HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-12 City Council (8)TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MAY 12, 2003 CMR:265:03
APPROVAL OF INSTALLATION OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND
LEFT TURN POCKETS AT THE INTERSECTION OF
MIDDLEFIELD ROAD AND BRYSON AVENUE
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council
approve installation of a traffic signal with left-turn pockets at the intersection of
Middlefield Road and Bryson Avenue.
BACKGROUND
A new traffic signal and left-turn pockets are a necessary safety enhancement at Middlefield
Roacb’Bryson Avenue, which has the fourth highest accident rate in the City.
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On April 2, 2003, the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended by a 6-1 vote
that the City Council approve the above staff recommendation. The Planning and
Transportation Commission agreed with staff that the proposed improvements are a
necessary safety enhancement. While there was support for staff’s recommendation by
members of the public, including the Midtown Residents Association, concern was
expressed by the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee that the lane narrowing necessary
to provide room for the left-turn pockets was a step in the wrong direction and a three-lane
cross section (one vehicle lane for each direction of traffic plus a two-way left turn lane;
bicycle lane, with allowance for bicycle lanes).
Based on these concerns the Planning and Transportation Commission encouraged staff to
start discussions and promotion of a future three-lane cross section on Middlefield Road.
Staff intends to move forward in this direction. While staff agrees that the three-lane option
would result in the optimal solution for all transportation modes, including bike and
vehicular modes, staff recommends that additional study and outreach to all stakeholders is
necessary before implementing this plan. The Commission report includes a section that
CMR:265:03 Page 1 of 2
outlines the next steps that staff will pursue in working with stakeholders in moving toward
the three-lane plan.
ATTACttMENTS
A: Staff report to Planning and Transportation Commission
B: Minutes from April 2, 2003 Planning and Transportation Committee meeting
C: Letter of support from Midtown Residents Association
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
DAVID STILLMAN
/"~ransportation Engineer
STEVE EMSLIE
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CO:Midtown Residents Association
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
CMR:265:03 Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENT A
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:DAVID STILLMAN DEPARTMENT:Planning
AGENDA DATE:APRIL 2, 2003
SUBJECT:.M~PROVAL OF ~STALLATION OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL
LEFT-TURN POCKETS AT THE INTERSECTION OF
MIDDLEFIELD ROAD AND BRYSON AVENUE
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission recommend to City Council approval of the
installation of a traffic signal with left-turn pockets at the intersection of Middlefield Road
and Bryson Avenue.
BACKGROUND
Site Information
Middlefield Road!Bryson Avenue is a four-legged intersection, located approximately 300
feet north of the intersection of Middlefield Road with Colorado Avenue. Bryson Avenue
intersects Middlefield Road on the west side of the intersection; on the east side, directly
across from Bryson, are the primary entrance and exit driveways to the Midtown shopping
center. Bryson Avenue is a residential cul-de-sac with 28 single-family homes a!ong its
length. Also on Bo’son is a driveway entrance to Mike’s Cafd and Peninsula Hardware and,
directly across from that, the intersection of an alley that connects through to Colorado
Avenue and provides access to businesses along the west side of Middlefield Road south of
Bryson. The Midtown shopping center is a neighborhood retail center containing a Long’s
Drug Store as the primary attractor and many smaller retail stores, including the Palo Alto
Caf~, Baskin Robbins, Midtown Video and Holiday Cleaners. A tv, o-hour Cib;-owned
City of Palo Alto Page 1
parking lot near the back of the Midtown shopping center is also accessible from the main
driveway entrance on Middlefield, and provides access to additional stores such as Starbuck’s
Coffee.
Middtefield Road is a four-lane undivided roadway between Oregon Expressway and
Colorado Avenue. The intersection at Bryson lies within this segment. Middlefield is
classified as a residential arterial and carries approximately 18,000 vehicles per day. Bryson
is a local street and carries approximately 500 vehicles per day. The Midtown shopping
center attracts more traffic than Bryson; with approximately 250 total vehicles entering and
exiting the shopping center driveways across from Bryson during the p.m. peak hour, as
compared with 50 vehicles turning into and out of Bryson. Middlefield Road measures 46
feet from curb face to curb face, resulting in two 13-foot-wide outside lanes and two 10-foot-
wide inside lanes. Immediately north of the intersection ~vith Colorado Avenue, lanes along .
Middtefield narrow to approximately 9 to 91/_~ feet wide to accommodate five lanes (four
through lanes and a left-turn pocket at Colorado). The existing layout of Middlefield Road
in the vicinity of Bryson Avenue is shown in Attachment A.
Proiect Histo _ry
Staff has recently performed a safety evaluation of this seg-ment of Middlefield Road. The
intersection of Middlefield Road and Bryson Avenue has the fourth highest accident rate in
the City, with 25 reported accidents (including 13 inju~ accidents) occurring within a 5½
year study period beginning January 1, 1997. The predominant types of accidents are right
angle/right-of-way violations and rear-ends, which are occurring under the following
scenarios:
Vehicles pulling out from the shopping center driveway or from Bryson Avenue are
struck by vehicles traveling northbound or southbound along Middlefield (5
accidents; 20 percent of total).
Vehicles slowing/stopping within the inside travel lane on Middlefield Road to turn
left into the shopping center or onto Bryson Avenue are rear-ended by drivers not
expecting the vehicle in front of them to stop (6 accidents; 24 percent of total).
Vehicles turning left from Middlefield Road into the shopping center or onto Bryson
Avenue are struck by vehicles traveling the opposite direction on Middlefield (9
accidents; 36 percent of total).
To improve the safety of the inter~ection, staff recommends installing a traffic sig-nal with
left-turn pockets on Middle~eld at Bryson. The traffic sig-nal wili improve the safety of the
intersection for the fo!lowing reasons:
City of Pa/o Alto Page 2
Positive right-of-way control wil! be provided, reducing the number of right-angle
accidents involving a vehicle pulling out from the shopping center or-from Bryson
Avenue and being struck by a vehicle on Middle field;
Positive right-of-way control will provide a safety benefit for all users of the
intersection, including bicyclists and pedestrians;
The inclusion of left-turn pockets wil! channel left-turning vehicles out of the main
traffic stream, reducing the potential for rear-end and sideswipe accidents;
The inclusion of left-turn pockets will also reduce the number of accidents involving
vehicles turning left in front of opposing traffic, by increasing the visibility of
oncoming traffic to left-turning traffic.
In order to accommodate the new left-turn pockets, the existing lanes wilt be narrowed to 9½
feet for the curb lanes, and 9 feet for the inside lanes. The new left-turn lanes will be 9 feet
wide. This configuration will be very similar to that currently in existence on Middlefield
Road immediately north of Colorado Avenue. Crosswalks will be provided across all four
legs of the intersection to encourage and facilitate pedestrian access to the shopping center.
The proposed layout of Middlefield Road in the vicinity of Bryson Avenue is shown in
Attachment B.
The proposed traffic signal will be interconnected with the existing citywide coordinated
traffic signal system. This will allow the traffic signal to be coordinated with the existing
traffic signals at Middlefield/Colorado and at Middlefield near Webster (the pedestrian
crossing), which will significantly reduce vehicular delay impacts from the proposed signal.
Staff anticipates that the proposed sig-nal will operate at a very high level service, most likely
in the A-/B+ range. The intersection of Middlefield Road/Colorado Avenue currently
operates at level of service B.
Although the proposed traffic sig-nal does not meet warrants as established by Caltrans for
a new traffic signal installation, staff recommends its installation as a safety measure. In that
this intersection has the fourth highest accident rate in the city, the need for a traffic signal
with left-turn pockets is justified.
Community .Input
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
Staff presented the proposal to the Pa!o Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) on
October 2, 2002. PABAC was opposed to the inclusion of left-turn pockets on Middlefield,
due to the resulting narrowing of the curb lanes necessary to accommodate them. PABAC’s
concern was that the narrower lanes would provide less accommodation for bicyclists than
City of Palo Alto Page 3
the current 13-foot-wide lanes and that staff’s proposal was counter to the intent of the draft
Bicycle Master Plan. PABAC consequently passed a motion opposing the reduction in width
of the outside lanes.
Staff agees with PABAC that narrower lanes for long distances are not bicycle-friendly and
may create issues with bus and truck traffic. However, narrow lanes (9 to 9V_, feet wide) for
short distances exist at many locations within the city to accommodate left-turn pockets and
seem to work well for all modes of transportation. Positive right-of-way control and
improved visibility for left-turning Vehicles will enhance safety for both motor vehicle and
bicycle travel.
Neighborhood Meeting
Staffheld a public meeting on October 22, 2002 at the Midtown shopping center to discuss
these recommendations. Invitees included all residents along Middlefield Road between
Oregon Expressway and Colorado, residents along Bryson Avenue, PABAC members, and
merchants and storeowners in the Midtown shopping center. The meeting was also
advertised in the newsletter of the Midtown Residents Association, the Palo Alto Daily
News, the Palo Alto Weekly, and notice of the meeting wasposted at the pedestrian-actuated
traffic signal on Middlefield at the north end of the shopping center. Approximately 35
people attended the meeting.
At the meeting, staff presented a proposal that included the installation of a new traffic signal
as discussed above, as well as removal of the existing pedestrian signal and crosswalk near
Webster Street, at the northern end of the Midtown shopping center. Staff proposed the
removal of the pedestrian signal and crosswalk in order to concentrate pedestrian crossings
at the proposed Bryson Avenue signal, as well as to reduce vehicular delays and driver
frustration which may result from the operation of three closely-spaced traffic signals along
Middlefield Road. While there was general support among the attendees for the proposed
signal at Bryson, approximately half of the attendees expressed a desire that the existing
pedestrian signal and crosswalk remain. Additionally, staff has received several phone calls
and emails opposing the removal of the pedestrian signal and crosswalk. Consequently,
staff’s proposal at this time is to move forward with the installation of the traffic signal and
left-turn pockets at Bryson, but leave the existing pedestrian signal and crosswalk in place.
Staff intends to monitor pedestrian patterns and vehicular delays along the segment over a
12-month period once the traffic signal is installed, and to make a recommendation at that
time whether the pedestrian signal and crosswalk should remain. Staff will continue to
consult with residents and businesses as this project is implemented. An advisory panel of
Midtown Residents Association Traffic Action Committee members, PABAC, and Midtown
business people will assist staff in monitering the results of the signal installation and any
further measures to enhance traffic safety for all road users. See "Timeline" section for
further details.
City of Palo ,~lto Page 4
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative #1 - Install traffic signal at Middlefield Road and Bryson Avenue, without
including left-turn pockets.
This alternative would allow the existing lane widths along Middlefield Road to remain as
they are now. W~nile maintaining the current level of bicycle accommodation, this alternative
would not address one of the most prevalent accident scenarios, that being the rear-end
accidents resulting from drivers turning left from Middlefield Road into the shopping center
or onto Bryson Avenue, which account for 24 percent of the collisions. A review of
accidents at the Middlefield Road!Colorado Avenue intersection does not indicate a trend of
bicycle-related accidents related to the narrower curb lanes and, consequently, there is no
justification for assuming that such a narrowing would result in an increase in bicycle-related
accidents at Bryson. Therefore, it is .staff’s opinion that eliminating the left-turn pockets
from the proposal would provide no benefit for bicycle safety, while negating much of the
safety benefit of the proposed traffic signal.
Alternative #2 - Include removal of pedestrian signal and crosswalk in the proposal.
As indicated above, community opinion on the removal of this signal and crosswalk was
split. Because of the difficult5, in coordinating three closely-spaced traffic signals for two-
way traffic flow, a slight increase in vehicular delay wil! likely occur if this signal is left in
place. Its removal may have a beneficial effect on traffic flow along the seroment. However,
the existence of this signal and crosswalk may provide added convenience and safety for
pedestrians wishing to cross Middlefield near the north end of the shopping center, especially
once the Wat~een’s Drug Store development is complete. Watgreen’s is anticipated to open
during the summer of 2003.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The cost of installing a traffic signal at Middlefield Road and Bryson Avenue, and of making
the associated striping modifications along Middlefietd Road, is approximately $220,000.
The new traffic signal installation has been included in the 2002-03 Electric Utility CIP,
project No. 8930.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The recommended improvements at the intersection of Middlefield Road and Bryson Avenue
are in conformance with Goal T-6 of the Comprehensive Plan, which advocates a "hi~ level
of safets, for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists on Palo Alto streets." Traffic safets, is one
of the Cits,’s top priorities and the primary purpose of this project is to mitigate a significant
documented safety problem.
The recommended improvements are not in conformance with Pro~am T-24, which states,
"Provide adequate outside through-lane widths for shared use by motorists and bicyclists
City of Palo Alto Page 5
when constructing or modifying roadways, where feasible". Middlefield Road is designated
as having a bike lane in the draft Bicycle Master Plan. However, the improvements proposed
in this report do not include the provision of a bike lane .along Middlefield Road.
Middlefield Road is 46 feet wide in the vicinity of the proposed sig-nal project. Because of
right-of-way constraints, the inclusion of bike lanes would require the elimination of one
vehicle lane along the segment. Due to the controversial nature of eliminating vehicle lanes
along arterial streets, it is staff’s intention that this topic will be addressed as a primary goal
of a follow-up committee (discussed under "Timeline", below). The current staff
recommendation does not preclude the provision of bike lanes along Middlefield Road at a
future date.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Minor operational improvements are exempt from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
TIMELINE
Design and construction of the new traffic signal and the installation of left-turn pockets
should be completed within 12 months. In addition, the Transportation Division will be
coordinating the formation of a committee to (1) evaluate traffic flow along the segment,
including impacts resulting from the existing pedestrian signal, and (2) look for ways to
further increase the safety and quality of bicycle and pedestrian travel along the seg-rnent.
The committee will have as its core the Traffic Action Committee of the Midtown Residents
Association and will include merchants of the Midtown Shopping Center, residents of nearby
residential streets, Transportation Division staff, PABAC members, and any other interested
and vested parties. Staff will report back to the Planning and Transportation Commission
the committee findings and staff recommendations within 12 months following the
installation of the new traffid signal.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
A. Existing Conditions - Middle field Road/Bryson Avenue
B. Proposed Conditions - Middlefield RoadfBryson Avenue
COURTESY COPIES:
PABAC
MIDTOWN RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
Prepared by: David Stillman, Transportation Engineer
Department!Division Head Approval:
Josel~ K’ ’ ~ iott, Ch ef Transp~r~tation Official
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Z
Z
ATTACHMENT A
3nN3AV ON3~O~
ATTACHMENT B
133WIS ~131S83~
ATTACHMENT B
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
--=MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26:
Wednesday, April 2, 2003
SPECIAL MEETING - 7:O0 PM
Cio: Council Conference Room
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL: 7:00 PM
Commissioners:
Annette Bialson, Chair
Michael Griffin, Vice-Chair
Karen Hohnan
Patrick Burr
Bonnie Packer
Phyllis Cassel
Joseph Bellomo
Staff:
Steve Emslie, Planning Director
Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official
W3,nne Furth, Senior Assistant CiO, Attorney
David Stilhnan, Transportation Engineer
Olubayo Elimisha, Staff SecretatT
AGENDIZED ITEMS:
1.Update on Cit)~vide Traffic Studies
2.Installation of a traffic signal and left turn pockets at the intersection of Middlefield
Road and Bl~.Tson Avenue
3.Approval Of Minutes: Regular Meetings of February 26 and March 12, 2003.
Chair Bialson: The Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting of April 2, 2003 is called
to order. Will the Secretary please take roll? Thank you. Commissioner Packer indicated that
she would join us in approximately 45 minutes or an hour.
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: Do we have any speaker request cards for Oral Communications? We have no
cards so I will go on to the next item.
City of Palo Alto 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
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
CONSENT CALENDAR. Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the
calendar by a Commission Member.
Chair Bialson: We have no items on the Consent Calendar.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional
items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time.
Chair Bialson: On Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions I believe that there is one agenda
change that will involve the movement of one item of New Business before another of New
Business. Do you a request to make?
MOTION
Commissioner Griffin: I would like to move that we reverse the order of the t~vo items under
discussion during public hearings tonight so that we can review the installation of the traffic
signal first and the Citywide Traffic Studies as the second.
Chair Bialson: Do I have a second?
SECOND
Commissioner Holman: Second.
MOTION PASSED
Chair Biatson: Let’s not speak to the motion unless someone has a burning desire to do so. No?
Let’s take a vote then. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) All those opposed? That motion
passes six to nothing with Commissioner Packer not in attendance.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
Public Hearings: None.
Chair Bialson: There is no Unfinished Business and no Other Items.
Other Items: None.
Chair Bialson: So let’s get on to New Business. That will be item number two, Installation of a
traffic signal and left turn pockets at the intersection of Middlefield Road and Bryson Avenue.
Staff.
NEW BUSINESS.
Public Hearings:
Installation of a traffic signal and left turn pockets at the intersection of Middlefield
Road and Bryson Avenue: Consideration of installation of a traffic signa! and left-turn
pockets on Middlefield Road at Bryson Avenue. The traffic signal is a safety
enhancement, intended to reduce conflicts and collisions for vehicles, bicycles and
CiO, of Palo Alto 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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
pedestrians using the intersection. Staff Report Weblink:
h~tp:/A~v.ciw~fpa~a~t~.~rg/ciw, ag~nda/pub~ish/p~annin~-transp~rtati~n-rneetin~s/ 1725.pdf
Mr. Joseph Kott, Chief_Transportation Official: Thank you, Chair Bialson and members of the
Commission. This item has had a rather long gestation. We are pleased to be before you tonight
to present a recommendation. As David Stillman, our fine Traffic Operations Engineer, will
indicate we have had considerable stakeholder consultation in the development of this traffic
installation plan.
David Stillman will be appearing before you for the first time this evening. David has been with
us for a year and one-half, comes to us from Carlsbad down near San Diego. We are just delight
to have David. He has made so many positive improvements to our community in his tenure
~vith us. So David, take it away.
Mr. David Stillman, Traffic Operations Engineer: Thank you, Joe. Thank you for giving me the
opportunity to speak before you this evening.
The Staff recommendation regarding this item is that the Planning and Transportation
Commission recommend to the City Council approval of a new traffic signal and left turn
pockets at the intersection of Middlefield Road and Bryson Avenue.
Here is the plan view showing the existing condition near this intersection. From left to right
along the plan is Middlefield Road. The intersection of Middlefield Road and Bryson is a four-
legged intersection and is roughly 300 feet north of the existing intersection of Colorado Avenue.
Bryson Avenue is a local street, residential cul-de-sac, 28 single family home front Bryson and
that forms the western leg of the intersection. The eastern leg of the intersection is formed by the
entrance and exist driveways of the Midtown Shopping Center, which is a neighborhood retail
center. Businesses there include a Long’s Drug Store, Baskin Robbins, Starbucks and numerous
other small businesses. Middlefield is a four lane undivided residential arterial roadway. Within
this seglnent of Middle field the traffic volumes are approximately 18,000 vehicles per day.
Bryson as indicated is a low volume residential road with volumes of approximately 500 vehicles
per day. There are no left turn pockets currently on Middle field at Bryson as you can see from
the plan. There is an existing traffic signal on Middlefietd at Colorado and also a mid-block
signa! about 300 feet to the north of Bryson that is pedestrian actuated and will give vehicles
along Middlefield a red light when a pedestrian presses the push button and wishes to cross the
street. There is a Walgreen’s under construction right nov,’ at the comer of Middlefield and
Moreno, which should be occupied, last I heard, by summer of this year.
Here is a photogaph, which shows the existing condition, which I just described, to you. This
photo was taken looking northbound along Middlefield Road standing just south of Bryson
Avenue. On the left there is Bryson intersecting Middlefield, directly across from that you see
the driveways into the Midtown Shopping Center and slightly upstream there you see the mid-
block pedestrian actuated traffic signal.
The Transportation Division has recently completed a safety evaluation of Middle field Road in
the vicinity of Bryson. We looked at a five and one-half year study period. During that time
there were 25 reported accidents at or very near the Bryson Avenue intersection. Thirteen of
Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 3
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
those were injury accidents. Based on the number of accidents and the traffic volumes along the
street this intersection has the fourth highest accident rate in the City of Palo Alto.
There are three predominant types of accidents, which have occurred at this intersection over the
course of the study period. The most predominant type I will call left turn broadsides. There
were nine of these or 36% of the total. These types of accidents typically involve a vehicle,
which is traveling either northbound or southbound a!ong Middtefietd and is turning left into
either Bryson or the Midtown Shopping Center and is struck by a vehicle traveling the opposite
direction along Middlefield. Six of those accidents involved a vehicle turning left onto Bryson,
three of them involved a vehicle turning left into the shopping center.
The second most common types of accidents are rear-ends. There were six of these or 24% of
the total. The rear-ends typica!ly result when a car traveling northbound or southbound a!ong
Middlefield slows down or stops within the number one lane to make a left turn into Bryson or
the shopping center and is struck by a vehicle following too closely.
The third most predominant type of accident is a right angle broadside. There are five of these or
20% of the total. These accidents occur when a vehicle pulling out of either Bryson or the
shopping center driveway is struck broadside by a vehicle traveling northbound or southbound
along Middlefield.
Here is a photogaph, which shows some of the conflicts, which occur out there. In this case I
was standing just north of the intersection looking south a!ong Middlefield, you see the shopping
center there on the left. A vehicle in the number one lane is stopped and waiting to make a left
turn into the shopping center driveway as a result cars stack up behind that car waiting for him to
turn left. In addition you will notice the break lights are also on vehicles in the number two or
the shoulder lane. Often what happens is in their impatience a driver will not wait for the.person
to make the left but will instead make a quick lane change into the number two lane to pass them.
This results in disruption of flow in that lane as well. So we have existing delays, which occur
here frequently. Also know that I didn’t have to stand here very long to snap this photograph.
This is fairly common out at that intersection especially during the lunchtime periods and during
the evening peak hours.
The Staff proposal to mitigate the safety problems, which I have described are to install a new
traffic signal at this location and to provide left turn pockets on Middlefield with peiTnissiye left
turn phasing, to install crosswalks across all four legs of the intersection to facilitate pedestrian
crossing. We are proposing to maintain two northbound and southbound lanes as it is currently.
I will note that this will involve having to reduce the width of the existing travel lanes in order to
make room for the new left turn pocket. Currently there is 46 feet available curb to curb so right
now the inside lanes on Middlefield are ten feet wide and the outside lanes are 13 feet. As a
result of installing the left turn pockets the outside lanes need to be narrowed to nine and one-
half feet and the inside lanes narrowed to nine feet and that will leave room for a nine foot wide
left turn bay. We also propose maintaining the existing mid-block pedestrian signal near the
Walgreen’s.
Here is a plan view showing the proposed condition that I have just described. You will notice
the narrowing of the lanes near the intersection, the inclusion of the left turn pockets and the
Cio~ of Palo Alto Page 4
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
crosswalks. What will result is essentially identical to what is currently in existence on
Middlefield at the Colorado Avenue intersection.
Our proposal will enhance safety in several ways. First and foremost it provides positive right-
of-way control to all vehicles using the intersection. This will result in a reduction of the right
angle broadside types of collisions that I described and will benefit all modes of transportation,
pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles by positively controlling the vehicles that enter the
intersection. The proposal also removes left turning vehicles from the main traffic lanes. This
wi!l result in a reduction of the rear-end sideswipe type of collisions as well as the left turn
broadside type of collisions. Finally, the proposal will increase the visibility of oncoming traffic
to vehicles that are turning left by shifting the left turning vehicles more toward the center of
roadway in the left turn pockets they will have a clear view of oncoming traffic, which would
tend to result in a reduction of those left turn broadsides. Another way it increases safety is
vehicles that are waiting to turn left in the left turn pockets will feel less pressure to make the left
turn because they won’t have vehicles stacking behind them possibly honking their horns.
Therefore, they will tend to wait for a larger gap before making the left turn, they will tend to not
accept a smaller gap and will therefore make a safer left turn.
The new traffic sig-nal will be coordinated with the existing traffic signal at Colorado Avenue
and with the existing mid-block pedestrian actuated signal as much as possible. We don’t expect
any additional delays to result from these traffic signals. We anticipate there may be some
additional delay as a result of vehicles now occasionally a!ong Middlefield having to wait at a
red light but this will be offset by reduction in delays by minimizing the conflicts such as I
showed you in that photogaph a few slides ago that already currently exist at that !ocation.
The Transportation Division took our proposal to the Midtown community back in October of
last year. We presented essentially the same proposal we are presenting before you today with
the exception of at the time we were recommending removing the mid-block pedestrian actuated
traffic sig-nal. Invitees and attendees to the meeting were residents, merchants, general public
also PABAC was invited and any interested members of the Midtown Residents Association.
What we found was there was general support for the new traffic signal and for the left turn
pockets at the meeting. There was however, no consensus on the mid-block pedestrian actuated
traffic signal. About half of the attendees expressed a desire to remove the signal thinking that it
would increase delays too much along the roadway. The other half expressed desire that it
remain because it does add additional safety and convenience for people wishing to access the
Midtown Shopping Center. In October we also took the proposal to the Palo Alto Bicycle
Advisory Committee. They opposed the proposal on the gounds that outside lanes would need
to be reduced in width to accommodate the left turn pockets. They felt that this was counter to
the intent of the Draft Bicycle Master Plan which shows bicycle lanes eventually being installed
along Middlefield and that by reducing the outside lane we would be sacrificing the safety of
bicyclists. Staff feels that there will be no reduction in safety for bicyclists because the new
traffic signal ~vil! control traffic flow through the intersection more safely than it currently does,
which will provide a benefit to bicyclists as well.
A few alternatives to the Staff recommendation. One alternative is to install a traffic signal
without installing the left turn pockets. This would maintain the current level of bicycle
accommodations by not having to have the width of the outside lane adjusted. However, this
would not address the most predominant types of accidents that are occurring which are the rear-
CiO" qf Palo Alto Page 5
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
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
end sideswipes or the left turn broadside types of accidents which make up 60% of the total. So
if we were to pursue this alternative we would not get nearly the safety benefit we were hoping
to gain. Similarly another alternative is to install the turn pockets without the traffic signal and I
don’t believe I mentioned this alternative in the Staff Report but I thought I would put it here for
completeness sake. This would tend to reduce the rear-end sideswipe and left turn broadside
type of accidents. It would be cheaper to implement because we wouldn’t be installing a traffic
signal and it would likely incur fewer delays than the Staff recommendation. It would not
address the right angle broadside types of accidents because there would be no right-of-way
control. In addition this would provide no additional safety for bicyclists or pedestrians using the
intersection. A third alternative which I guess isn’t an alternative so much as something that
could be added to the Staff proposal would be to go ahead and remove the mid-block traffic
signal. There would likely be a slight advantage in terms of reducing delays if the signal were
removed however it does add safety and convenience for pedestrians and there would be
significant opposition from the community if the signal were removed based on what we found
out at our public meeting.
As Next Steps the Transportation Division is anticipating forming a committee made up of
members of the Midtown Residents Association, other interested residents, merchants of the
Midtown Shopping Center, the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee, the general public and
City Staff. The purpose of this committee would basically be twofold, one to evaluate traffic
flow along the segment once our proposal is implemented predominantly to determine if leaving
the existing mid-block pedestrian signal in place is detrimental to traffic flow along the street.
the second goal of the committee would be to recommend further improvements, specifically
further improvements to the safety of bicycles and pedestrians using Middlefield Road, perhaps
looking at ways to accommodate bicycle lanes. We anticipate reporting our recommendations
and findings back to the Planning and Transportation Commission within 12 months of project
implementation.
The total cost of our proposal including the installation of the traffic signal and modifying the
striping along Middlefield Road is approximately $220,000. This amount has been included in
the 2002-03 Electric Utilities CIP. This money will rollover into the 2003-04 CIP should the
project not be completed by the end of this fiscal year, which it would not be.
In conclusion, Staff feels that these signing and traffic signal and striping changes are necessary
in order to mitigate a fairly serious and ongoing safety problem at this intersection. I thank you
very much for your time and I will answer any questions you have now.
Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. Commissioners I think questions at this point and then
we will go to the public. Any questions from Commissioners? Yes, Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: I was curious, the $220,000 pays for how many individual traffic
signals? A gain of three in other words.
Mr. Stillman: Signal heads? It pays for a full installation at the intersection. I don’t know the
exact number of signal heads but there would be signal polls and mast arms on Middlefield Road
controlling Middlefield Road traffic. There would be signal polls and signal heads for the
Bryson and the Midtown driveways. So it would be a complete, the actual number of signa!
heads would be more than that because there would be one on the mast arm and one on the poll
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 6
1
2
3
4
for the mast arm. So there is a minimum of two for each direction of travel and there may end up
being more. Then there would be pedestrian indicators also.
Commissioner Griffin: Thanks.
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
Chair Bialson: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: Have you thought about where you are going to place those polls so that
they don’t interfere with the sidewalk?
Mr. Stillman: We have gone out to the site and we have identified locations where those polls
can be placed. It is a challenging location because the two driveways are separated a bit but it is
feasible and there are ways to do it without interfering with pedestrian travel.
Chair Bialson: Joe.
Commissioner Be!lomo: What type of improvements do you need to make off-street into those
driveway areas, sisal tripping? Does that $220,000 include the improvements?
Mr. Stillman: Yes.
Commissioner Bellomo: Into the site?
Mr. Stillman: Yes.
Commissioner Bellomo: What about the alignment? Looking at kind of a small-scale plan like
this I noticed the alignrnent. Was there any consideration of modifying the alignrnent of the
driveway approaches?
Mr. Stillman: Not for this proposal, no. That would involve substantially geater cost and quite
a bit of coordination with the owner of the Midtown Shopping Center.
Commissioner Bellomo: Looking at traveling southbound from Oregon to Colorado there is a
sweeping distance for that left turn lane. Does that propose any difficulties of negotiating?
Pending their striping is it a bit wide? Do you consider that a bit wide of a turn lane?
Mr. Stillman: It is perhaps a bit wider than usual but it doesn’t give us any difficulties that we
wouldn’t be able to overcome. We would provide a line of bots dots through the intersection,
which would guide motorists into the proper driveway. We would sig~ the driveways clearly so
that drivers knew which was the entrance and which was the exit and the configuration of the
intersection as far as where the driveways are located isn’t going to change from the way it is
currently. So the way that it will operate is similar to the way that it does operate now. So we
are not making it any worse than it already is.
Commissioner Bellumo: There are no bike lanes on Middlefield at this point.
Mr. Stiltman: Correct.
CTty of Palo Alto 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
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Commissioner Bellomo: So bicyclists are basically on their own. I know some schools, private
and public, I know there is Key School down the street. What is your feeling on this shallowing
up of the widths of these lanes? As far as again just to substantiate I understand you are saying
there is no problem with safety but bike riders, especially school kids, will take the sidewalk and
this will certainly be another level of discomfort in this lane width. Nine and one-half feet is
awful thin. I just want to know the next level of thought that has gone into this.
Mr. Kott: As David indicated Commissioner Bellomo we will be evaluating effects including
the potential effect you just mentioned. One alternative, we have mooted this publicly of course,
is in time creating a three lane cross section. That is one lane in each direction with retaining the
center left turn pockets and bike lanes on each side. We need to develop a workable stakeholder
consensus to move forward on that but we are quite open to doing that.
Chair Bialson: Karen.
Commissioner Hotman: Yes, did Staff get any feedback or give any consideration to the small
shopping area on the other side Bryson where Mike’s is and where Mid-Peninsula Hardware is?
The Staff Report doesn’t mention that there are accidents of people trying to get out there, it just
talks about accidents from Bryson. Was there any consideration of changing ingress and egress
in that shopping area or has it not caused problems? I find it kind of difficult to negotiate myself.
Mr. Stillman: It is very difficult to effect changes in ingress and egress to existing properties in
terms of relocating driveways. Is that the sort of thing that you are talking about?
Commissioner Holman: I was talking about is it the most appropriate ingress and egress, not
rearranging it, but is it the most appropriate or functional ingress currently and egress currently
and would there be an advantage to putting any right turn only on an egress for example?
Mr. Stillman: There would probably be, in general it is advantageous to put right turn only on
egresses onto roadways such as this. Left turns tend to cause a lot of accidents. Practically
speaking it is difficult to inflict that type of restriction. You are essentially taking away access
from an existing development and that is very difficult to put that in place once a property has
been developed. I didn’t see an accident problem relating to vehicles turning left from those
driveways that would warrant taking a step in that direction.
Chair Bialson: Go ahead.
Commissioner Burt: Did you see any accident history regarding shoppers leaving Midtown
making a left turn going southbound on Middlefield?
Mr. Stillman: I believe so, yes. That would be the right-angle broadside type of accidents that I
referred to.
Commissioner Burt: Right-angle broadside.
Mr. Stiltman: Yes, as they are pulling out.
CiO’ of Palo AIto Page 8
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
Commissioner Burt: So that issue would be addressed even if we did not have the left turn
pockets?
Mr. Stillman: Correct. That would be addressed with the traffic signal alone.
Commissioner Burt: Then I was glad to hear that you are going to have some bots dots
indicating the proper route there. I personally witnessed people shortcutting in through the exit
of Midtown there. As I look at the drawing the north edge of this new intersection looks a bit
further moved back to the north from the comer than does the south edge. This goes I think to
the question Commissioner Bel!omo was asking about. What is the reason that that’s a bit
further back?
Mr. Stillman: I don’t ~know. When the Midtown property was developed that was the site plan
that was submitted and approved. I don’t know" why it was decided that way.
Commissioner Burt: Can I make sure I am clear on what I mean?
Mr. Stillman: Sure.
Commissioner Burt: This is the sidewalk here, right? So my question is that sidewalk location
looks further back.
Chair Bialson: Pat, take the microphone.
Commissioner Burt: That sidewalk location looks a bit further back from the comer than this
one does. Is that deliberate and I was interested in the reasoning for that.
Mr. Stillman: Is it specifically the location of the crossing?
Commissioner Burt: The location of the crossing and the consequent size of that intersection
that Commissioner Bellomo was asking about. Is it larger than is necessary for that reasoning?
Mr. Stillman: This crosswalk here is placed as close to this driveway as we can get. So we have
made the intersection as ti~ht as we can get it given the existing constraints of the entrance and
exit driveways to the shopping center.
Commissioner Burt: The other crosswalk looks closer.
Mr. Stillman: Right, because this driveway is located more into the intersection than this one is.
This driveway is as you can see if you extend this driveway down it is pretty far out of the actual
intersection area. So therefore the crosswalk had to be brought back as well.
Commissioner Burt: I am just talking about the difference if you look right at the distance
between the driveway and the beginning of the crosswalk on the right side of the picture.
Mr. Stillman: This distance here?
Commissioner Burt: Yes, versus the distance on the left side of that crosswalk.
CiO, qf Palo Alto Page 9
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. Stillman: This distance here?
Commissioner Burt: Yes. So I am asking why is there that difference?
Mr. Stillman: There should be actually be very little, the edge of the crosswalk should align
pretty closely to the edge of the driveway.
Commissioner Burt: That may just be a drawing issue.
Mr. Stillman: Yes. There is no reason why that would have to be.
Commissioner Burt: Okay. Then next question, you mentioned that the plan was to put four
crosswalks. Could you expand upon why there is a necessity for two crosswalks to cross
Middlefield there rather than a single one? I am just interested in whether it would actually be
less hazardous to have a single crosswalk whether it is on the north side or the south side of that
intersection.
Mr. Stillman: No it would not be less hazardous. We could have one crosswalk and it would
serve the pedestrians almost as well as having two. There is no overwhelming reason why we
would have to have two crosswalks there if there is an advantage to only having one that
wouldn’t be a problem.
Chair Bialson: Karen.
Commissioner Hotman: Follow up to that. Is there a cost implication to having one as opposed
to two?
Mr. Stillman: No. The price of the crosswalk is fairly insignificant compared with the cost of
the traffic signal installation. There would be a slight reduction in striping cost and hardware.
We wouldn’t have the ped heads across Middlefield at that side of the driveway but it would be
very minimal.
Commissioner Holman: I am sure it would be, all things compared, everything is relative but if
it was some savings and not necessary we might as well save the money.
Mr. Stillman: Sure.
Commissioner Burt: Annette.
Chair Bialson: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: .You mentioned that the three sig-nals would be coordinated. Right now the
pedestrian only sig-nal is activated ]zy pedestrians pushing the button.
Mr. Stillman: Correct.
Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 10
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
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Commissioner Burt: So I assume that if these were going to be coordinated then that activation
would change to something that is timed with the other sig-nals.
Mr. Stillman: Yes, that is correct. It could be timed so that the red at the mid-block crosswalk
for Middtefield traffic would only occur at the most convenient time basically when there was
already an existing gap resulting from a red in one of the downstream signals. So it would not
immediately turn red for Middlefield traffic as the push button is pushed but would delay for a
more optimal time.
Commissioner Burt: Does it also mean that every time say Colorado Avenue has a geen signal
that signal would become red on Middlefield?
Mr. Stillman: No. It would remain geen along Middlefield unless there was a call from a
pedestrian.
Commissioner Burt: Okay, so both things have to occur. It is timed xvith Colorado and Bryson
and it is activated by the pedestrian?
Mr. Stillman: Yes. Currently it is activated by the pedestrian and it will remain on geen for
Middlefield unless it receives that pedestrian call. It would remain that way under this proposal.
Commissioner Burt: But in addition to being activated by the pedestrian it would also now have
to be timed with Colorado and Bryson?
Mr. Stillman: Yes.
Chair Bialson: Joe, one more question?
Commissioner Bellomo: Yes, one final question.
Chair Bialson: Okay, then I get mine.
Commissioner Bellomo: In transportation rationale if you were introducing the installation of
this pedestrian four-way traffic stop and you saw a situation with pedestrian mid-block crossing
with synchronization results would you recommend that this mid-block pedestrian crosswalk be
removed for synchronization and safety and include two walkways around a four-way
intersection? What would be your basic rationale and practice?
Mr. Stillman: Yes, we would recommend that it would be removed in that case.
Commissioner Bellomo: Thank you.
Mr. Kott: One add-on conm~ent on the two crosswalks across Middlefield. It is our view that it
serves pedestrian convenience and there will be sufficient demand. Sometimes we like to
concentrate crossings when demand is lighter on one leg of the intersection. We think we will
have enough for two this time.
CiO, of Palo A lto Page 11
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
Commissioner Bellomo: But the rationale is to eliminate the southern-most pedestrian crosswalk
because you leaving the mid-block crosswalk. So there is a rationale on eliminating the
southern-most pedestrian crossing to save the money you are leaving it?
Mr. Kott: Yes.
Chair Bialson: I think we will get into that when we go into comments. As follow up to that,
how many feet or yards distance is there between the pedestrian activated light and this proposed
new crosswalk?
Mr. Stillman: It is about 250 to 300 feet.
Chair Bialson: Now following up on Karen’s comments if someone is exiting from the hardware
store, Mike’s Restaurant onto Middlefield and wants to go north they now have to cross three
lanes, is that correct? They would have to cross the two lanes going south as well as the left turn
lane in order to cross?
Mr. Stillman: Yes.
Chair Bialson: Doesn’t that cause some sort of problems and what difficulty would we have in
providing, now that we do have a signal at the intersection of perhaps only allowing a right turn
lane there and requiring people who want to exit turning north to go through the controlled
intersection?
Mr. Stiltman:
Chair Bialson:
left turns.
The best alternative would be to have them use Bryson to make the left turn.
You had indicated that we couldn’t make that regulation that they not make any
Mr. Stillman: Correct. It would be difficult to mandate that restriction.
Mr. Kott: Certainly the ardent desire of traffic engineers everywhere is to close off as many
driveways as possible but it does limit the access to properties and it is difficult with existing
properties.
Chair Bialson: Do you have a follow up, Phyllis?
Commissioner Cassel: Yes. On the other side of the road from the Midtown Shopping Center
you show one driveway between the Midtown.Shopping Center entrance and Colorado and
actually I think there are two there.
Mr. Stillman: This section?
Commissioner Cassel: No, the other side.
Mr. Stillman: This section? Over here?
Commissioner Cassel: Yes as you go down towards Colorado there are two driveways up there.
Cio~ of Palo Alto Page 12
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. Sti!tman: So there is a driveway here.
Commissioner Cassel: There is another one slightly down, not that far down.
Mr. Stillman: Okay, thank you.
Chair Bialson: Pat.
Commissioner Butt: Phyllis you touched on a sore point. That missing driveway is for a single
parking space. I would be remiss if I didn’t take this opportunity to put in a request to really
have that one considered for the future for elimination.
Mr. Stillman: Sure.
Commissioner Burt: I don’t know where we have a commercial curb cut for a single parking
space elsewhere in the City.
Commissioner Cassel: This is not comment time so I was waiting.
Mr. Kott: If I may offer a comment, Commissioner Burr, in terms of driveway closures. When
there are redevelopment proposals and development proposals that is certainly an appropriate
time to condition these actions on driveway closures.
Chair Bialson: I am assuming that our able City Attorney would speak to this if there were
something one could do about it.
Ms. Wgnne Furth, Senior Assistant City Attoruey: I was just reading this really interesting case
about ATM deregulation. The fact is as our Transportation Director said, these projects all have
approved site development plans and they built those improvement based on legally approved
plans, they have a vested right to those improvements. So they can stay there unless or until we
change our rules and amortize them out condemn them out or as we normally do wait until there
is a redevelopment proposal and then see if we can do a better job.
Chair Bialson: I will wait for the comment period to address my concern about the increase in
accidents about that particular driveway. Are there any other questions or can we go to the
public at this time? Let’s go to the public. May I have the speaker request cards?
We have four speakers so we are going to give each speaker five minutes. The first speaker will
be Ellen Fletcher.
Ms. Ellen Fletcher, 777San Antonio Road, #108. Palo Alto: Hi. I am really concerned about this
proposal. Far from increasing bicycle safety is the mission really of the City it decreases it. To
judge the safety of it because there haven’t been previously a large number of accidents there is
because people are too afraid to ride it. When I ask people why don’t you ride a bike here or
there they say it is so dangerous. This is going to make it more dangerous. The solution of
course is to put in the three-lane option that Joe mentioned. Other cities around here have done
it. I know it is done on La Cuesta in Mountain View. I believe it has been done in San Jose or is
Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 13
1
2
3
4
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
in the process. I am not sure about Sunns,wale. I haven’t really kept a log but every once in
awhile I will hear of a project such as this where they reduce four lanes to three and put in the
bike lanes. For every new bicyclist you get you get one less car. Mr. Bellomo mentioned the
children going to the schools along Middlefield, well one reason there are so many cars on the
road is parents drive their children to school and they pick them up in their cars. We should do
everything we can to make the roads safer for bicycling. I know from history that when you put
in bike lanes there is a surge in new bicyclists. Everyone who is on a bicycle except for the
children of course was previously in a car. So I urge you to recommend to the City Council that
they seriously consider the three-lane option. For Palo Alto not to be in the forefront of this type
of project is not in keeping with out bicycle friendly image. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Paul Goldstein to be followed by Ron Wolf.
Mr. Paul Goldstein, 1024 Emerson, Palo Alto: Hi. I am the Chair of PABAC, the Palo Alto
Bicycle Advisory Committee. As David mentioned we did consider this at our meeting on
October 2 and we voted unanimously against it. Let me say that it is very hard to speak against
this project in the sense that I feel that the Transportation Department has done a good job in
trying to solve the immediate problem ahead of them which how do you reduce the number of
accidents that you have. This clearly is a dangerous intersection and I think the proposal will
reduce the number of accidents as the Traffic Engineer has stated. But if you look at the
Comprehensive Plan that we have and our long term desire to reduce the usage of cars for short
term trips, if you look at the specific place that this is, this is in a commercial district with the
kinds of activity that are largely community serving, I would venture to say that many of the trips
if not most of the trips are local trips that could be made by bicycles. This is just one more thing
to accommodate automobiles at the cost of bicycling.
Now, do I think that this lane narrowing is disastrous for bicycles? I think the situation out there
now as Ellen said is so bad that this particular lane narrowing will make it no more worse.
However, I was distressed that one of the alternatives that there was a lack in the alternatives
presented of the three lane option. I am happy that it has come up in this meeting. The three
lane option with a center turning lane, one lane in each direction, bike lanes is much more
friendly to pedestrians and bicyclists. I fee!, I don’t have the data. but I believe that the traffic
engineering studies say that the amount of traffic that is currently on that street can well be
handled with a three-lane option.
So what happened? I think what happened is that when you put this out in the community you
get a large negative feeling from people immediately in that area saying that it will not handle
that amount of traffic and they are afraid of it. So we have a Comprehensive Plan that says lets
get people out of their cars, lets get people to bicycle and walk and then whenever you try to do
something, witness the Embarcadero project or the controversy around the E1 Camino project,
thank you folks for looking at that, you get a bunch of people who are afraid that this will impact
them in their cars. Well, even if it impacts them in their cars it also impacts them on their
bicycles in a positive manner. I actually personally believe that a three-lane option in this area
could be shown to not negatively impac~ the traffic and to provide the safety benefits of this left
hand turn pocket. Because basically what you want to do is you want to get those left hand
turning cars out of the way of the front moving cars and not have lane changes at the last minute.
CiO, of Palo A lto Page 14
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
So I would recommend that the three-lane option be placed on the table and be looked at as an
alternative to this. I don’t know how much of a setback this would be in terms of a long-term
plan. The Bicycle Plan does have Middlefield Road as a bicycle route on it. It is a route to the
north and it is a route to the south. It is a perfect through-route to Palo Alto. We have bike lanes
on it at some places but we don’t have bike lanes through the section north of here and we don’t
have bike through this particular section. It would be a very desirable route to connect and I
think we should move in that direction. I definitely hope that this is not a setback even if it is an
interim solution to handle an immediate safety concern that we not delay a serious
recommendation to convert that to a three-lane street. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. I was just informed that there was a misunderstanding as to way
some of these speaker request cards were indicated. So at this point I will have Ron Wolf speak
as I indicated followed by Sheri Furman.
Ms. Sheri Furman, 3094 Greer Road, Palo Alto: Can we switch around?
Chair Bialson: If you ~vant. So Sheri Furman to be followed by Ron Wolf.
Ms. Furman: I am the Traffic Chair of the Midtown Residents Association, which is why I
wanted to speak first. I urge you to take Staff recommendation and support this. We have been
working on this issue since 1995. We really need this for safety issues.
I want to address a few of the things. People don’t use bicycles now because the lanes are
already narrow they use the sidewalks. While I do support the previous two speakers’ concerns
about that and support the ultimate reducing of it to three lanes we have been waiting for this
light and this safety issue for a long time. So even if it is an interim thing I really urge you to
support it. We need it now.
I wanted to explain a couple of things that you brought up in your questions. Part of the problem
here and why it seems to be offset is because when that was Midtown Market, I have lived here
since 1976 so I have seen a lot of changes here, there wasn’t that separation of the entrance and
exit the way there is now. By putting parking there and a barrier that has kind of offset the
entrance and exit. As far as that other little one parking thing I use that once in awhile. Another
problem you may be hearing about one of these days is there is another restaurant going in here.
I was just on Bryson tonight and traffic is backed up all the way here. Parking from Mike’s is
over in this parking area, we are going to add another restaurant, and the pressure on Bryson and
this whole area is going to be horrific with two restaurants. It is geat, we are really happy about
it.
So taking all those things into account and for safety reasons I really do urge you to support this.
I plan to work with or the Traffic Committee plans to work with the Transportation Department
on a long-term solution of reduction of lanes and al! of that but right now we really need this.
Thank you.
Chair Bialson: We have a question.
Ms. Furman: You can ask me questions. That would be geat.
(’iO’ of PaIo Alto Pbge 15
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
Commissioner Butt: Thanks. I am not sure if I understood you correctly you said regarding the
use of bicycles in this area, did you say that the sidewalks are commonly used for bikes or are
you saying that pedestrians use the sidewalks?
Ms. Furman: Bicyclists commonly use the sidewalks and they are allowed to in this part of town
because the lanes are already narrow.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Now Ron Wolf to be followed by Chris Glazek.
Mr. Ron Wolf, 745 San Carlos Court, Pato Alto: Hi. I live right over here on that picture so I
have had years and years of observing this intersection as have most of the people in Palo Alto. I
am with the Midtown Residents Association I should mention that. Partly this is our fault
because when we formed the Residents Association in 1995 the area was becoming blighted.
There was more square footage that was unused than was used. There were a lot of problems in
the area. We like to think that we were a big part of bringing the area back to full vitality. We
are really excited about a lot of things that are going on there even today. However, the traffic
situation in those years has become worse and worse. A lot more cars, there is a lot more
confusion of site lines and whatnot that I think lead to these accidents. You can see the
frustration of drivers as they try to negotiate through this. That is, I think, a lot of the reason why
people go in the exits, partly’confusion and partly frustration. I don’t think it is so much that
they are calculating that ifI go in that way I will save five seconds of my life. I think people are
very stressed in this area and having a traffic light at this location to calm down the action will be
a very good thing. I really like what I see happening in the Traffic Department with the
coordination of the lights to keep flow through there because that is also important or we will
have even more frustrated people.
I am a bicyclist myself. I think it is very, very dangerous to bike on Middtefield today. I
wouldn’t recommend it to anybody. There are better streets to bike on. Now, the three lane
option is an option that many of us in the Residents Association have favored for many, many
years but we also know as representatives, we consider ourselves representatives of the
neighborhood, that there are many, many people in the neighborhood who do not favor this
option. If we were to bring forth this option today without very careful planning and working
with everybody in the neighborhood and the City that it would be a many, many year very
contentious project where you might as well flip a coin to decide whether it would go through or
not. We think it is a very important thing to do but we also think it has to be approached very
carefully with a lot of planning and with a lot of preparation and a lot of education. We are not
at that point today.
I also want to mention that I heartened to see, this will sound like a bizarre comment but, I am
heartened to see that this is the fourth most dangerous intersection in the City. Why is that?
Because anybody who lives in the area has actually observed accidents there I think I have
personally observed three of them in the ten years that I have been in the neighborhood. So to
hear that is one of the most dangerous intersections is heartening because I would hate to think of
intersections that are even worse than this one. It is a really bad situation people are getting hurt
there. It is dangerous for kids. One of the principles of the Residents Association is to
encourage pedestrian friendliness. I think it is very important for this light to go in. I absolutely
City ofPalo Alto Page 16
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
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
1 support both crosswalks. I would urge you not to go out and say lets just guess it is going to be
2 $10,000 it could be a significant amount of money, I consider $10,000 to be a significant amount
3 o~ money by reducln~ the crosswalks to one because what people wi!l do in that situation is they
4 will just cross anyway. I think safety comes first. That is the whole purpose for this project. We
5 have gone for too long with a dangerous situation. I urge you to pass this in the form of the Staff
recommendation. Thanks.
Commissioner Griffin: I have a question.
Chair Bialson: Just a second we have a question.
Commissioner Griffin: Can you tell me from what you have said I understand you to mean that
the three-lane option was not the discussed during this discussion process with the residential
association specifically in conjunction with the Bryson light.
Mr. Wolf: I would actually have to defer to Sheri for that answer. Do you mind if I do that?
Ms. Furman: We will double-team you here. I don’t think at the last meeting it was discussed
specifically. It has been considered but there was a lot of hysteria about doing even this much.
There were people saying it is going to put all the traffic onto Cowper and stuff like that. It has
been thought of but this I think is our best bet at the moment.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Our next speaker is Chris Glazek. I had given five minutes to each
speaker because I thought we didn’t have as many speakers and it has grown. So if you can limit
yourself to three that is geat but you have.
Mr. Chris Glazek, 656 Blwson Avenue. Palo Alto: I have lived on Bryson Avenue since 1992.
This intersection essentially from the point of view of Bryson Avenue is a nightmare. Coming
home or leaving our houses, anybody who lives on that street is extremely dangerous we put our
lives in our hands every time we do that. I once characterized it as being a prisoner on my own
street. I don’t really live in Palo Alto to be put in prison essentially.
The situation has always been bad. It used to be before Long’s came in both of these here were
ingress and then somehow Long’s applied to the City for permission to make one an egress and
that was ganted to them xvhen they did their construction. That is a question I would have for
you. The situation truly became a ni~dhtmare after that. So I wholeheartedly support the
Transportation Department’s ultimate recommendation for three lanes and it would
accommodate bicyclists, it would accommodate more people than not. I don’t see that
happening right now I think partly because of cost and partly because of~vhat Sheri was saying,
there is a lot of dissention amongst people in the neighborhood for that. I would love to see that
happen, I don’t see it happening in the near future and just to really sum up from the point of
Bryson Avenue something has to happen and something has to happen now. It is going to get
worse and worse. New business is coming in and everything like that. That is pretty much it.
Chair Biatson: Thank you very much. Karen, do you have a question?
Commissioner Holman: I do. Just a clarification to make sure I got this right. When the Long’s
came in or before Long’s came in that was only egress across from Bryson off Middlefield?
CiO, of Palo Al¢o Page 17
ATTACHMENT-C
Airi[ 2, 2003
Dear Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission,
The Midtown Residents Association (MRA) strongly endorses the staff recommendation to approve the
installation of a traffic light with left turn pockets at the intersection of Middlefield and Bryson in Midtown.
Installation of a traffic light at this location has been recommended since at least 1995. It has been studied time
and time again with the same clear recomrhendation of a traffic signal at the intersection to the Midtown
Shopping Centre. The staff reports emphasizes this need based on the high accident rate.
The only point of discussion is the pedestrian light. At the last Midtown meeting on this topic (October 22,2002),
consensus was not reached on keeping or removing this light. Staff is recommending that a small group be
formed to study this area after the installation of the new light. We believe this is prudent and is also a step
toward gaining consensus for moving ahead. MRA is flexible on the retention or removal of the pedestrian
signal.
The funding for this light is included in this year’s fiscal budget. Please move ahead without delay and approve
the staff recommendation.
Thanks for considering this letter.
Annette Ashton
Chair, Midtown Residents Association
Sheri Furman
Chair, Traffic Action Committee, MRA