiency for the buck our of our existing
road infrastructure through sigr~al efficiencies and optimization than anything else. So we are
convinced that that’s being attended to. What has been historically under-funded not only in
Palo Alto be everywhere in the United States has been provision of alternative modes which are
arguably more efficient along a number of dimensions.
Chair Bialson: Pat.
Commissioner Butt: I would like to address an issue that I had brought up previously that I don’t
see addressed in the program at all and I will state it in a provocative manner. We have a
challenging goal of holding our vehicle trips to an 2003 normal economic condition level despite
growth in population in the City and despite trends of having more vehicles. I think that this is
an excellent plan, very progressive and encompassing many great concepts. I think even with
this great plan it is unlikely that we will achieve our objective. That is the bad news.
The good news is there may very well be an impact that is shaping our society right now that we
could influence its adoption, which may have a very profound impact on vehicle reduction. That
is how telecommunications and the Intemet and broadband are affecting our vehicle trip patterns.
How they are affecting them today and how they will affect them in the future.
Joe, I am sure you will recall our previous discussions as I brought this up to you I asked if we
could get hold of some of the studies that must be getting done on this subject. You said, do you
mean on telecommuting? I said, that is a minority of the impact and that is worth evaluating but
no I am talking about all these other trips. I hope I am not being unfair to you but you said well,
Cit.~, of Palo .4 I~o Page 30
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
what kind of trips Pat and I cited a couple of examples and you said, come to think of it every
week I used to have to drive to the U.C. Berkeley Library to research transportation issues. I
don’t make that trip anymore I do it on the Internet. My wife and daughters shop weekly on the
Intemet. As I have surveyed members of the public and our friends and ask them about when
was the last time they used public transportation and they’ll say, well Cal Trains closed down
going to the Giants’ games I haven’t used it in a year. Then if you ask them, even today, what
trips are they avoiding as a result of the internet and give them a couple of examples not only do
they come up with answers that indicate that it is probably a ten to one ratio in trips today being
avoided as a result of the internet as there are in all public transit trips in Palo Alto today. Yet
we don’t include it. It is not part of our thinking and we aren’t inte~ating what the Utility
Advisory Commission and the Utilities Department are studying of broadband to the home as a
new public service with its benefit here.
The benefits are not only those of congestion reduction but very profound environmental
impacts. We all know that cars are our biggest polluters of the air and the water, of waste, of
solid waste and of our greenhouse gases. We have Comprehensive Plan goals that have to do
with addressing enviromnental concerns as well and yet it is completely absent from our thinking
here. I think we have to think outside the box here just because for whatever reason that I can’t
figure out this is not getting studied. It doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t step forward and say let’s
inte~ate these two things.
! will just rattle off for you a few of the trip avoidance categories that have been cited to me by
members of the public. Library book renewal online, shopping online, particular shopping for
that hard find item, we all probably remember our mothers dragging us to four stores for that one
thing they can’t find.
Chair Bialson: Pat, could you go through your list, please?
Commissioner Burt: That is a real strong wasteful trip. It is trips to not even obtain the
merchandise. Videos, people when I have suggested that in the future we will have video on
demand, they say I don’t need it I already have Net Flicks. I was speaking with Amanda Jones,
our City Commute Coordinator, and mentioning this and she said well, I don’t go to the music
store anymore I get my music online. Carpooling teams, I can tell you as a parent of young kids
that parents today in this community are devising ways to carpool to their countless practices and
games as a result of just posting on a list served to the team members who would like to join on
carpooling or who can take my kid.
Chair Bialson: Pat, could you please wrap it up? It is getting to be five minutes now on this.
Commissioner Burr: I’m getting close. Bear with me, I think this is extremely important and I
think it is one of the most important changes that we can do in our thinking as a community and
it is ~ossly overlooked and I want to try to complete this.
Of course telecommuting, teleconferencing and even future intemet viewing of Council and
Commission meetings as well as electronic access to City documents that people had to go down
to City Hall or the libraries to see. These are just ones that have been cited here. I know there
are a lot more and these have just trickled out as I have asked members of the public this.
Ci~.v of Palo Alw Page 31
1
2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
If you add those up that is an awful lot of trips that are probably already being avoided. Like I
say as best I can tell ten times what we are avoiding as a result of all public transit combined in
our community. We don’t include it in our thinking, we don’t study it and I would really like to
see this at least added as an indicator and as a pro~am to integate consideration of trip
reduction with the broadband to the home analysis that is going on through the Utilities
Department.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Do I have a motion or any other discussion on this subject?
MOTION
Colmaissioner Griffin: I will make a motion. I move that we recommend the Staff
recommendation.
SECOND
Commissioner Packer: I will second it.
Chair Bialson: Do you want to speak to that?
Commissioner Griffin: I think that we have been through this a sufficient number of times now
that we are all pretty well up to speed on the concept that you are trying to propose. I think that
it has been an exceptionally detailed study and generally speaking the projects that you have
come up with and the methodology for identifying the priorities makes sense to us. It is
obviously going to be the City Council to decide whether they a~ee with that final listing but I
think you have done a good job and I support it.
Chair Bialson: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I concur with what Michael says.
Chair Bialson: Any other comments? Pat.
AMENDMENT
Commissioner Burt: I would like to propose a friendly amendment of two parts. One that we
add the impact of telecommunications on trip reduction as a strategic indicator and second that
we recommend that that impact be included ~vithin the analysis that is being done by the Utilities
Advisory Commission of the benefits of broadband to the home.
Chair Bialson: Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: I am trying to figure out a way to incorporate the gist of what you are
saying. I find that that whole topic of communications to be frankly inappropriate to this
particular study even though I know what you are trying to accomplish. You are trying to get
people off the road. I don’t think that concept works with the scope of this project.
Commissioner Burt: Why not?
Cio~ qfPalo Alto Page 32
1
2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
9"-.3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30.
31
.3-
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Bialson: This is not a point for argument.
Commissioner Griffin: And so I don’t.
MOTION PASSED
He either accepts or doesn’t accept.
Chair Bialson: Any other comments?
Let’s have a vote on the motion. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) All those opposed. (nay)
That passes four to one with Pat Burr being opposed.
think we will close this item now. Thank you very much.
We will take a short break. No more than five minutes. Thank you.
We are going to reconvene this meeting. We are up to item three under New Business, Study
Session on Citywide Transportation Impact Fee. Staff?
Study Session on Citwvide Transportation Impact Fee: Commission review of work
under,ray to develop a citywide, multimodal transportation impact tee. SR Weblink:
http://www.citv~f~a~a~t~.~r~/citva~enda/pub~is~/p~mmin~-trans~z~rtati~n~meetin~s/2~ 8 7 .pdf
Mr. Kott: Thank you very much Chair Bialson and members of the Commission. We are
returning to you with a second update on our work with respect to a Citywide Transportation
Impact. Fee. In Palo Alto we don’t like to state things too simply so we have a complicated title
for what we are doing, Citywide Land Use and Transportation (Nexus) Study that is connections
study. I should emphasize this is a work in progress and it is report. No action of the
Commission is being requested. We have many open ended questions ourselves about the
direction we are going in and we would much appreciate your feedback.
First of all we are looking citywide. This Commission has just discussed a citDvide
Transportation Improvernent Program. We have many needs that really cross our neighborhoods
that cross our street sections that really pertain to most Palo Altans. They include our traffic
signal system upgrade with reference tO my earlier comment to Commissioner Griffin, bicycle
transportation plan, which is also citywide which this Colranission recommended to Council and
Council adopted. Our continued interest in the community to upgrade our shuttle bus services
which as you ~know work both for our school commuters and our work commuters as well as our
senior citizens and others. Our traffic calming program, which has a citywide dimension to it,
many, many neighborhoods, whole streets that cross neighborhoods are subject to traffic calming
interests and our Intermodal Transit Center project, which just by its very scale has city,vide
implications. So those are some illustrative and important aspects of what you might call the
Citywide Transportation Plan or program.
While these citywide transportation planning projects are meant really to meet not only current
but future needs, particularly future needs, to anticipate rising travel demand and changing travel
patterns. ~q~at are the sources of changing travel demand? Well, they are new growth in the
community either through new development or redevelopment of existing uses. We see effects
CiO, qf Palo Alto Page 33
ATTACHMENT E
of CMR:.~78: 3_~
TRANSP OR TA TION DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO"PLA~ING & T!:L4NSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Joseph Kott
Chief Transportation Official DEPARTMENT:Planning
AGENDA DATE: March 19, _00.~
SUBJECT:Transportation Implementation Plan: Transportation System
Performance Indicators and Transportation Project Prioritization
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission:
1)Recommend to the City Council the Palo Alto Transportation System Performance
Indicators proposed by staff (Attachment A, Figure 1, page 4);
2)Recommend to the CiD" Council, as "High," "Medium," and "Low" priorities, the
Comprehensive Plan transportation projects and pro~ams categorized in Attachment
A, Figure 9, pp. 21-22; and
3)Review, comment, and make recormnendations to the City Council regarding the draft
Transportation Division Peer Review (Attachment B). Staffwill return at a later date
with recommendations regarding the complete draft Transportation Strategic Plan.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Palo Alto Transportation Implementation Plan is part of the Transportation Division’s
strategic planning process, which includes the following:
City of Pala Alto
H?CMRS~PT-CI Transportation Implementation Plan 3-79-03
Page
Palo Alto T~-a~spor[ntion Impleme~z~atiorz Plm~
Palo Alto Transportation System Perjbrmance [~dica~o~s
Transportation Plan Cost, Funding, and [nzplementation Pepor~
Drc~ Palo Alto Strategic T~’ansportation Plan and Tran&ortation Division S~ra~egic Plan
and a Prioritized ~’~’k Prog~’am.
The strategic planning process is intended to operationalize the Palo Alto 1998-2010
Comprehensive Plan and align the Transportation Division work prog-ram activities
accordingly. Results of this process include the broad categorization of transportation
projects into High, Medium, and Low priority to create a workable Transportation
Implementation Plan.
Transportation System Per%rmance Indicators comprise a set of benchmarksor targets by
which the progress of the transportation system to attainment of Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan goals and policies are to be measured. The Performance Indicators will have wide
application, including use in an annual "report card" to the community, the Planning and
Transportation Commission, and City Council on the state of the transportation system and
effectiveness of efforts to advance Comprehensive Plan goal’s and policies regarding
transportation. It is important to note that year baseline and targets for year 2007 and year
2012 have been listed as "TBD" (’to be determined), pending completion of baseline data
collection.
The Transportation Division Peer Review compares the functions and staff of Palo Alto’s
-Transportation Division to those in peer conLmunities, in large part other university and
research towns in California and around the nation (Attachment B). The intent is to evaluate
the Division’s role and scope in terms of fitness for meeting the challenge of implementing
the extensive work pro~am outlined in the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element.
DISCUSSION
The Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element, Palo Alto’s Council-adopted
transportation policy framework, comprises more than 60 pro~ams and projects. While a
comprehensive and authoritative guide to transportation policy, the Transportation Element
does not provide relative priorities, timelines, or order-of-magnitude costs for this list of
improvements. Thus it is difficult to derive from the Transportation Element a pro~am for
practical action sufficiently detailed to guide staff in capital improvements investment
planning, grant applications, regional transportation planning, and other activities.
City of Palo AltoH:~,CMRS\PT-C\ Transportation Implementation Plan 3-19-03
Page 2
Transportation system per%n~nance indicators are equivalent to an aeronautical guidance
system. Like such a system, transportation performance indicators show the direction as well
as rate of change in important "real-time" variables, instead of feedback on altitude, speed,
direction of travel, l~el consumption, etc., transportation performance indicators show the
changes in the amount and mode of travel, travel safety conditions, and other relevant data.
Just as it is difficult to have a successful flight without access to essential data on aircraft
per%finance, it is difficult to succeed in transportation system management without strategic
data on system performance. "Strategic" in this context is the relationship of system
perfo.rmance to strategic goals, objectives, and policies set forth in the Palo Alto 1998-2010
Comprehensive Plan. To be useful over tirne, however, these strategic data on transportation
system performance need to be relevant to the goals, objectives, and policies whose pro~ess
they are meant to monitor, cost-effective to collect and update, and both meaningful and
comprehensible to the community at large and its appointed and elected officials.
Transportation Division staff and consultants have worked with an advisory panel of
stakeholders to develop weighted scoring criteria for evaluating projects and pro~ams in the
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element, as well as weighted performance indicators for
charting progress in transportation system management over time. At an October 30, 2002
study session Commissioners applied, as an "unofficial" exercise to become familiar with the
methodology, the proposed, scoring criteria on a set of transportation projects and prog-rams
from the Transportation Element.
Project scorings and resulting prioritization from the advisory panel are included in the
attached draft Palo Alto Transportation Implementation Plan. Given the subjective and
necessarily limited nature of the scoring process used, staff strongly recommends that the
Planning and Transportation Commission place emphasis on the appropriateness of
placement of projects withi~z each categoo’ rather than the relative position or ranking of
projects within categories. The Corm~nission’s mandate as a body appointed by Cib" Council
may be fairly characterized as representing the values and perspectives of a reasonable cross-
section of the community. As such, the Commission is urged to apply its own judgment to
the qualitative--rather than quantitative--results of the project scoring and ranking process.
Projects are also categorized in matrix form by order of ma~o~itude cost and score
(Attachment A, Figure 10, p. 23). Full detail on scoring methodology is contained in
Appendix B of Attachment A. Appendix C lists Advisor Panel members.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Comprehensive Plan
The draft Palo Alto Transportation Implementation Plan operationalizes the Goals, Policies,
and Programs contained in the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, as adopted by
City of Palo Alto
H:~CMRS’~PT-C~, Transportation Implementation Plan 3-19-03
Page 3
Council on July 20, 1998. The proposed Palo Alto Transportation System Performance
Indicators will provide a monitoring device for measurement of profess toward achievement
of Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Environmental Assessment will be prepared and presented to the Commission for
consideration along with the complete draft Strategic Transportation Plan. Since the Strategic
Transportation Plan is intended to operationalize the Comprehensive Plan, an important focus
. of the Environmental Assessment will be the consistency of the Strategic Transportation Plan
w.ith the Council-adopted Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
NEXT STEPS
Staff will return to the Planning and Transportation Commission at a later date with a
complete draft Palo Alto Strategic Transportation Plan. The Strategic Transportation Plan
will also include a Financial Plan comprising alternative funding sources for Plan
implementation, including grant revenues and transportation impact fees.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
A. Draft Pa!o Alto Transportation Implementation Plan
B. Draft Transportation Division Peer Review
COURTESY COPIES:
City Council
Frank Benest, City Manager
Strategic Transportation Plan Advisory Panel
Prepared by: Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official
Division Head Approval:
Joseph qd2ott, Chief Transportation Official
City of Pa/o Alto
H:~,CMRS\PT-C\ Transportation Implementation Plan 3-I9-03
Page ,4
ATTACHMENTS A & B
of PTC Report 3/19/03
Revised Draft Transportation Implementation Plan dated March 2003 and
the Transportation division Peer Review have been superceded by the
Revised Draft Transportation Strategic Plan dated April 2004 and attached
to CMR:4.~_:04 at Attachment C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1!
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHAN~EL 26:
Wednesday, 3~larch 19, 2003
SPECIAL/~/IEETING- 7:00 PM
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CaliJbrnia 94301
ROLL C4LL:
Meeting called to order at 7.00 p. m.
Commissioners:
Annette Bialson, Chair
Michael Griffin, Vice-Chair
Karen Holman-absent
Patrick Burr- absent
Bonnie Packer
Phyllis Cassel
Joseph Bellomo
Staff."
Steve Emslie, Planning Director
Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official
Olubayo Elimisha, Staff Secre~a~y
AGENDIZED ITEMS:
1. Transportation Strategic Plan
2. Approval Of Minutes -- None
Chair Bialson: I would like to call this meeting to order. Would the Secretary please call roll.
Thank you. I want it noted that the agenda has me being absent and I am very much here. If
somebody cares to correct the agenda, please go right ahead.
The first item on the agenda is Oral Communications.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda
with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a
speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and
Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15
minutes.
Chair Bialson: I have no speaker request cards so we will close that item.
CONSENT CALENDAR. Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the
calendar by a Commission Member.
Cio’ of Palo A Ito Page
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Chair Bialson: There are no items on the Consent Calendar.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS.
Chair Bialson: There are no Agenda Changes, or Deletions or Unfinished Business.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
Public Hearings: None.
Other Items: None.
Chair Bialson: So we go right into New Business and we have one item on the agenda, which is
the Transportation Strategic Plan. If Staff wishes to speak to that we would all appreciate it.
NE IV BUSINESS.
Public Hearings:
Transportation Strategic Plan: Consideration of draft transportation implementation
plan, proposed transportation system performance measures, and comparative review of
Transportation Division functions.
Mr. Steve Emslie,. Plannin~ Director: Thank you Chair Bialson and members of the Commission
it is my pleasure to introduce tonight the team headed by Joe Kott, our Chief Transportation
Official, who has prepared for you the Strategic Transportation Plan. The Commission will
recall it reviewed this last fall on a preliminary basis and we collected some data from the
Commission and have continued to take data and thank the Commission for their help in filling
out the forms. I recognize they are a little bit complicated but hopefully we were able to explain
it well enough to get through it.
Before the presentation tonight I really wanted to put this in a little bit of context. This is really
if you think about our continuum of policy, this is really a bridge between the policies in the
Comprehensive Plan and its implementation pro~am and the work that Joe is doing and his staff
is doing in implementing the citywide transportation analysis. Thi~ is a necessary, it is a finer
~ain analysis of the issues regarding implementation and a priority setting that is necessary for
us to set the ~oundwork and to contribute and inform the process that is ongoing with the
city,vide transportation plan. So following close in the heels of this work will be the citywide
transportation plan. We do have preliminary findings and analysis to present to the Planning and
Transportation Commission within the next three to four weeks. In fact the next time you will be
seeing Joe it will be a presentation of the preliminary results of the work that Joe and his staff
have been doing on the citywide plan. So I would like to just mention that as something for you
to keep in mind as you hear the presentation. Keep in mind that this is really part of a continuum
of efforts starting from the very cerebral, philosophical level at the Comp Plan and working our
way down to the implementation and funding mechanisms that would be in place in the citywide
transportation plan. With that I am going to turn it over to Joe who will introduce the team and
start off the presentation.
Cio~ of Palo AIto Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Joseph Kott. Chief Transportation Official: Thank you ver?,." much, Steve. Good evening
Commissioners. With me this evening are Staff of Nelson Nygaard Associates, a finn that has
been working with us on this project including Adam Malard Ball seated to my left, Jeffrey
Tumlin who has just raised his hand and John Ells.
This Commission has already considered our proposed performance measures and our proposed
transportation implementation plan in a study session on October 30, 2002. In reference to the
Staff Report you have been given we have three recommendations this evening. A
recommendation that you in turn recommend to Council our Transportation System Performance
Indicators, further recommendations to Council are propose Transportation Implementation Plan
and receive and accept findings of our Transportation Division Peer Review’.
So what is this Transportation Strategic Plan? We see it as really a carrying out of the policy
dictates/mandates of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element. Some of you
worked on the Comprehensive Plan in its deve!opment and you are aware though the document
is very propessive in many ways it does lack a certain amount of detail, which makes it
somewhat difficult to operationalize or take action on or use as an action guide. We see the
strategic plan as providing somewhat more detailed action guidance that we need. We are not
breaking new policy pound here or suggesting that really. We are just trying to make the Comp
Plan more useful to all of us who are engaged in making our transportation system work better
for the community. We will talk later about the various components of the Strategic Plan. Our
focus tonight is on three that is the performance indicators, the Implementation Plan and the Peer
Review.
What are we going to use the Strategic Plan for? Well, it is going to be a guidance for us in
seeking external funding, particularly pant funding. It will be a guide to us in preparation of our
own work propam. In other words we would like to focus our staff resources on the more
meaningful, the more important, aspects of our Transportation Plan. You will give us guidance
on that tonight in terms of what parts of the Transportation Plan and the Comp Plan are most
important. This process that Steve indicated is also a linkage to more specific efforts in some
cases at the intersection level. We will talk about that further too. Overall we see the Strategic
Plan as fostering what you might call fitness to purpose, that is to make sure that our activities,
our resources, our focus is the right one, it is on the more important rather than the less important
activities and projects. So it is a strategic vision or framework for action. Other metaphors,
well, a roadmap may be a good one, clarifies and specifies xvhat is in the Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Element. Our performance indicators really are guidance system and odometer;
think of other metaphors that allow you to understand better where you are going, how fast and
in which direction.
The linkage between this Strategic Plan and our City,vide Land Use and Transportation Study,
which we call the Nexus Study informally, is that the Nexus Study goes down to the intersection
level. The various mitigations be they alternative modes or be they somewhat more traditional
like signal improvements the overall framework for policy, what is important and what is not
will be set in the Strategic Plan, clarified, and the Land Use and Transportation Study wilt
provide specific guidance which will ultimately be put into an ordinance on what to do to make
the major intersections in Palo Alto un-congested in the future. For us in Palo Alto un-congested
means an acceptable level of service not only for vehicles but also for cyclists and pedestrians.
So the Strategic Plan is at a higher level of focus the Land Use and Transportation Study is at a
City qi’Palo A lio Page
1
2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
tactical or nan’ower focus. Again the Strategic Plan looks at overall aggregates, how are we
doing and how do we shift more people to more environmentally benign modes of travel, reduce
the overall dependence on vehicular travel as is prescribed in the Comprehensive Plan, reduce
the overall irnpacts of traffic on residential quality of life, reduce the overall impacts of our
transportation system on other important variables like air quality. We need both perspectives
though this more ag~egate citywide strategic perspective and we also need a tactical specific
one at the intersection level. On April second when we come to you to update you on the Land
Use and Transportation Study we will be at the intersection level of detail not at this higher level
of detail. Both are needed because both provide the kind of guidance one needs.
On to performance indicators there is a lot of interest in this topic these days. This is a document
and there are many like it in different fields but this is specific to transportation. It arrived in my
mailbox the other day from the U.S. DOT. I am not recommending it particularly but it is
interesting because it does relate to performance measures. It is a document ca!led,
~Performance Measurement." It talks about different places in the country that have attempted
to measure their performance in doing what they are doing in transportation, creating a report
card like we are interested in doing here. We would like to create a transparent and policy
relevant set of indicators to tell the community, the Commission and the Council whether we are
moving forward and at what rate toward the goals and objectives set forth in the Comprehensive
Plan Transportation Element. We would like to do this annually in a report card format, put it up
on the web and deliver reports to this Commission annually. It is very difficult to determine how
successful you are without any way of assessing that, without any Fades, without any marks or
indicators. We are proposing a number of them this evening.
The value of the indicators is to focus us on performance and policy. Performance is fine and it
needs to be as good as possible but if it is not relevant to policy it is not important. If the policy
is relevant but the performance is not good that is not helpful either. So we are trying to get the
policy guidance straight and the detailed and actionable as well as the performance measures,
which tell us and tell all of you whei:her or not we are achieving these policy ends. We do
emphasize because we do like empirical measures. This Commission receives a lot of very good
input from the community, it is very important input, much of it based on experience people have
and somewhat subjective experience as experience like that is but we are suggesting some more
objective measures to compliment or supplement testimony this Commission does receive and
we rely on. We have recommended to this Commission a set of performance indicators and we
believe this set will help guide not only us but guide the community policy makers.
I should add that in the process of developing these indicators we did make good use of an
advisory panel. We made good use of a logical framework that was a~eed. The outcome was
pretty good’with one exception and I am taking responsibility for this. I did not a~ee with the
outcome that puts vehicular level of service as secondary measure of performance. My own
view is it should be a primary one that we should track. We do anyway but we should put it as a
major item of importance for us. So I am taking that on my own responsibility to amend that
recommendation you have in your Staff Report to include vehicular LOS as a primary measure.
Dissemination again through the website we need to do a much better job especially in such a
computer literate town as Palo Alto in letting the public kno~v via the web in particular where we
are with traffic impacts, traffic volumes and all the other measures that we talked about in the
performance indicators.
Cio’ qiPalo Alto Page 4
1
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2.._3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
The Implementation Plan this Commission did undergo somewhat painful, I think, mock study
process of assessing and rating by scoring all the projects in our Comp Plan. We are suggesting
that the scores are less important than the broad categories that the scores put the projects into.
We are asking this Commission to apply a straight-face test. If a project has been categorized by
score into a high importance category and it shouldn’t be this Commission as broadly
representative of the community and the community’s interests should have leave to shift it
around regardless of its score. We also have made an attempt to categorize projects by order of
magnitude costs. We have five cost ranges so we are not dealing in just simply an abstraction
here. We are giving you some idea of the price tag of these things. Now most of the items in the
Comp Plan haven’t undergone detailed engineering analysis so these are order of rnagnitude
costs. Readiness is critical. When we have opportunities for ~ants a big issue is are you ready
to take something off the shelf and go with it, do you have at least a conceptual plan, can you
move right into engineering, design and so forth. So we are Nving you a take on project
readiness and that is an important thing to think about.
Lastly, telling you whether we as a community or as a City are the project lead or some of our
regional partners are. Remember the source of our projects including the Comprehensive Plan of
Palo Alto, the Draft Bicycle Plan for Palo Alto but also the big reNonal transportation plans, the
VTA’s long-range plan, which is called VTP2020, and the Transportation Commission’s
ReNonal Transportation Plan. Improvements to Caltrain for example which are vitally important
to Palo Alto we would support and do support as a community through our Council and Comp
Plan but are not under our control or really we would never be a lead in those efforts. Our
approach in the Implementation Plan is developing a logical scoring framework and weighting
various factors of importance in applying those weighted scores to the projects as this
Commission has on October 30. Do keep in mind, as you recall from our study session the
assessments, high, medium and low importance are based on city, vide considerations, citywide
considerations. In other is this project, bicycle boulevards in Palo Alto, is this important
citywide or is it not? That was the grounds on which the scorings and rating were done. Again,
please do focus on the placement of projects and categories not the position within the
categories. Please do keep in mind the strategic and citywide perspective. We will come back to
you every year to do reassessments of these placements.
I should say I ageed with everything except one and this is a big one. Our advisory panel rated
computerized traffic management at low importance category. My own view, again I will take
this as my responsibility, is that it really should be a high importance category. I believe it was
not adequately described. I take responsibility for that. Computerized traffic management will
allow us to do a lot of different things. It w-ill reduce and even eliminate in many cases the need
to widen intersections, which rneans that walkers and cyclists won’t have additional difficulty
getting through intersections and we will have more efficient signal operations. It will allow us
to do some fancy stuff with our signals including eventually giving preference to transit vehicles,
hold the ~een, or keep the red at bay for awhile and let the bus go through. These are
capabilities which really are very much pro alternative modes. They are also pro safety as a
more even traffic flow with a reduced speed differential is much more important than almost any
other variable to keep our roads safe. So computerized traffic flow is highly important and I
would urge the Commission to consider that as a high category of importance.
Next steps in this process, we will come back to the Commission with a funding plan with
sources like gants and sources like the proposed transportation impact fee which will be
Cio~ ojPalo A [to Page 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
¯ 32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
1 described as a result of our transportation land use study and other sources of funding through
2 our Capital Improvement Pro~am and so forth. We are coming back to the Commission with a
3 full scale draft strategic plan which will include, Adam will discuss this a bit, our own prioritized
4 work pro~am for the Transportation Division. We want to right size our effort so that we are
5 focused on what is important taking this from the project level emphasis down to the Staff
emphasis. We would like to get as much leverage from the Staff resources we have because we
are well aware we won’t be able to auganent these resources for a very. long time given the
economy. Eventually we would like to go to Council with this Strategic Transportation Plan
package.
I would be glad to answer questions now or if the Commission prefers we can transfer over to
Adam Malard Ball who will discuss the Strategic Transportation Plan further and actually has a
somewhat different perspective on things.
Chair Bialson: I think we should have him speak at this point.
Mr. Adam Malard Ball. Nelson Nwaard Associates: Thank-you, Joe. Good evening
Commissioners. While I wil! be doing most of the presentation we also have Jeffrey Tumlin and
John Ells who both did some intrinsic study of this analysis so I will be referring to them
depending on the specific questions that come up this evening.
As Joe said, why do we need an implementation plan? The issue is really the Comprehensive
Plan was adopted in 1998 with a very broad vision and there is lots of exce!lent materials and
specific projects and pro~ams in there but it doesn’t really give any guidance as to which are the
most pressing, which should be prioritized the most. Also the implementation plan needs to take
into account the plans that have been developed since then, particularly the Bicycle
Transportation Plan for the City of Pa!o Alto but also a !ot of the regional plans developed by in
particular VTA that have come along since then.
This is all the projects and pro~ams that are actually included in the Comprehensive Plan.
Thirteen of those we don’t really need to worry about here tonight they have already been
implemented or they are already fully funded. Of the remainder there are 15, which are entirely
funded by a different agency. Although they still have an important role for the City in guiding
its advocacy efforts as in which are the most important to press for at the County or the Region
level. There is a further four where the City may need to contribute funds but it isn’t the lead on.
The most important from there in terms of which to prioritize are the 22 which aren’t yet fully
funded, they haven’t been implemented and where it stand the City as the lead agency to
determine how and when they go forward.
So the aim is to provide not only a framework for which projects to pursue for funding but also
in terms of ~vhich to prioritize for Staff time and resources and which to take forward to the next
level of engineering or planning detail. There is also to develop a more specific performance
indicators to assess which projects are in line with the broader goals articulated in the
Comprehensive Plan. We went over a lot of this material in October and since then we have
actually revised a lot of the scoring to incorporate the exercise that you did that night. We have
combined those with the scores we got from the advisory panel. In most cases there were very,
very similar so the actual prioritization didn’t end up changing that much, ~vhich also give us
confidence in our methodology that it is robust enough that given these two different ~oups and
City of Palo .4 lto Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
people, yourselves and the advisory, panel doing the exercise at different times come up with a
broadly similar result. So as I said we have also de-emphasized the actual initial scores in
recognition that this is a very qualitative process. So really emphasizing that the categories that
those fall into which are the highest priority, which are medium and which are low.
We also started work on the second phase of our effort, which is Strategic Plan and Work
Progam, third Transportation Division itself: We have the Peer Review, which we will be
talking about in a bit and it is also in your packet and then we will be following up on that with
additional tasks in the next few months including a strengths/weaknesses analysis, work pro~am
and a funding plan.
So why do we need performance indicators? There are tour key roles of these indicators, which I
want to talk about here. Firstly, in terms of which individual projects best fulfill the City’s goals.
It actually provides a mechanism to assess that on a more objective basis that can allow all the
projects to be compared on an equal footing. It is also an overall report card on how the City’s
transportation network is performing. It can be on the website, it can be presented to the
Commission and to the City Council, and it helps operationalize these broad goals in the
Comprehensive Plan. For example to improve the quality of public transit it is a ~eat goal but it
doesn’t really offer a way to measure that very easily. There is a possible future role in
environmental review, which we are not recommending here tonight but it is ~ornething to bear
in mind for the future. Automobile level of service or vehicular level of service is really the
traditional method of measuring transportation system performance. It refers at each individual
intersection how much delay each motor vehicle is experiencing and then that is rated on a scale
from A to F. The benefit is it is a widely accepted standardized measure but it is also got
unintended consequences. These are measure of movement of vehicles through the system rather
than people. So a bus with say 20 or 30 people on board is counted the same or very little more
than a vehicle with one occupant and bikes and pedestrians don’t really count at all in this. It
also focuses on individual intersections rather than the system-wide congestion. Joe has
recommended adding this to the list of strategic indicators in the Staff Report and I am totally in
a~eement with that in particular it gives flexibility for future work on the Land Use and
Transportation Study and the Nexus Study. It provides a mechanism to levy a fee based on those
vehicle impacts. I also wanted to stress that we are not using this indicator to actually compare
the project performance and actually prioritize projects. It is really a separate indicator that has
more specific uses particularly for the impact fees. Is that fair that we are using to actually
determine which indicators to actually select. Firstly, obviously they have to reflect what was in
the Comprehensive Plan both the spirit and the tone of that plan as welt as some of the specific
policies in the plan. It shouldn’t be an expensive effort to undertake. It should retain a high
level of focus so aren’t bombarded with 20 or 30 indicators and then it is difficult to get a clear
view of what is important and what the overall result is. And it should be comprehensible to the
public and the citizens of Palo Alto should really understand how their transportation system is
performing. As I mentioned also the particular use of the forthcoming Land Use and
Transportation Study or the Nexus Study, which will help levy future development impact fees.
These are same indicators that we brought to you in the study session last fall. The first t~vo are
fairly self-explanatory: reducing vehicle trips and reducing dependency on single occupancy
vehicles. Then the next three are a bit less intuitive. They are related to the concept of vehicular
level of service. If you can assess level of service tor a vehicle you can also come up with a
indicator that provides you with a level of service for a bicycle or a pedestrian or a transit rider.
CiO, of Palo ,4 Iro Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Most of these are based on some excellent innovative work that is being done in Florida, which
the Florida Department of Transportation has recommended for all local jurisdictions in Florida
to adopt and for both in measuring overall transportation system perfomaance and also in
environmental review there. Travel safety and healthy and safe school commute again those are
fairly self-explanatory. These are the only indicators we want to talk about. There is a lot of
excellent data that is already being collected by the Transportation Division or other agencies
particularly VTA. They are actually a good compliment to these six strategic indicators. They
can help analyze the reasons that the changes and trends, analyze why these goals are being
achieved or possibly not being achieved. So we really draw on the existing data that is already
out there. This is just a long list of all of the data which is mostly already out there. For example
ridership on the City shuttle, transit pass sales by VTA and the number of people participating in
the City’s commute program.
It is really important to tie these back into the Comprehensive Plan goals. We are not breaking
new policy ground here. We are really trying to operationalize what is already in the
Comprehensive Plan. So the Comprehensive Plan goals are in the left-hand column and then the
objectives, which are the indicators, which we are looking at tonight, these are ho~v these relate
to the Comprehensive Plan goals on the left. For example I mentioned before convenient,
efficient public transit system that provides a viable alternative to driving. It is a great, goal but it
is difficult to actually measure. So we are proposing to measure it by the following indicators
through transit level of service, how much this transit system actually persuades people to
actually get out of their cars, provides an alternative to driving and therefore leads to a reduction
in vehicle trips.
The main focus of the next section is really how you use these indicators to prioritize the projects
and how you prioritize these 60-odd projects and programs in the Comprehensive Plan to
determine which are the most important to go for~vard with quickly and prioritize the funding.
So there is a qualitative process and that is actually an advantage because it allows all of them to
be compared on a level playing field. Some of them have not been worked up into a great level
of engineering detail so we don’t have the hard data on the precise impacts and sketch level of
analysis and the qualitative system they can all be compared on an equal footing.
So on each of the projects we did this review in October. We also did it with the advisory panel
scoring each project against each indicator. We got a very high level of agreement there. It is
not the only factor to determine which projects to take forward. Cost is obviously a very
important one and also project .readiness, ~vhich can be taken forward straight away and funding
applications drawn up. This most important projects where the City has determined how to
spend the funding available to it but it is also important in guiding regional advocacy efforts. I
want to say particularly for Caltrain or the VTA or even at the regional or MTC level which
projects are most important to fight for from the City’s perspective.
I don’t want to spend much time on this. This is what we did with you last fall, rating each
project on a scale of negative five to positive five. The positive five is a very major positive
impact all the way down to a very major negative impact. There is actually some indicators
which the advisory panel in particular thought were more important than others in particular the
travel safety and promoting a healthy and safe school commute and also reduce vehicle trips. So
a matrix can double or triple any scores that are assigned in those categories to reflect their
relative importance. This is how it looks when you put it all into a matrix. Then actually
Cio’ of Palo A 1~o Page 8
1 converting those into priorities is the next step both to give a clear understanding on which
2 projects to pursue most vigorously and also rather than actually just looking at the score looking
3 at this in a more qualitative fashion which are high priority, which are medium and which are
4 low and helping to assess the costs against the impacts.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22,,.3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
These are the results for the highest priority ones. They are mainly the bicycle and pedestrian
projects also the neighborhood traffic calming scores very highly along with the University
Avenue Intermodal Transit Center. In the medium priority we have again a lot of bicycle and
pedestrian projects and some residential arterials for example along Middlefield Road some
treatments to actually maintain the capacity while making it a safer and more attractive street.
the low priorities, we aren’t saying these aren’t ~vorthwhile projects that they wouldn’t actually
bring benefits to the City just that their overall benefit is likely to be lower than some of the ones
above it in the table. For example the Downtown alleyways that is also very loxv cost and the
transportation information kiosks and I am happy to defer to Joe on the computerized traffic
management that perhaps we didn’t really get over the message of how that impacts transit
riders, bicycles and pedestrians.
The last item is projects where the City of Palo Alto is the lead. These are the ones where there
is another agency in the lead and the City may have to contribute some funding. The BRT on E1
Camino and the Regional Bicycle Plan has come up the most. Actually the roadway link
between the 101 and the Dumbarton Bridge actually comes out as a negative score there that
actually works against a lot of the City’s goals to reduce vehicle trips and promote transit,
walking and cycling.
These are the external projects where the City’s role is really advocacy in determining which to
give the most support to. A lot of the Caltrain projects, electrification and the Baby Bullet come
out really highly there. Then some of the ones that are really less important are perhaps the
Amtrak Coast Daylight, which have a very, very minimal impact if any on local transportation
within the City and issues such as the freeway information monitoring control.
It is difficult to read but what we want is for projects to be in the top left-hand corner where it is
both the lowest cost and the highest benefit. This realiy provides a way to assess the costs
against the benefit. A version of this table is on page 23 of your packet if you want to have a
closer look. The ones that come out best are the ones, which are both really high benefit and also
relatively low cost, which are the neighborhood traffic calming and the bicycle boulevards.
Projects such as the University Avenue Intermodal Transit Center give a really high benefit but
you have to also set against it that it is the highest price tag of any of the projects in the
Comprehensive Plan. As we get to the Downtown alleyways, the bicycles and the pedestrian on
the bottom left is a low priority but it is also a really low cost. So it is one of these small simple
things that you can do that wouldn’t have a major citywide impact but actually will bring maybe
some local benefit and not at a very high cost. Then some of the ones that perhaps don’t score so
well are low benefit but they are also medium or high cost. One is the vertical curbs where we
are replacing the rolled curbs with vertical curbs to stop the cars driving up and parking. Very
badly is the regional solution to the link between the ! 01 and the Dumbarton Bridge, ~vhich
actually has one of the highest price tags and is also a negative benefit. So rather than arriving at
a firm decision on this is number one and this is number two we just want to put it in context.
This is just a general guide but we should be going for the ones in the top left and the ones in the
bottom right are less important. The actually decision in a lot of cases will depend on the
Cio’ of Palo .q !so Page 9
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2~
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
availability of specific sources of funding and project readiness. So there has to be a certain
amount of opportunism there as well.
To move on to the second part of the presentation which fixes on the second phase of the work,
which is the Work Pro~am for the Transportation Division, and looking at the management side
of this and how to manage this work pro~am and what the work priorities should be. Our fist
stage on this was actually to look at five peer cities, which are comparable to Palo Alto. They
were of similar size, there was a major university there so a city within a major metropolitan area
and they also have a reputation for good multi-modal transportation planning. The five there are
Berkeley, Boulder in Colorado, Cambridge on the outskirts of Boston and Davis and Santa
Monica also in California.
One of the issues we looked at is actually where transportation falls in the city’s organizational
chart. Is it its own department or is it like Palo Alto as a division within a bigger department.
Actually only one we looked at where it is its own department is Berkeley. In these cities it is
located within a broader planning or community development department as in Palo Alto, Santa
Monica and Cambridge. Some cities actually put it within public works such as Boulder and
Davis. Then we looked at actually what the responsibilities of the transportation division are
whether it is combined with planning and traffic engineering or whether these functions are
largely separated or whether they were in a completely different departments all together as in
Cambridge. Finally we also looked at the staffing levels for different cities with similar
responsibilities to Palo Alto’s Transportation Division. Actually Palo Alto is fairly high when
you consider the staffing in terms of number of residents but when you look at number of jobs in
the city it is actually the lowest. So it really depends on which you take as having a bigger
impact on the overall transportation prop’am whether it is the residents or the number of jobs.
So without going into detail on that I would say that Palo Alto is fairly in the middle and it is
about right-sized as compared to some of the other departments.
Making comparisons is really difficult because there are so many different factors bet~veen these
different cities. Some of them have very large specific progams that take up a large amount of
staff time. For instance in Santa Monica three of their employees are dedicated just to one
progam, to the Transportation Demand Ordinance. In Boulder they have very extensive local
shuttle system, which compliments the regional transit system, and they have 11 full-time
employees just devoted to that whereas in Palo Alto I think it is a half full-time equivalent
position devoted to the shuttle. So the overall conclusion is that Palo Alto does a lot compared to
other divisions but it doesn’t necessarily go into as much depth or detail on these specific
elements as some of the other cities. I won’t go through any of these in detail but overall these
are the things that Joe’s Division actually does at the moment.
How do we use this and take this into the next steps? We are actually going to work to develop
some goals and objectives and a strengths/weakness option to threats analysis for the division.
We start with the actual prioritized list of projects to develop a more formal wc~rk pro~am for
the Transportation Division. This and the Peer Review will feedback into the Strategic Plan for
Transportation Division which in turn will be a part of this larger Transportation Implementation
Plan which will include everything that I have talked to you about tonight.
Mr. Kott: Adam, just in terms of why we are coming back to the Commission with the Draft
Strategic Plan we need to have guidance about the Transportation Implementation Plan and the
Cio; of Palo .4lto Page l 0
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
perfon~nance measures and some input on the Peer Review before we complete the whole
package. Really the whole package includes the funding plan, we need to determine where we
can get funding likely sources for the higher importance projects. Secondly we need to have
some guidance in terms of what is important and what is not for our detailed staffing Division
Work Pro~am. In order to get some guidance on the Division Work Pro~am we thought you
would need to see the Peer Review too. In order to complete our Strategic Plan we need your
guidance on the critical elements that we need to complete it.
Chair Bialson: So that is the completion of the Staff Report?
Mr. Kott: Yes.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Do the Commissioners have any procedure questions or preliminary,
questions before we ask the public for their comments? You will have an opportunity, for
questions later. Why don’t we hear from the public at this time? We will give each speaker five
minutes. We have only one speaker at this time, Bill Phillips of Stanford.
Mr. Bill Phillips, Stanford: Good evening, Commissioners. I am not trying to make a habit of
this and I am going to try tonight to just speak very broadly about something that I have been
befuddled by since the start of this study, which I think is an excellent study. The target, which
applies to reducing vehicle trips, is to hold total vehicle trips at not more than 2002 levels even
with population and employment ~owth. So maybe I am not getting it but here is my problem.
2002 was a period, which continues to today of probably of anywhere from 18% to 25% vacancy
in our office buildings Downtown, throughout the Research Park and just about everywhere
other than probably along Welch Road. If you are going to hold the vehicle trips down to that
high vacancy level then as the employees start to come back in and occupy that vacant space and
hopefully begin purchasing in our shops again hey are all going to have to be somehow shifted to
another non-vehicle mode of travel. If that is the case I am just not seeing how you are going to
do that. There is no evidence so far in what in what I have done in terms of reviewing ag~essive
TDM in business parks, what I have seen in terms of ag~essive TDM in cities in California that
would get the mode choice off of single occupancy vehicles and into a non-vehicle type of trip.
Where any business park, where any city has been somewhat successful is moving those single
occupancy trips into van or carpool trips but those are vehicles. So I a~ee with the objective. I
think there is a challenge there that can be ~appled with and dealt with fairly successfully but I
think you have setup a target that is very unrealistic and is going to come into conflict with any
goals that the City may have regarding restoring its economic health at this time. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. I have one more speaker, Joy Ogawa. Joy, you will have five
minutes.
Ms. Joy Ogawa. 2305 Yale Street. Palo Alto: Thank you. I just turned in a copy of the October
30 minutes where I made my comments. Actually it took me quite awhile to find those because
there was nothing in the Staff Report indicating the previous date of the Study Session. There
was no procedural history so there was no context and there was no indication that the Planning
Commission had made comments or that members of the public had made comments and how
they had been addressed. I made comments at that previous meeting about how" I really wanted
to see reduction in cut-through traffic be one of the performance indicators. I pointed out ~vhere
in the Comprehensive Plan it talks about reducing cut-through, Policy T-28 and Policy T-30. It
Ci~3, o_iPalo Alto Page
1
2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
really makes sense to me that reduction in cut-through traffic as performance indicator would
make a lot of sense. I don’t understand why it was not included or not addressed in any way. So
I just am curious to see why it is not talked about in the Staff Report. Is it because they just
forgot about it or is it because they thought about it and decided that it is not a good performance
indicator for whatever reason?
The other thing when I look at the Staff Report and the results of the rankings with these
performance indicators I do see neighborhood traffic calming getting ranked very high. Then I
think about the budget survey that the City did recently and how neighborhood traffic calming
ranked really low in priority of things that the residents wanted to see be a priority. I wonder
about why there is that disconnect. I think part of it is a disconnect between the theoretical
performance of neighborhood traffic calming, what it is supposed to do theoretically and maybe
the actual performance that we have experienced in Palo Alto. I think that actually residents
maybe understandably lack confidence in neighborhood traffic cahning giving us a good result.
So actually that makes me wonder how useful this ranking, these performance indicators and this
ranking, will really be in ten:as of something practical. If it is just kind of a theoretical thing that
is really OUt of touch with the experience of residents and the opinions of residents. Those are
my thoughts. Thank you very much.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. I have no other speaker request cards so we will close the public
portion of this and bring it back to the Commission. Bonnie, would you care to say something?
Commissioner Packer: I have a couple of questions. One, I appreciate the comment that Mr.
Phillips made about the baseline for reducing vehicle trips. I remember raising that question
during our study session. If you could answer that. Also there is a little bit of a description of
how you define a trip and is the issue trips in general or trips in specific areas ~vhen you get
down to that land use level study if you are going to do a relationship bet~veen an absolute
number of trips or trips in certain areas of the City that are more highly impacted than other
areas..
Mr. Kott: The specific indicator here is on motor vehicle trips. Motor vehicle trips create
impacts not so much person trips. It is good for people to travel. We would like more people to
travel in a less impactful way if at al! possible, for example walking and cycling and using shared
ride vehicles like transit vehicles. The indicator suggested here focuses on the impactful kind of
travel that is the level of vehicle trips, the vehicle trip volume. Here xve are talking about an
ag~egate measure that is what I probably described to this Commission more times than you
want to hear, it is a title measure. It is an overall level of traffic in the City measured by total
vehicle trips. Presumably we want to hold the tide. Now, what happens at the individual
intersection level is more for the analysis of the transportation and land use so-called Nexus
Study where we zoom, it is kind of like Map Quest where you zoom in, geo~aphically zoom in.
That is what we are doing in that study. Here we are dealing with ag~egate. We know that in
the aggegate more vehicles create a lot of conmnunity bads. They not only include traffic
congestion along corridors and at intersections but they include other impacts of traffic that
decade residential quality of life and make it difficult for walkers and cyclists and all that.
In terms of the baseline I think Bill has raised a very good point. In fact, Bill typically raises
very good points. This is a very strict baseline and he is certainly r{ght that 2002 was a
recessionary year, which translates into less travel at peak periods. In Palo Alto we import a lot
CiO, of Palo A!go Page 12
1
2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
of jobs. You saw the measurement of FTE per population and per jobs. This may be self-
serving but jobs really count a lot because those commute trips come in during peak hours. We
are setting a strict standard and that is certainly for this Commission’s discussion and debate.
Remember one of the bravest experiments along this line of setting baselines is what Portland,
Maine did a number of years ago. They set as their baseline rolling back commute trips to 1980
levels and they did their strategic plan exercise in about 1994 or 95. 1980 was a year that was
still effected by the second oil embargo, the Iranian War oil embargo, there was a lot of
carpooling and a blip up in transit usage and a lot of interest in cycling. So that was a severe
standard. I haven’t kept up with them and I am not sure whether they have come near to
attaining, my guess is they have not. We have consciously decided to set a strict standard, which
is going to mean that we are going to have to divert a lot of trips from vehicles over to alternative
modes.
Commissioner Packer: I want to respond to that because if I may because when I looked at the
project scorings as related to the performance indicators only those projects that are in the
regional area were scored as to have any impact on reducing auto trips. All the other ones that
are within our control in Palo Alto that have ones and twos, reduce vehicles trips there are some
twos, but none of these projects are going to have a significant impact on reducing trips. So
there is a disconnect between the performance indicators and the projects that we are being asked
to prioritize. That bothers me if we are going to have a strict baseline.
Mr. Kott: There is something in economics called facilitating investment as a concept. In order
to make something work you not only need to do an action, make an investment, build something
but often you need supplementary things to happen too. For example to be a little more concrete,
with Caltrain Baby Bullet which is a ~eat project and which if it succeeds will divert a lot of
people from their-automobiles to the train because the train is going to be twice as fast. In order
to make that really work there will need to be an improvement in local access to these train
stations including shuttles, cycling and walking pro~ams and facilities and so forth. Without the
access the major benefit of the regional transit improvement will not materialize. That is what I
consider to be facilitating investment. The primary investment is Caltrain and Baby Bullet in
that instance. "So the local actions are very important but in terms of regional commuting they
need to partner up with the big regional projects.
Mr. Ball: IfI can add a little to what Joe said, first I think it is really important to keep in mind
that we are not suggesting these indicators will be used for development decisions. It is not a
case of you won’t be able to build anything more because it might make the transportation report
card look worse. It is really that the Comprehensive Plan says that there is an aim to actually
reduce vehicle trips in the City. This is a way of operationalizing that. It is a very tough
challenge but there are some good examples of places that have achieved that, Cambridge,
Massachusetts is one and right here in your backyard Stanford University which is got its no net
new vehicle trips a~eement ~vith the County but it still managed to accommodate a lot of ~owth
in recent years.
Related to Commissioner Packer’s question on the impact it is true that most of the projects we
are looking at will have a small impact city,vide and to a great extent that reflects that most of
the transportation system not just in Palo Alto but anywhere is already built and so the marginal
impact of any change you make is going to be relatively small. What we really need to look at
even though each project in itself xvill have a small impact that when you actually sum the
CiO, qfiPalo .4 llo Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
t9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
impacts from various projects and combine that with good development decisions then those
ones and twos start to add up to fours and fives. I think it is fair that there is no single magic
bullet actually solving the City’s transportation problems. A lot of it is working around the
edges and combining the impacts of various projects.
Chair Bialson: Okay. Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: Joe, I would like to have you address a question dealing with the Peer
Review portion of this Staff Report. Benchrnarking our own Palo Alto Transportation
Department with like organizations throughout the country is extremely important. I found,
however, that it was difficult for me to really judge the validity of these choices because I really
didn’t understand the general population of cities that you examined and why they were rejected
and you found these people to me more of a right-on hit. Would you like to talk about that?
Mr. Kott: Yes, of course. Analogies are always difficult to make because no two situations are
ever identical. The cohort we have suggested and we have used a model that colleges and
universities do all the time when they compare themselves for recruiting students and faculty for
example with others. The method we used was to select which cities around this country are
reputed to be the best in multi-modal transportation planning. We have decided consciously to
put ourselves in that cohort. Now, Palo Alto has a very distinguished history in bicycle
transportation for example. It is often cited nationally for that reason. We think we belong in
that peer goup. We aspire to be if we are not quite there but I think the membership in a cohort
like that is always debatable. You could certainly add or subtract communities quite readily and
have pretty good arguments for doing that. Just in our trade terms these are the 15est in the
United States in comparable sizes. Plenty of cities larger also have wonderful transportation
planning pro~ams. Portland, Oregon for example clearly does.
Chair Bialson: Commissioners, if there are no more questions in general are being asked I would
like to have us go through this in a way that it has been presented, that is number one, two and
three. If you have some more questions in general about procedures then do so.
Commissioner Cassel: I think these can be worked in except for the fact that I kind of would like
a response to Joy’s question.
Mr. Kott: I think Adam may want to offer one too but we are certainly very concerned about
cut-through traffic. It is a major problem in Palo Alto near congested intersections. The problem
relates to collecting data that is cost effective on cut-through traffic. Now the trade way to do it
is called an Origin Destination Study. College Terrace working with us just did one of those. It
is extremely labor intensive. The procedure is license plate last four-digit matching of vehicles
entering and exiting an area. In order to collect a significant enough sample of cut-through
locations and update that database was at least in our view not cost effective. I should say for
cut-through traffic that is an important criterion for qualification and ranking in our Traffic
Calming Pro~am. When and where we have the resources we do an analysis of cut-through
traffic. We do a study of cut-through traffic. Our ordinary procedure though is to use a map and
use professional judgment as to whether or not a location is subject, and of course resident
testimony, to cut-through traffic. So that is a reason why we did not include that as an indicator
we would have to update.
City of Palo Alto Page 14
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
!6
17
18
19
20
21
22.,,_3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Joe.
Commissioner Bellomo: Just a follow up.
neighborhood calming or would you?
How would you differentiate cut-through traffic and
Mr. Kott: Commissioner Bellomo the criteria of interest in the neighborhood traffic calming
progam include not only the volume of traffic on a street but the speed of that traffic and the
crash history, on the street, proximity to schools, variables like that some quantitative and some
less quantitative.
Commissioner Bellomo: Would you like me work my questions into your next line?
Chair Bialson: If we could let’s try. to go through and have this on a item similar to the way the
Staff has presented it. In other words, I would like to first address the system performance
indicators proposed by Staff. We have already had one modification of what has been set forth
in the Staff Report and the bringing forward of the level of service from the sub-indicator to the
strategic performance indicator table. What I understand from you, Joe, is these are directly tied
to Comp Plan policies and what you want the Commission to respond to is whether we want any
added. In other words, if they are already here and we a~ee with it enough said but if there are
additional ones or modifications perhaps about ranking does that make any difference or are we
assuming everything on figure one is equal rank?
Mr. Kott: Yes, Chair Bialson, I should add too you see under the Years column, 2007, 2012 and
baseline to be determined. We need to do data collection and in some cases figure out an
adequate methodology for collecting and maintaining data. You are right we would like to know
whether this list is adequate to fit the purpose. The purpose being is it well tied to our
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies not to public opinion surveys as important as they are but
this is specifically intended to test whether or not we are carrying out the Comprehensive Plan,
which was adopted by Council in 1998.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Yes, Joe? If we don’t have questions about it and we don’t seem to,
ah, Bonnie has a question.
Cornmissioner Packer: I am trying to understand the real difference between the first two
indicators, reducing vehicle trips and reducing reliance on single occupancy vehicles. If you
reduce reliance on single occupancy vehicles I assume you are going to reduce the vehicle trips.
Or if we said something like increase transit or other modes of transportation as opposed to
saying reduce vehicle trips. I wonder if there is a real difference of it is just the way that you
collect data. Can you address that?
Mr. Kott: In one case depending on how you look at things it may be a worst dase, maybe it is
the best case, I am not sure. But if there is just a lot of ~owth, a lot of development we may
very ~vell be in the position where we are able through active programs, successful progams,
Baby Bullets, etc., reduce the mode share of single occupant vehicle trips but end up having
more vehicle trips per se. Maybe we have a lot more carpools but we have a whole lot more
employees so on net we get more vehicles even though we have a lower solo occupant share. It
is by the way, you are right Commissibner in I think what you are implying here there is an
CiO’ of Palo A ho Page ] 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
t8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
overlap and it may be kind of a redundancy to it. It is sort of an insurance policy is one way of
looking at it. Adam?
Chair Bialson: Joe, do you have a comment to make? Why don’t we just speak to it?
Commissioner Bellomo: I guess Joe I would like to speak to the strategic performance indicators
in regards to education/incentives. One thing that I feel might be missing is how important those
two elements are where to reduce vehicle trips each person must be educated as to why that is
necessary. Bill spoke to it as a retail and office developer I am just wondering how do you see
that fitting in, that education progam, ten years from now our next half a generation is educated
to a point where they understand the value of getting out of the vehicle. Where is that policy and
how does that implement?
Mr. Kott: That is a lot like the value of education in terms of traffic safety, awareness raising,
training pro~ams for kids cycling for example or programs that we have done in the past that
were not always terribly well received for example our "As if’’ advertising campaign and any
effort that raises people’s awareness about safety. It is very hard to document the direct effect
that has on crashes. We can certainly measure how many advertisements we display, if we put
up banners for traffic safety, how many of those are put up. But the importance is not the .
number of banners or the number of training sessions it is the crash rate. We are going to have to
figure out as these variables change like the vehicle trips in the case of education on mode choice
we will have to figure out the right mix to make that indicator go the right way. That is why the
report card idea is so important. We can report to you that we have done 50 training sessions for
people to use their bicycles better and we do have a very good training pro~am, I think
Commissioner you know that along these lines, but if we don’t know whether it is having any
effect at all in combination with other things then it is an empty number. The effect of education
is not directly measurable in our view. So it is the kind of activity that contributes to the overall
variable we are interested in. We are interested in measuring that variable, traffic volume.
Chair Bialson: Okay. Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: I have a question. Actually I have two questions. One is I didn’t quite
catch the sub-indicators that were listed before. The other is I don’t understand on proposed
strategic performance indicators in the middle under where it says Improved Conditions for
Pedestrians, to increase the length of commercial streets with pedestrian level of service A or B
and below it to increase the length of Other defined pedestrian routes with pedestrian level of
service. I didn’t understand what that is talking about in there. You had four sub-indicators up
there and I missed which four they were sub-indicators that were important.
Mr. Ball: For the sub-indicators on page five of Attachment A, that lists a lot of them. This isn’t
really meant to be exclusive because aim of the sub-indicators will really be driven by what data
is available or what can be obtained with very minimal additional effort. As it stands we have a
good spread but that is really what is driving it rather than what we are listing here. On page five
it is really a reflection of the data that is already available. Does that answer your question?
Commissioner Cassel: In your conversation and in your slides you had four sub-indicators that
you thought were more important than others.
City qiPalo ,4 lzo Page 16
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
¯43
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Ball: I apologize ifI created that impression. They are just examples. I am sorry ifI gave
that impression.
Commissioner Cassel: The other question had to do with trying to understand the description of
improved conditions tbr pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users. I didn’t quite understand the
description in here.
Mr. Ball: For the pedestrian and bicycle level of service indicators these are relatively new
indicators. We are looking at the work that has been done in Florida. They have done extensive
surveys into what makes people walk and what pedestrians think is a good walking street. There
are issues like if there is a sidewalk, how wide is the sidewalk, if there is a buffer between the
pedestrians and the travel lane.
Commissioner Cassel: Right, but I don’t understand what this means, "to increase the length of
commercial streets with pedestrian level of service A or B." I guess I don’t understand what that
means.
Mr. Ball: So rather than measure that for every single street in the City we want to really focus
on the streets that are most important for pedestrians. That is really commercial streets is the
first one and then other key pedestrian routes which might include parts of safe routes to schools
and really focus our efforts on there and what the number of or the acma! length of those streets
virtually A or B that are the best to actually increase over time.
Commissioner Cassel: To increase the length of the street that meets the service A and B?
Mr. Kott: Yes, right.
Commissioner Cassel: Okay, I am just having a language problem, sorry.
Chair Bialson: You weren’t the only one. Michael?
Commissioner Griffin: I was just going to say it is the number of lineal feet of street that has a
LOS of A for example or LOS of B.
Mr. Kott: Good reference, Commissioner Griffin, you are right. In our Staff Report Level of
Service criteria you may recall we have proposed adoption of a bicycle level of service. One
example I gave was an analysis I did of Charleston and Arastradero I rated it using the Florida
methodology. We would seek to determine how many miles of the relevant street where in
category A, LOS A for bikes and peds, LOS B. Ten miles in A, four miles in B, six miles in C.
Chair Bialson: Michael.
MOTION
Commissioner Griffin: I would like to make a motion that we recommend to Council the
Transportation System Performance Indicators proposed by Staff with the addition that we have
had tonight of adding the LOS indicator to the strategic measurement.
Cio’ of Palo ,4 leo Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Kott: Pardon me, Chair Bialson and Commissioner Griffin, to clarify the vehicle level of
service?
Commissioner Griffin: That is correct.
Chair Bialson: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: Michael, if you will allow me I still have a couple of questions. One
question is going back to the trip reductions and the data, how you would collect that data. You
talked about travel diaries. What is a travel diary and how would you get people to fill it out
especially in light of concerns about privacy and horrible things like the Patriot Act?
Mr. Kott: The travel diary is an accepted and conventional tool in transportation planning. It
involves having people fill out in diary format typically a week of trave! by what mode, how
many times, for what purpose. It gives a lot more texture than simply counting vehicles. It is a
method that has been used for many years by the U.S. Department of Commerce in producing
every five years the National Personal Transportation Survey. We would use the very same
format so we would compare our data with the national data. It is a very big sample nationally.
In terms of the Patriot Act these responses are strictly anonymous. I have never seen a study that
identifiedan individual with a form of travel behavior.
Commissioner Bellomo: Do Ci~ employees currently fill these travel diaries out?
Mr. Kott: No, that is an interesting methodolo~cal problem. I think given our budget situation I
think we will seek volunteers but we will try to stratify the volunteer base on demogaphics so
we have a representative sample. And ask people out of the goodness of their heart and interest
to fill out diaries. That is likely to be our approach.
Chair Bialson: Bonnie, you said you have some more questions and then we will go back to the
motion.
Commissioner Packer: That was my last question.
SECOND
Chair Bialson: Okay. Any second to the motion? I will second it. Any comment by the maker
of the motion?
Commissioner Griffin: I guess I would say that I think these indicators do relate to the Comp
Plan objectives and I am particularly pleased that we were able to add the vehicle LOS indicator
to the strategic performance listing. I think that is all I will say about that.
Chair Bialson: I really don’t have any additional comments. I think what we are trying to do
here is bring forward the Comp Plan into some sort of concrete indicators and measurable
standards and I think that is what this does. Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I would like to suggest a friendly amendment. I would like to go to the
issue about the baseline for the vehicle trips, which is at 2002 and it says in Appendix A that we
C?O, of Palo AIto Page 18
1
2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
don’t have data yet for 2002 because we haven’t done the diaries. So I would like to recommend
that we leave the baseline open for a year until there is money in the budget to do these diaries.
We don’t know when that is going to be and we have a baseline that has been appropriately
quantified and then we can go from there. Joe is shaking his head. I don’t know if he wants to
comment?
Chair Bialson: Joe, do you want to comment?
Mr. Kott: If I may Chair Bialson and Commissioner Packer, just in tenns of our work pro~am
and our procedure. I believe we will be able to accomplish a travel diary using volunteer efforts.
It is very. important data. We are, however, certainly open to the baseline year and we are open
to ways in which we might adjust the baseline to reflect the economy. There may be some ways
that we could actually factor up, if it is 2003 that is the baseline, factor up the baseline by some
factor that would reflect recessionary conditions. In other words normalize the baseline to reflect
normal economic conditions. These are more or less methodological issues but I think they are
handlable.
Chair Bialson: Phyllis.
Commissioner Griffin: My question is how do you peg the perfect year? One of the things that
appealed to me about 2002, Bonnie, was the fact that we had backed offofthe all-time high in
the year 2000, I am going to say. How do you go about establishing this average, which is what
we are trying to use as our base point?
Mr. Kott: Certainly in practical terms we should have put 2003 anyway because if we collect the
baseline, if we make a baseline we need to have data that people fill out in the-timeframe, in the
sampling frame, which in this case is 2003. So we really should have corrected our text to say
2003. We are a bit behind because remember we had to reschedule this meeting and we have
been delayed. In terms of what is a normal year and the whole issue of baseline the employment
levels are way down and I think Bill’s comments are certainly correct. I think we may be able to
put in a factor that reflects the employment levels currently in Palo Alto compared to the levels
that prevailed in what may be a more normal year. We have to get advice from people in the
business coimnunity and maybe an economist on this. I doubt whether 2000 was a normal year
either. If we factor this data, if we take 2003 and say this isn’t normal and let’s increase the base
by 20% because that is what it would look like if we had normal employment we would need to
get some advice from an expert in terms of what would be a normal employment level in Palo
Alto. So I can’t really answer that now.
Commissioner Griffin: So it sounds like in any event the year 2002 is not going to be used.
Would you restate your amendment, please?
AMIENDMIENDED MOTION
Commissioner Packer: Okay. A friendly amendment would be that we recommend these
strategic performance indicators with a modification to the description of the first one which is
reducing vehicle trips to have a baseline that is 2003 adjusted for normal economic conditions as
determined by an economic analysis.
CiO’ o./Palo Alio Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Griffin: I would accept that.
Chair Bialson: I accept it as well. So that is the motion at this point on the table. Any other
comments, Phyllis?
Commissioner Cassel: I am glad to see that we are including levels of service for bicycles,
pedestrians and transit users in this evaluation. I think it is very important. I will be mean, I ~vill
be happy to take the baseline at 2003 and see what we can do with it. It makes it much harder I
recognize the problems. On the other hand it is a tough goal. Those are basically my comments.
MOTION PASSED
Chair Bialson: Any other comments before the vote? Let’s vote.
All those in favor of the motion please say aye. (ayes) Any opposed? That passes five to zero
with Commissioners Burt and Holman not in attendance.
Let’s go on to item number two which is the ranking and high, medium and low priorities for the
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Projects and ProgTams. They are set forth in our
Attachment A, figure nine. Do I have any questions or comments with regard to that? Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: Joe, I would like to ask a question about the bike and pedestrian paths
under Alma Street. That is a high score priority is it true that we do have virtually complete
funding for that project?
Mr. Kott: Yes, Commissioner Griffin, we do have complete funding for the Homer
Undercrossing. Our Public Works engineering staffwil! present a report to Council about that
funding picture later.
Commissioner Griffin: And you have previously stated that your recommendation is that the
computerized traffic management project which is currently in a low score priority you are
moving that to the high score priority list.
Mr. Kott: Yes, Commissioner Griffin, ~ve would appreciate Commission’s consideration of that.
Chair Bialson: Any one else, Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I have a question on some projects that aren’t here. I apologize for not
raising this in our study session. There are a number of programs in the Comp Plan that are
related to TDM, it doesn’t say those words exactly, but there is one encourage carpooling and in
that whole area the T-6, T-5, T-8 around there. We have been talking a lot about TDM progarns
in our discussions of various projects that have come before us and in the Zoning Ordinance
Update. So I wondered why a TDM management progam of some sort wasn’t included as a
project. That would really help out in the reduction of vehicle trips.
Mr. Kott: That is a very good point. As you know, Commissioner Packer, we do have a City
TDM Coordinator. We do emphasize that and it would be a very useful addition to this list.
Cio~ qt~Palo ,4 l~o Page 20
1 Commissioner Cassel: Where does it go on the list?
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
!5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.,
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Kott: My own bias, even though it hasn’t been scored per our procedure here, would be a
high category.
Chair Bialson: The Homer and Channing Avenues to two-way that has a cost benefit rank of
nine and yet it is a low score priority. What are your feelings about that particular project?
Mr. Kott: Apart from the scoring results and speaking personally, these are my own views
strictly, this project would likely be very beneficial. We have Staffhave stated our interest and
support for it. The transportation benefit of it compared to other activities and projects appears
to be limited not that it is not a worthwhile project.
Chair Bialson: Also, in the vertical curb item I see that as an assist to pedestrian use because the
parking on curbs that are rolled is a real irnpediment to pedestrians using those streets. So long
as it is a general subject like this it is very hard to put it anywhere but the lo~v priority section. Is
there anyway to break out vertical curbs in sections and perhaps have those prioritized
differently?
Mr. Kott: If the Commission chooses a good approach might be vertical curbs on school
commute corridors.
Chair Bialson: Do you want to add something, Phyllis?
Commissioner Cassel: I had a question on procedure here. You have it down as additional
costs. This an accepted goal through the City Council, an accepted plan, and yet it is simply not
being implemented in any way at all. In my area I have seen recently on some of my walks
whole sections or blocks being redone in rolled curbs. My sense is that there is just not any
implementation. People are not being t01d we are going to do curbs if you tell us otherwise or
something positive. They are not even being approached about whether their neighborhood
should go into straight curbs. Nothing is being done. So isn’t some of this just an
implementation decision on the part of the City that it is going to start moving in that direction?
Mr. Kott: When we are asked to advise we always advise replacement of rolled curbs with
vertical curbs. This is done as you ~know in our fine Public Works Department. There is an
incremental cost to doing that. I think that may be a consideration. Our own advice simply from
a transportation.safety point of view is ~vhen possible it should be done, yes, and certainly in
compliance with Council direction.
Commissioner Cassel: I guess my question is the other way around. What happens to make the
policy of the City happen if your recommending when it can and we are recommending when it
can and this clearly is not a department interested in other departments?
Mr. Kott: The other departments I think in fairness should be here. I would say Commissioner
Cassel this is a very good idea. Every project on this list is worthy. The problem is how worthy.
CiO, qfPalo A l~o Page 2 !
1
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
t9
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Commissioner Cassel: I guess I didn’t see how much additional cost there is if it is in a
neighborhood we are already doing the streets and the curbs on them. I a~ee with Chair Bialson
that for safety of pedestrians and comfort of pedestrians this is critical.
Chair Bialson: So what do we do about it, Joe? We have your agreement but how do we
respond to Phyllis’s point?
Mr. Kott: Commissioner Bialson, my suggestion would be to put in high priority replacernent of
rolled curbs with vertical curbs on school commute corridors and other sensitive streets.
Commissioner Bellomo: I would like to add to that that upon redevelopment of certain areas that
the rolled curbs are exchanged for vertical curbs. I know I have seen a lot of projects come
through where the transitional points of rolled to vertical is a bit difficult and they decide to
continue the rolled curb versus the vertical so there is not that awk~vard transition and it becomes
a hazard too so there is another point.
Chair Bialson: It seems as if we can say on school corridors or as curbs are replaced that they go
to vertical because replaced or initial created and perhaps we can have that moved up to a higher
priority. If again these are sort of tests for the Commissioners to look at and say okay we have
this ranking but now that we have the ranking what do we feel about it as individuals? So we
apply the so-called straight-face test that Joe mentioned. I should think that with regard to the
vertical curbs we can place that if not at high maybe to medium priority. I would be interested in
what the other Commissioners feel about that. Can we speak to that and any other things you do
want to have placed? Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: I would certainly support the gradual elimination 0frolled curbs if we
can possibly talk our friends in the Public Works Department into cooperating with us. So I
would support that, Phyllis. I would also like to apply the straight-face test to the last item in the
medium priority listing, remove through traffic lanes in commercial areas. As I understand it
this has to do with reducing the number of vehicular lanes in commercial zones in order to make
room for more bicycle lanes. Is that the concept?
Mr. Kott: I think the idea in the Comprehensive Plan, Commissioner Griffin, ~vas similar to
some of the ideas with the E1 Camino Real to create room for cycling lanes and widening
sidewalks and so forth. In other words, make the street multi-model.
Commissioner Griffin: And the two Downtown areas for example on California and University?
Mr. Kott: Yes and potentially other places. There are other commercial street frontages in Palo
Alto so the language is somewhat general in that sense.
Commissioner Griffin: Speaking for myselfI would rather see that become a low priority item
as opposed to medium. I would be interested in what other Commissioners had to say about that.
Chair Bialson: I will say that I feel the same ~vay you do but let’s hear from the other
Commissioners. Joe.
City Qf Palo ,4 lto Page 22
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.,
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
~43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Bellomo: Can you explain that again, Joe, what exactly the meaning of that
removal?
Mr. Kott: It is taking the street cross-section whatever width it is and reconfiguring it.
Commissioner Bellomo: So for example University Avenue with parking on each side and a two
lane roadway.
Mr. Kott: Yes, Commissioner Bellomo, at some point that is what happened to University
Avenue. As the Commission knows that was prdposed on some sections of E1 Camino Real with
the E1 Camino Real plan.
Chair Bialson: And in Midtown also I believe it ~vas also proposed.
Mr. Kott: Yes, that has been muted in front of Midtown on Middlefield bet~veen Colorado and
Oregon, not the entire len~h but a section of that.
Chair Bialson: Comments by other Commissioners?
Commissioner Packer: Yes. I see it, it says, evaluate smoothing and slowing traffic flow in
commercial areas by reducing through traffic lanes. I think we saw examples of that in the E1
Camino Plan last week. So in certain areas it may make a lot of sense. It is not in all areas.
These are just little phrases to talk to a more complicated program. I don’t think by approving
these phrases we are approving just the phase. It is just a little shorthand for something that is
more comprehensive and more specific. So I think it is okay where it is because I wouldn’t want
it lower because that would be contradictory to what we thought about the E! Camino design.
Commissioner Cassel: At first I agreed with you and then I though I don’t want it lower either
because we are already be~m~ing to work on this in Midtown with some concerns we have in
Midtown and some layout. It has already gone before the residents association there and I think
they have been working on it.
Commissioner Bellomo: I propose to leave it where it resides as well.
Chair Bialson: Any other items that you may wish to switch priorities on again realizing that
they are rather broad? I want to remind the Commissioners that computerized traffic
management is being recommended to go up to high priority from low. We have already talked
about vertical curbs coming up to high. Anything else? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: Based on the little exchange that Joe and I had before about traffic
demand management I would like to ask the Commissioners where in the high, medium and low
the Commissioners feel a traffic demand management program would fit.. I would think it should
be high.
Commissioner Griffin: I would certainly support that.
Commissioner Bellomo: I a~ee with that too.
CiO, of Paio ,4 lto Page 23
1
2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Bialson: You have unanimity there.
Cormnissioner Packer: Can I suggest a couple of other very general progams based on what you
said, Joe, about education, driver education awareness of the importance of reducing trips and
also the safety and then related to that is police enforcement which I know is very expensive and
is controversial in terms of effectiveness. Exploring how raising people’s awareness about the
impacts of their behavior on the streets and if there are pro~ams that would do that. I keep on
thinking of an analogy of how we went from not recycling to recycling as a matter of habit. That
was done over many years with education and incentives. I wonder if there are pro~ams to
explore that could help improve everyone’s a~vareness of what they are doing when they are on
the road.
Chair Bialson: I appreciate what you are saying, Bonnie, but what we are talking about is trying
to prioritize these things that are sort of on work pro~arns already. By adding more things I
don’t think that is doing what we are being requested of this particular evening. I am open to
what other Commissioners feel. Yes, Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: Bonnie, if you want to keep going on that vein that is fine but I wanted to
bring up another item here. Off-road paths which is currently in the medium priority listing and
if I understand correctly that is to utilize Matadero Creek right-of-way during the non-flood
season apparently in order to get under Alma Street as well as some other ideas. Perhaps you
could elaborate on that, Joe.
Mr. Kott: Yes, Commissioner Griffin. There are some links in the Draft Bicycle Plan that do
depend on off-road facilities. Most of our bike plan envisions on-road for a number of reasons
but there are some links as you mentioned, that are off-road and that is the intent of the Comp
Plan reference to pursue those projects. Another big one is this Bay to Foothills trail that would
off-road not on-road.
Commissioner Griffin: That one is a low score item and I would propose that off-road paths
which is currently medium also be scored lo~v along with the Bay to Foothills path. Comments?
Chair Bialson: Yes, I would a~ee with you on that. How are the other Commissioners leaning
on that one? Ph>;llis.
Commissioner Cassel: I don’t. I think one of the critical pieces of making a bicycle or
pedestrian path work is the links and the connections that happen between good roads. I don’t
anticipate these are necessarily long ones. I agree that the Bay to Peak path is not going to
produce much in terms of vehicle trips for jobs and things of that sort but little links in the City
when we can get them, and it will depend on when we can get the connections, are really
important to making it easier for bicyclists and giving you a preference to taking a bicycle trip
because it is actually shorter.
Chair Bialson: Joe.
Commissioner Bellomo: I concur with Phyllis. I think she brings up a good point about these
nodes and connectivity. Thank you, Phyllis.
Cio~ of Palo A l~o Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Biatson: I take it you agree, Bonnie?
Commissioner Packer: I a~ee with Phyllis and Joe.
Chair Bialson: I like the philosophy. Any other attempts at moving some of these items or are
we absent the comments we have already made relatively satisfied with the project ranking?
Commissioner Bellomo: Aside from the project ranking I would like to put an asterisk at the
bottom of this that really many of these be implemented in the Zoning Ordinance Update. That
in tact a lot of these are connectivity into the development regarding land use and development
agencies. We are concurring with how they parallel with Public Works, the Planning
Department, etc. This is a big asterisk for me that these kind of feed into that Update.
Chair Bialson: Michael.
MOTION
Commissioner Griffin: I would make a motion that we recommend to City Council the list as
Staff has proposed it including moving the computerized traffic management pro~am from low
to high and adding an item for TDM progams likewise with a high status.
Chair Bialson: And vertical curbs?
Commissioner Griffin: And the third addition would be the ~adual change to vertical curb as
old curbs and sidewalks are replaced particularly along the school corridors.
Commissioner Packer: As a medium priori~;? We move it from low to medium or low to high?
Commissioner Griffin: Medium.
Chair Bialson: Joe.
Commissioner Bellomo: I think and as development occurs within the rolled curb zones.
Commissioner Griffin: I accept.
Chair Bialson: A second?
SECOND
Commissioner Cassel: I’1l second.
Chair Bi’alson: Phyllis seconds. Do you feel you need to speak to that motion?
Commissioner Griffin: No, I think we have already discussed that quite adequately.
Chair Bialson: Seconder?
City qf Palo ,4 lto Page 25
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2,~
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Con’wnissioner Cassel: I agee. I think we have completed our discussion.
MOTION PASSED
Chair Bialson: Let’s take a vote then. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) There m-e no nays.
That is five in favor with Commissioners Holman and Burr not in attendance.
Next we go on to the Draft Transportation Division Peer Review. I know we had some questions
with regard to that but let’s focus in on it at this point in time. Do I have any questions or
comments by Commissioners? Phyllis.
Cormnissioner Casseh I have several questions but the first one that kept hitting me was 139,000
jobs in Palo Alto. Is that 139,000 jobs in Palo Alto or in Palo Alto and Stanford? If it includes
both then it doesn’t include housing or anything else are they equal numbers?
_,Mr. Kott: I believe it includes both. We will have to confirm that Commissioner Casset.
Mr. Jeffrey Tumlin, Nelson Nv,~aard: The Stanford census desig-nated a place which we never
could quite figure out exactly how much of the Palo Alto portions of the Stanford Campus was
actually included is not included in these numbers, This is just Palo Alto. It doesn’t include the
academic facilities. It may include the shopping center and medical center. Bill thinks yes.
Commissioner Packer: What yem" is that number from?
Mr. Tumlin: 2000.
Commissioner Packer: 2000, thank you.
Chair Bialson: Any other questions or cormnents? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: "What exactly is being asked of us with regard to this study? This is the
first time we have been asked to comment on what seems to me an internal management
decision. I feel uncomfortable as a Commissioner to get involved in decisions that have to do
with how the Ci~, staffs itself to implement progams. It seems to me it wouldn’t be our role.
Mr. Kott: Maybe the lang-uage is a little bit looser. We have asked the Commission to receive
and accept not to endorse. So that says to us we should include it as a chapter in the Strategic
Transportation Plan and we should consider it as we do our work pro=o-ram.
Chair Bialson: Phyllis.
MOTION
Cormnissioner Casse!: Shall I move that we receive and accept this report?
Chair Bialson: Let’s do that. An), seconds?
SECOND
CiO, q£Paio Airo Page 26
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Colmnissioner Griffin: I wi!l second the motion.
Chair Biatson: Second b? Michael. Phyllis, do you want to speak to that?
Commissioner Cassel: It is interesting to have it done and I think it will help in the work that
you are doing to have looked at this. Obviously these cities are not exactly equal. They didn’t
start from the same place and they have different constraints. Even if we take out the large open
spaces that we have that somewhere like Cambridge doesn’t have, we sti!l come up with a lot
lower density, in those comparisons. I am sure that in the long run if we understand them
liberally that they give us idea or your some idea whether you are anywhere in the ballpark when
someone says you are asking for too much help or too little help or whatever.
Chair Bialson: Does the seconder wish to speak?
Commissioner Griffin: I have already ask you, Joe, what were the cities that didn’t make the cut.
In fact when you come back to us I am not going to make this part of the motion but it would be
interesting to know what other cities you did investigate. I echo the other Commissioners
comments that I feel a little bit awkward passing judg-ment on this sort of thing when in fact we
really don’t have the expertise to do more than just say we trust you, we hope you are picking ttae
right ~oup of cities for your benctm’~ark.
MOTION PASSED
Chair Bialson: ~amy other comments? All those in favor of the motion say aye. (ayes) That
passes unanimously again with Commissioners Holman and Butt not in attendance. With that I
wi!l close this item. Hold it, we have some questions here. First Phyllis.
Commissioner CasseI: I had a general question, which I didn’t ask at the beginning but sort of
follows after this. This is how wi!l the proposed budget cuts that are affecting staffing affect the
implementation of these projects?
Mr. Kott: Well, one example I mentioned as part of an answer to an earlier question if we do
additional data collection we will have to do it on a shoestring. We will have to rely on
volunteers to some large extent, the travel diary, bike counts and so forth. So we are really
shifting to a different mode. We are not spending very much anymore to collect data.
Commissioner Packer: I just want to say that despite all my questions I really thought this
analysis was excellent and very helpful especially tying the projects to these performance
indicators really helps us think through our decisions on these and the cost benefit rank and the
cost per point. I thought it was really a ~eat way for decision-makers to see through all this
information and help us sort through. So I just want to thank you for all that.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. I second her compliment, etc.
Now we move on if the Commissioners are ready to Commission Member Questions, Comments
and, or Announcements. Michae!.
ATTACHMENT E
of CMR:432:04
Regular Meeting
October 8, 2003
Chairperson Morton called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in ~n~ Cound
Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present:
AD~.nL,
Beecham, Freeman, Kishimoto, Morton
None
Oral Communications
Preliminary (Unaudited) Fiscal Year Ending 3une 30, 2003, Analysis and
First quarter (qZ) Fiscal Year 2003-04 Financial Results,
City Manager Frank Benest said there was no margin in the Fiscal Year 2002-03
budget. The proposed budget had a projected shortfall of $!!.5 million, The
City ended the year with a net General Fund surplus balance of approximatel,/
$3.2 million. The City had a $1.5 million unrealized gain on investments.
~.~.~d. an unrealized Gain was an accounting adjustmentChairperson Morton -’--t~ ’_
and was dependant on ~nt..re~ rates.
AccountiNg M~nager-r,~ ’ ,.. ....-!. ~a~, Eikenberry ~xplain~d the unreaiized gain v,,’~ ~-:
the value of the portfolio was at 3une 30, 2003. The City kept investments to
maturity.
Chairperson Morton explained some investments, which were six or seven year.:
old, had interest rates that were higher than current market. The City, would
receive a premium if the investment was sold to date, but there would be no
premium when held to maturity.
Mr, Benes: sa~d because Util~’.-~- did ’~’=~ durl~’~, eh-~,~,~ .~,,-, ....prior .~a,, ~-k~,,~ was
transfer into the General Fund and a transfer into the ~quity Transfer
Stabilization Reserve in the a~ount of ~800,000. Additionally, $700,000 was
transferred from the ongoing "Strengthening the Bottom Line" cost
containment/cost cutting/restructuring effo~s.
Adoption of a Transportation Strategic Plan Designed to :l:mplement the
Transportation Policies and Programs in the 1998-2010 Comprehensive
Plan.
Council Hember Beecham referred to Attachment B of the staff report
(CHP,:378:03). His concern was with the University Avenue Intermodal Transit
Center. The cost was up to $248 million, and funding was uncertain. The
numbers did not support the benefit received by the City for the cost. The
project should be reduced in priority. The Caltrain Baby Bullet and the Caltrain
Electrification needed to be evaluated as to the grade separation. The light rail
10/08/03 FIN:5
from Mountain View to Palo Alto needed to be looked at because ~h~ current
light rail was not successful.
Council Member Beecham left ~’ ~ ,~n~ meeting at 8’00 p.m
Chief Transportation Official Joe Kott said the Planning and Transportation
Commission (P&TC) accepted the staff recommendation with respect to the
performance indicators for the transportation system~ as well as priorities for
implementing various projects that were in various plans including the
Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan), Bicycle Master Plan and regional
tran~qportation plans. Staff was o~en put into a position, when working
regionally with the Valley Transportation Authority (V-t-A), the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC), and Caltrans, to argue for and work toward
various improvements. Staff wanted policy guidance as to where to put its
energies. Staff was interested in developing a set of measures of effectiveness
....~ ......., ,o.Ip ~’~I~ ~’~" ,, ,~, ~ in ~he ~mmuu, ~=,,u, ,,,on~ m~.~ou, ~s ~"~ he~’ ’~-ed guide d~ o,~,,~ .........n,~"
and inform the community of the state of the transpo~ation system. The
~LIOL~qlC_ ~ldll W~b u~v~lupeu w~L ~ broad purposes in mind to uuve,op~-’ ’ - a ~uL-~ of
performance indicators that showed year to year how staff was doing The ~ =
repo~ (CM R; 378;03) included an appendix on the City’s Transpo~ation Division
compared to other divisions around the countw. Staff wanted the Strategic Plan
to guide staff in its grant seeking and wanted to foster a longer term
perspective, in terms off indicators, the idea was to measure a direction and
rate of progress. Data collected honorably told a good story. Staff wanted to
track trends over time and develop a framework for all activities. The P&TC
thought it was impo~ant that staff include the convenience and experience of
motor vehicle operators as part of the overall picture .of what happened in the
system.
Council Member Freeman asked how staff anticipated getting metrics in the
performance indicators.
Mr. Kott said staff had ideas on how to set the metrics and collect the data but
would not do that until it was assured ~he,~ was a market.
Chairperson Morto,fi said holding the vehicle trips at the 2003 level might mean
sales tax was held at the 2003 level. The traffic in and out of Stanford Mall Was
a measure of sales,
Hr. Kott said ~- ~"L~ uomp Plan ~ ,=~L U.~ an ambitious goal of reducing the reliance
on the automobile when and where possible. One interesting aspect of mobility
was that to some ~’~’-~ ~ co,.,,L~nL ngestion could contribute to economic vitality. The
argument did not hold outside of the Downtown, There were economic
disbenefits of having congestion that kept people from moving about,
Chairperson Morton said emphasis was sometimes placed by shifting vehicle
drivers to other modes of transportation such as bicycles or walking, Focusing
on incremental things was a concern whereas the big problems such as grade
separation were a major impact to the community,
Council Member Freeman said as alternate modes of transportation became
more available and accepted, reduced reliability on the automobile happened.
Mr. Kott said questions regarding moving in the right direction and at what rate
were useful in terms of effectiveness.
Council Member Freeman said a goal was to not get to the point of congestion
anxiety.
Hr. KuuL said -"-= w~d ~-
to the full Council as to whether or not there should be indicators and, if so,
whether the proposed set was the correct set.
Council Member Kishimoto said land use linkage was important, and the V-rA
had an indicator where it showed the percentage of new development..
Chairperson Morton said an indicator of improved transit access was important.
Tt would be measured by how many people got to the train or =huLtle within
2,000 feet. Transit access was more of an indicator for people who worked out
of the City. The destinations of the light rail were limited.
Mr. Kott said the tipping point where people were willing to walk was one
quarter mile to a bus stop.
Chairperson Morton said the consensus of the Committee was to add ~ ~~ ansi:
access as a Pe~ormance Indicator,
Council Member Kishimoto suggested linkage of land use and transit.
Chairperson Morton said he did not know how to make linkage of land use and
transit an indicator.
Council Member Kishimoto said the VT.A indicator looked only at new
development within the prior year, specifically percentage of new houses
developed within one third of a mile from a transit stop,
!0 / 08/03 F!N: 7
Mr. Kott said the focal point for transit land use integration had always been
train stations. The general consensus ~vas that regional services needed a lot of
supporting businesses and residential units as feeders.
Chairperson Morton requested that "Promote a healthy and safe school
commute" be moved to the top of the indicator list. One of the community’s
concerns was with areas such as University Avenue and Middlefield Road where
the issue was trucks and speed. Residential streets became arterials because of
volume.
Mr. Kott pointed out there were ways to collect data on the number and
percentage of trucks on a sample survey basis on any roadway once "trucks"
were defined. Data on speeds on arterial streets was collected. The critical
number appeared to be prevailing speeds of ten miles per hour or more above
,,,,,,~, ,,,e I,,,~,,,,a~,~,, could be ~,~s~,,~ed as a ,,, ~,,,,s of the
number of miles of arterials.
Chairperson Morton asked whether the wording was, "number of arterials with
speeds above ten miles above the posted speed limit."
Mr. Kott said that was correct.
Chairperson Morton said the measure was to decrease the number of arteria!s
with speeds ten miles over the posted speed limit.
Mr. Kott suggested "20 percent or more traffic volume traveling ten or more
miles above the posted speed limit," Another possibility was to look at the
number of miles of arterial roadway.
Chairperson Morton said the consensus of the Committee was to add, "Reduce
the speed on arterials for ten miles or over," as Performance indicators.
[vlr. Kott asked whether the Committee wanted staff to report out separately ~h~
ar~er,al~ that were school commute corridors.
Chairperson Morton said yes,
Council Member Freeman said Appendix A to the staff report (CMR:378;03),
page ~ a.~-- ~ ,- -~-"~ ....-’.’’ --’:-’--~-., nouc~u ~hd~ _,reprove ~u~u~t~o~ for bicyclists" ~d Heavy vehicle
(truck) volumes. Truck volumes should be placed in multiple locations.
Mr, Kott asked what whether the target was to seek a decline in truck volumes
on streets that were not official truck routes,
Council Member Freeman said streets such as University Avenue was an official
truck route but perhaps should not be because of the size and residential
nature.
Chairperson Morton said many of the trucks on University Avenue were in the
10 percent above posted speed limits.
Mr. Kott suggested deferring on truck measures was wise at the current time. A
truck route study needed to be done the following year.
Chairperson Morton suggested saying a truck indicator would be added to the
matrix when data was available.
Council Member Freeman suggested using the measure under Approved
~unu,uu~ ~s for Bicyclists ul ,uu, Ii~t~ uWu , ~ ~ vut Safety ~ ~d 1~ u, ,1ore a ~=a~),
and safe school commute.
Mr. Kott said the formula for bicycles included variables such as whether or not
there was parking curbside, width of bike lanes, and traffic volume, and speed
of vehicles.
Council Member Freeman asked whether there was a formula for pedestrians
with trucks,
Council Member Kishimoto said an indicator might be the percentage of trucks
over seven tons.
Chairperson Morton said the Council sought to ensure that trucks stayed on
truck routes at the posted speed.
Mr. Kott said baseline data on trucks could be collected with a report back to
Council.
RECESS’ 8:40 ~),m. to 8’45 p.m.
Chairperson Morton suggested organizing the performance indicators into three
categories; vehicles, bikes, and ~ ~ ’ ....~’- ....peu..s~n~ ~. The i~ulc~ur~ would be figured for
each, which would be tied to projects that would be implemented under that
and what the ultimate cost would be.
!0/08/03 F!N:9
Council Member Freeman said she looked at the indicators as measures of
projects.
Chairperson Morton said the indicators measured projects, There could be
projects under each measure.
Mr. Kott said indicators were originally proposed as meda indicators. Staff
wanted to measure effects of projects on level of service.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether the Council would look at the
transportation priorities or focus on finance.
Director of Administrative Services Carl Yeats said his goal was to attempt to
get more strategic, and he hoped the Council would assist Mr. Kott in
prioritizing the projects in order to create Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs)
LhoL We, ~ OUt over time u,,dl ")n~ n
Mr. Kott ~i~ided ~- ~" ~’ ~ ~^~ ....~ ~LII~ L~OUlI~,II LIICIL LIIC Tra-~-~-~
included a perspective Citywide Traffic ~ ~~-=zmpa~ Fee. S~ would return to Council
with a proposal in the near future. The P&TC recommended the high priority
projects be given special emphasis and special energies and funding impetus,
when and where available. The P~TC did its own scoring and chose to rank the
Zntermodal Transit Center in the high catego~.
Chairperson Morton noted the Bay to Foothi.lls Path was given a low priority,
although there might be a significant segment of the community who felt it was
a higher priority. He asked whether staff would go after funding for a project
that was low priority.
Mr. Kott said staff would alert the City Manager and Council of the availability of
funding and pursue the funding. The P&TC raters were asked to think Citywide
in terms of benefit. The ranking reflected an appreciation of what might be the
benefit from the whole City standpoint.
Council Member Morton said the consensus of the Council was for maintaining
and developing the shuttle to enhance transit alternatives as a high priority,
Council Member Freeman said Mr. Kott indicated there was a potential for fees
related to the shuLLI.-, but it did not show up as a priority.
Mr. Kott said Staff was literal minded and was careful not to veer away from the
mandate.
Chairperson Morton said he would add the at-grade crossings rather than the
University Avenue Tntermoda! Transit Center as a high priority. The Baby Bullet
would have a major impact on the community when it was in place. The
number of trains would be increased.
Council Member Freeman said the Baby Bullet train was a high speed train.
Mr. Yeats said the Charleston and Meadow grade crossings would be down at
the same time to stop traffic.
Chairperson Moron said the expense was ma.ior, which the City could not
absorb. A significant amount of grant funding was necessary.
Mr. Kott said a policy decision was not made in the Comp Plan.
,~, we, =on Morton said the consensus of the Council was to get Caltrain to do
study to identify funding sources.
Mr. Kott said Caltrain staff was interested in doing a feasibility" study and might
share the cost of the study.
Council Member Freeman suggested looking at the City of San Carlos, which
incurred unintended consequences by building the underground crossing and
separating neighborhoods.
Mr. Kott believed San Carlos used some sales tax money.
Chairperson Morton said San Carlos matched transit district money with State
money.
Mr. Kott said a feasibility study was prudent because there were many issues
that involved effects on the entire community.
Council Member Freeman said a feasibility study was a high priority.
Chairperson Morton suggested wording, "Developing and analyzing a feasibility
study of reducing at grade crossings."
Hr. Kott said the intermodal Transit Center could be defined in different ways
because of different components including two center boarding platforms,
bringing down the current urban interchange to grade level, and creating a
park. The Council might want to consider which elements contributed directly t0
the goal of putting people on trains. The project should be redefined rather than
deprioritizing or eliminating. Palo Alto had a grant for environmental analysis
earmarked for engineering studies.
Chairperson Morton clarified the project fell under the Bike!Pedestrian under
Alma Street under high priority,
Mr. Kott said that was correct.
Chairperson Morton asked whether the
underpass was included in the project.
Mr. Kott said that was correct.
upgrade to the California Avenue
Council Member Freeman asked about the implication of moving the project
from high priority.
Mr. Kott said in terms of Palo Alto’s work with the representatives in
Washington, the project was a high priority for special grants funding.
Council Member Kishimoto clarified the City currently spent $!00,000 per year
for neighborhood traffic calming.
Mr. Kott said the Council budget of $.150,000 for the current year. Sharp
trading often went on with the VTA. The City could not be assured that, if the
City defunded the Intermodal Transit Center, the City would get the $45 million
for other purposes.
Council Member .Freeman asked whether Stanford University had any
pa~icipation in lobbying.
Mr. Kott said Stanford University helped the City with lobbying, Palo Alto did
have a pledge On the $45 million. The expectation was that other partners
would also provide money.
Council Member Freeman clarified the intermodal project included Everett,
University, and Homer Avenues,
Chairperson Morton said Everett was only a bike lane.
Mr. Kott explained that Everett Avenue was an extension of the bike boulevard
and gave access to the Stanford Shopping Center to link the shopping center
with the Downtown neighborhoods.
20/08/03 F!N:!2
Chairperson Morton encouraged the Committee to identi~ doable and fundable
projects in order to come up with a four or five-year program.
Council Member Kishimoto suggested the first priority for a bike underpass was
Charleston/Arastradero.
Chairperson Morton said staff needed to come back and tell the Council what
projects were feasible.
Council Member Freeman noted Downtown alleyways for bikes and pedestrians
were low priority. Downtown was a hub for the City. The cost of the project was
low and provided alternate pedestrian and bike pathways.
Chairperson Morton suggesting puLLing the project as a subcategory under"Bike
and pedestrian facilities that prioritize critical links."
Council Member Freeman noted there was a new parking garage Downtown
u~wee~bLOtch,w~u, an u~,uu,~eu alley LIICIL we[It
Chairperson Morton said the problem was due to lack of signage.
Council Member Freeman said there was no crosswalk on Ramona Street, but
there was a crosswalk in front of Bell’s Books. Crosswalks could be put in, with
advertising, and the cost to the City was not that great.
Chairperson Morton asked if the project could be referred to the Palo Alto
Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) for suggestions.
Council Member Freeman said the plan included more pedestrians than bikes.
Mr. Kott said the Bike Committee was an expert at bike facilities.
Council Member Kishimoto suggested creating a fund for the PABAC to find a
way to spend money,
Mr. Kott said his budget had a small safety improvements fund that was used
for small projects.
Mr. Yeats said, as staff moved forward on the Citywide Transportation Impact
re.., there would be a pool of funding. He hoped Mr, Kott would take .~,e bike
and walkable related activities, group them together, and prioritize them over
time.
S 0 / 08 ," 03 ?Z~_i : £3
Council Member Kishimoto said even if a small amount of money was allocated
each year for a project such as bike parking, putting the small item project as a
low prioribi might not make sense,
Mr. Kott said Council Member 14orton suggested the bike and pedestrian
alleyway access item be folded into the item on bike and pedestrian facilities at
prioritized critical links.
Council Member Freeman said that was agr~,.able.
Mr. Yeats said Council Member Freeman headed in the right direction when she
talked about the strategic performance indicators.
Chairperson lVlorton said financibility was an indicator. Affordability was a
weight factor in the ranking.
Chairperson Morton wanted to see how Stanford University’s ideas fit in with
the City’s plan for trails,
Council Member Kishimoto said Palo Alto did not have an information kiosk for
the shuttle or a map to the Downtown,
i~r. Kott said the idea was an electronic kiosk that provided all transit options,
Council Member Freeman asked whether Palo Alto could share space with what
was already in place.
Council Member Kishimoto said there was an empty bulletin board that could be
used. She questioned making Homer/Channing two-way.
Chairperson Morton said Homer Avenue was an issue when the underpass was
complete.
Mr. Kottsaid ,~ ==s~a~ differentiated making a block of Homer Street two-way to get
people going westbound on Channing Avenue as a high priority.
Council Member Freeman said the Homer!Channing project needed to go back
to the Council with a recommendation as to priority.
Council Member Freeman referred to Projects Entirely Funded by a Different
Agency and said the airport was a means of transportation. Re!ocating the
airport building was on the low priority list. The relocation could provide a lot
for the airpo~.
Council Member Kishimoto said not many Palo Altans were affected by the
airport.
Chairperson Morton assumed staff would not be instructed to spend time on
something for which Palo Alto did not have jurisdiction.
Council Member Freeman said she was referring to projects entirely funded by a
different agency.
Chairperson Morton said the .question was whether there was support to
relocate the airport building.
Mr. Yeats said the County would bring the project to Palo Alto on its timeline.
~ ~ e~ ~ the airport was on Palo Alto land that wasCouncil Member Freeman ~o,n~d ~" ,e
leased to the County. The timeline for the lease was nearing. Decisions needed
~^,~u be made as to ’w~=~he~’~ - or not the~i~y~"*- .......vv~l,~=u~ to keep ~h~ airpo,~
location.
Mr. Yeats said the lease had 15 more years.
Mr. Kott said knowing what the community wanted was a reliable guide.
Council Member Kishimoto asked about Council Member Beecham’s comments
regarding the light rail and whether it was effective or cost-effective.
Mr. Kott said the extension was on the V-rA list for potential funding for
feasibility studies.
Chairperson Morton said the major problem with the light .rail was that it did not
connect enough places.
Council Member Kishimoto recommended moving light rail to medium priority.
Council Member Freeman said the light rail was slow and took up land that the
City did not have.
Chairperson Morton said identifying doable projects and possible funding
sources and giving ~~kel,~,~u uf ~u~. idea of 1~ ’~’~^’~u,~ funding was i~,,,po~-~ in
decision making.
10/08/03 _~- llq : !~,
Mr. Yeats said he hoped to bring the groupings back with the Hid-Year Budget
Update as CTPs and add them to the budget on a timeline,
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether the truck study should be included as
a project,
Mr, Kott said the Council was free to add the truck study,
Chairperson Morton suggested bike boulevards, Alma underpass, bike and
pedestrian facilities be grouped in a wider heading such as, "implementation of
the Bike Master Plan," which could be a high priority.
Council Member Freeman suggested specifying no more than ten items in high
priority.
Hr. w~ said =~m= p,~j~= were high ~’~’-~,~ ....~ -,=o~ .....~p, I~, ,~y and already ~,,d.., .aken.
Chairperson Morton said it would return to the Finance Committee as a CIP as
part of the next year’s projected budget.
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Freeman, that the
Finance Committee recommends to the City Council to adopt the Transportation
Strategic Plan for Palo Alto with modifications, comprising the following three
components:
Transportation System Performance indicators (Attachments A and C)
Transportation Implementation Plan--Project Prioritization (Attachments
B and C)
Transpo~ation Plan Cost and Funding Report (Attachment C)
MOTION PASSED 3-0, Beecham absent,
Mr. Yeats said at the prior night’s meeting, the budget status was referred back
to the Finance Committee. A special meeting needed to be set. The projected
next meeting was October 2!, 2003, and was extremely ful!. The November 4,
2003, meeting was cancelled due to the election.
Chairperson Horton sugoested November !2 or D.._..mber 2, 2003.