Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-08-11 City CouncilCity of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT 2 DATE: SUBJECT: AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION RECOMMENDATION REGARDING COUNTY STUDY DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CMR:376:03 COMMISSION EXPRESSWAY RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Transportation Commission and staff recommend that Council endorse key aspects (all in the highest priority category) of the proposed County Expressway System improvements for Palo Alto’s Oregon-Page Mill Expressway. BACKGROUND The County of Santa Clara initiated a Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study in September 2001 with an invitation to all cities with County expressway segments within them to participate in a Study Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Policy Advisory Committee (PAC). The City Manager appointed the City’s Chief Transportation Official to serve on the TAC and the Mayor requested that Council Member Kishimoto serve on the PAC. An extensive study process and stakeholder consultation has culminated in a three-tier list of proposed County expressway system improvements. Tier 1 represents the highest priority category and the improvements most likely to receive funding for implementation. County Roads and Airports seeks official endorsement for proposed improvements in each municipality within Santa Clara County. Tier 1 improvements include about $12,000,000 earmarked for Palo Alto segments of the County expressway system. Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council endorse the following: Tier 1 (Highest Priority) 1)Replacing traffic signal poles and optimizing traffic signal timing plans, with emphasis given to ensuring pedestrian and bicycling safety 2)Construction of pedestrian ramps with relocation of traffic signal poles at signalized intersections CMR:376:06 Page 1 of 3 3) 4) 5) Tier Studying adding a turn lane at Middlefield Road and converting to an 8-phase signal operation to enhance operational efficiency without taking right-of-way Modifying the 1-280/Page Mill Road interchange by removing the loop on-ramp and constructing a southbound diagonal on-ramp with signal operations; signalizing the northbound off-ramp intersection; and providing proper channelization for pedestrians and bicyclists Studying replacement of the Alma Street bridge 2 6)Providing a separate westbound right-turn lane and lengthening westbound left-tern lane at E1 Camino Real Tier 3 7)Adding a second southbound right-turn lane from Junipero Serra to Page Mill; extending the southbound right-turn lane half way to the Stanford Avenue intersection with no free right-turn lane; and avoiding inadvertently inducing traffic shifting onto Stanford Avenue 8) Reconstructing the Alma Street bridge Other Elements 9)Re-striping of expressway shoulders to meet requirements of the County Expressway Study Bicycle Accommodation Guidelines 10)Pedestrian crossing enhancements (pedestrian ramps) along Oregon Expressway at Bryant and Cowper Streets, and Louis and Greer Roads, along with a parallel path for pedestrian travel west of Foothill Expressway 11)Consideration of sound walls on Oregon Expressway as existing landscaping nears the end of its life cycle, including extensive public review and discussion of the merits of doing so. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS On June 11, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed staff’s initial recommended list of improvements. The Commission concurred with all of the recommended improvements, with the exception of the proposed study of median closures on Oregon Expressway. Commission members urged that pedestrian and bicycle crossing safety be explicitly considered in future traffic signal improvements along the Oregon-Page CMR:376:06 Page 2 of 3 Mill Expressway. In addition, Commissioners also expressed skepticism as to the desirability of, and need for, sound walls for Oregon Expressway. RESOURCE IMPACT These recommended improvements would be funded and maintained by the County of Santa Clara, while providing safer and more efficient transportation within Palo Alto. Thus there is a potential for an investment of up to $12,000,000 in transportation improvements on the Palo Alto portions of the County Expressway system, all funded externally. POLICY IMPLICATIONS These recommendations support and conform to Comprehensive Plan Goal T-4: "An efficient Roadway Network for All Users" and "Policy T-28: Make effective use of the traffic-carrying ability of Palo Alto’s major street network without compromising the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists also using this network." ALTERNATIVES Council may choose to delete selected items from the list of twelve above or not take any action at all. ATTACHMENTS A. June 11, 2003 Planning and Transportation Commission Report B. Minutes from June 11, 2003 Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting PREPARED BY: Official DEPARTMENT HEAD: STEVE EMSLIE Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Assistant City Manager Planning and Transportation Commission Dawn Cameron, Valley Transportation Authority Dan Collen, Valley Transportation Authority CMR:376:06 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT A TRANSP OR TA TION DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM:JOSEPH KOTT DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: JUNE 11, 2003 COUNTY EXPRESSWAY STUDY DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission recommend to Council endorsement of the County Expressway Study Implementation Plan as pertains to Palo Alto, including: Tier 1A- 1)Replacing traffic signal poles and optimizing traffic signal timing plans. 2)Construction of pedestrian ramps with relocation of traffic signal poles at signalized intersections. 3)Study closure of uncontrolled medians along Oregon Expressway. 4)Study adding turn lane at Middlefield converting to an 8-phase signal operation to enhance operational efficiency without taking right-of-way. Expressway Study-Draft Implementation Plan Page 1 5)Modifying the 1-28-/Page Mill Road interchange by removing the loop on-ramp and construction of a SB diagonal on-ramp with signal operations; signalize the NB off-ramp intersection; and provide proper channelization for pedestrians and bicyclists. 6)Study replacement of the Alma Bridge. Tier 2 - 7) Provide a separate WB right-ram lane and lengthen WB left-ram lane at E1 Camino Real. Tier 3 - 8)Add a second SB fight-turn lane from Junipero Serra to Page Mill; extend the SB right- turn lane half way to the Stanford Avenue intersection with no free right turn lane and avoiding inadvertently inducing traffic shift onto Stanford Avenue. 9) Reconstruct the Alma Bridge. BACKGROUND The County of Santa Clara initiated a Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study in September 2001 with an invitation to all cities with County Expressway segments within them to participate in a Study Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Policy Advisory Committee (PAC). The City Manager appointed Chief Transportation Official Joe Kott to serve on the TAC and the May requested that Council Member Kishimoto serve on the PAC. Study objectives were defined as follows: 1)Identify a plan for improvement and maintenance of the County’s expressways that is supported by local officials and communities. 2)Identify funding needs and suggest appropriate sources. 3)Recommend priorities and implementation strategies. 4)Recommend priorities and implementation strategies. Expressway Study Draft Implementation Plan Page 2 Tile Expressway Study comprises a number of elements, including: Analysis of Existing Conditions and Deficiencies, Bicycle Accommodations Guidelines and Expressway Bicycle Plan, Expressway Pedestrian Plan, Sound Wall Improvements Needs and Priorities, Landscape Master.Plan and Funding/Maintenance Options, Safety Needs and Costs, Capacity Improvemen~ Alternatives, HOV Effectiveness, Priorities, and Operational Policies, and Draft and Final Implementation Plan. Further detail may be found at the Study Web site: http://www.expressways.info/and in Attachments A through F. A map of the County Expressway System, including traffic volume ranges on all segments is included at the end of Attachment A. DISCUSSION Palo Alto’s portion of the Santa Clara County Expressway System includes Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road and Foothill Expressway. Only one of the System’s fifteen signalized intersections in Palo Alto, Page Mill-Foothill, currently operates at a level of service (LOS) ofF. The remaining intersections operate at an acceptable LOS. Much of the Expressway System functions like an urban arterial, with at grade signalized and unsignalized intersections providing ready access to nearby residential and commercial activities. Efficient operation of these urban expressway sections are important in order to provide convenient cross-town travel and connections to regional freeways such as 101 and 1-280, but also to keep cross and parallel residential streets free of through traffic. Since Oregon Expressway and Page Mill Road divide residential and commercial districts in Palo Alto, it is essential to provide safe and convenient intersection accommodations for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle traffic crossing these County Expressways, as well as suitable bicycle and pedestrian accommodations along the Expressway corridors. It is especially important in Palo Alto that any future studies of median closures on expressways, new turn lanes, or other operational changes, pay close attention to the effects on bicycle and pedestrian travel. The proposed Draft Implementation Plan for Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road is focused on operational efficiency and safety improvements. The overall objective is to maintain the Expressway segments in Palo Alto as efficient cross-town routes, thus preventing through traffic diversion onto cross and parallel residential streets, while at the safe time enhancing safety for both cyclists and pedestrians. NEXT STEPS Staff will present Commission recommendations regarding the County Expressway Study to the City Council. Expressway Study Draft Implementation Plan Page 3 ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS A. Study Purpose, Process and Schedule B. Draft Implementation Plan C. Oregon-Page Mill and Foothill Expressway Improvement Plans D. Capacity and Operation Improvement Element E. Signal Operations!Traffic Operations System (TOS) Element F. Maintenance, Operations & Aesthetics COURTESY COPIES Mike Sartor, Public Works Department Prepared by: Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official (_~ph Kott, Chief Transportation Official Expressway Study Draft Implementation Plan Page 4 Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Maintenance, Operations & Aesthetics Maintenance, operations and aesthetics involve all activities and materials necessary to keep the expressways functioning and looking presentable. The key feature about these activities is that their costs are recurring rather than a one-time capital outlay. The County’s current practices are limited by available revenue. The Expressway Study is proposing increased levels of effort comparable to many of the cities’ current practices. The recommended levels of effor~ and estimated annual costs for each activity are described below. For some activities (e.g., signal operations, sweeping, and landscaping), the costs are incurred annually. For infrastructure replacement and pavement management, the costs are incurred at various intervals. For these categories, the total cost over the Study’s 30-year planning period was calculated and then divided by 30 for an average annual cost. Recommended Levels of Effort: Element Description Signal Operations/TOS Sweeping Landscape Maintenance Develop and optimize variable timing plans for different times of the day and days of the week for all expressways annually. Maintain newly installed Traffic Operations System (TOS) providing video sensors, fiber optic signal interconnections, and other advanced technologies to monitor and improve traffic flow. Increase frequency from once per month to twice per month plus on-call response. ¯Maintain the enhanced level of landscaping systemwide. ¯Replace old plantings as needed. ¯Control weeds, clean up litter, and repair fences. Annual Cost (millions) $1.5 $1.2 $4.0 Pavement ¯Patch potholes as encountered.$3.8 Maintenance ¯Implement a preventive maintenance/ rehabilitation program with regularly scheduled resurfacings. Goal: The expressways should be cleaner and greener with smooth pavement and synchronized signals. By the Numbers ¯ 8 expressways ¯ 62 miles of expressway ¯134 signalized intersections ¯ 55 bridges ¯ 150,000 feet of existing sound walls Keeping the Signals Synchronized In public opinion surveys, the most popular improvement is for the signals to be synchronized. The signals are synchronized for limited time periods, but need retiming regularly as traffic conditions change. There is also a delicate balance in providing as many greens as possible along expressway and avoiding excessive waits for cross-street traffic. Recommended Landscaping ¯ Trees and limited shrubs ¯Ground cover for median finishes ¯Sound walls covered with vines ¯ Automated irrigation systems The installation cost to bring the entire expressway system up to this level of landscaping is $1 9 - 23 million. The full Draft Implementation Plan is available at www.exDresswavs.info and at the County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department Plan Counter located at 101 Skyport Drive, San Jose. Or, visit your local library for web site access. Deadline for comments is May 14, 2003. To submit comments, use our web site or call our hotline at 408-544-2476, extension 333. Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Recommended Levels of Effort (continued): Element Description Sound Wall Maintenance & Replacement ¯Respond to graffiti within 1 to 3 days of notification depending on type of graffiti. ¯Replace all existing sound walls based on a 30 to 40-year life cycle. Annual Cost ,,(million.s) $1.9 Infrastructure ¯Implement preventive maintenance by $4.9 Replacement replacing on scheduled routine before worn out. ¯Replace and upgrade materials to reflect latest technology/materials where cost- effective. Facility, Equipment ¯Implement routine maintenance and replace $1.2 & F~eet when needed. ¯Upgrade and expand as needed to accommodate the proposed increases of levels of maintenance efforts. Enforcement ¯Continue to contract with CHP to patrol San $0.1 Tomas, Montague, and Lawrence. ¯Cities continue to provide enforcement on all other expressways. Costs and Revenue Sources The total cost to provide the proposed maintenance and operations levels of effort is $18.6 million annually. The only continuous source of expressway operating funds is the County’s share of state gas tax and future Proposition 42 (sales tax on gas tax) funds. These funds must be divided among the expressways and the 600+ miles of county unincorporated roads. The current annual gas tax revenue available for expressways is $5.2 million, leaving a shortfall of $13.4 million annually. Infrastructure Replacement Infrastructure replacement affects all areas of the expressways. Types of infrastructure include: ¯ Signal and lighting systems ¯Guard rails ¯Signs ¯Delineators ¯Sidewalks ¯Drainage ¯Utility systems ¯Major pavement reconstruction Enforcement Some expressways are patrolled by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) with the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane violation fines covering most of the costs. If the CHP were to enforce all 8 expressways, the cost to the County and cit:ies would be around $3 million annually. Supplementing the current gas tax revenues are landscape maintenance agreements where cities and private developers pay for routine landscaping maintenance. There are also occasional one-time funding sources, most notably for pavement maintenance. The current expressway pavement resurfacing projects are funded through the Measure B sales tax program. VTP 2020 also provides pavement management grants. These special.funding sources cannot be counted on to be available for scheduled routine maintenance necessary to extend pavement life. The lack of adequate sustainable revenue for maintenance and operations affects both the quality of the expressways and the ability to make improvements. For example, the County will not install nor allow others to install new landscaping unless funds are available for maintaining it. Other capital improvements that create increased maintenance/operating costs (e.g., new signal technologies, more roadway pavement) will face the same challenges. (Revised: Al~ril 4, 2003) Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study ATTACHMENT A Study Purpose, ProCess and Schedule Purpose Key Elements The Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study serves as a long-range strategic plan for the improvement and maintenance of the expressways. Appropriate goals for each expressway were developed based on the expressway’s unique characteristics and community needs. The study’s documentation includes identification of alternatives, measures of effectiveness, a record of local preferences, operational and maintenance policies, funding strategies, and improvement priorities. The final product is a long-range Implementation Plan that details the policies, priorities, and funding strategy for the expressway system. The Study takes a comprehensive look at each expressway and includes the following elements: ¯Capacity and Operations Improvement ¯Signal Operations/Traffic Operations System (TOS ¯High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) System ¯Bicycle ¯Pedestrian ¯Finishing Program (sound walls and landscaping) ¯Maintenance and Operations ¯South County Working Paper ¯Funding Strategy By the Numbers... ¯8 Expressways ¯62 miles of expressway ¯134 signalized intersections ¯1.5 million vehicles use expressways daily ¯55% of Santa Clara County residents use an expressway daily (based on 2001 telephone survey) ¯30 LOS F intersections in 2001/2002 ¯50 LOS F intersections projected in 2025 Other Summaries available... v"Draft Implementation Plan "./Almaden Expressway ,/Capitol Expressway ~"Central Expressway ,/Foothill Expressway v"Lawrence Expressway ,/Montague Expressway ¯ "Oregon/Page Mill Expressway ¯ /San Tomas Expressway ¯ /Expressway Maintenance, Operations & Aesthetics The full Draft Implementation Plan is available at www.expresswavs.info and at the County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department Plan Counter located at 101 Skyport Drive, San Jose. Or, visit your local library for web site access. Deadline for comments is May 14, 2003. To submit comments, use our web site or call our hotline at 408-544-2476, extension 333. Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Process A key to the success of this Study is a strong collaborative planning process. Two committees were established to provide ongoing review and input for the Study: ¯Technical Working Group (TWG) - composed of staff from all 15 cities in the County plus Caltrans, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), Policy Advisory Board (PAB) - composed of 2 County Supervisors, 12 councilmembers from cities with existing or potential future expressway mileage, 2 VTA Board members, and 2 County Roads Commissioners. Final approval of the Implementation Plan will come from the County Board of Supervisors. Community Involvement The Study has had an extensive public involvement process, including a web site with an e-mail link for submitting comments, telephone public opinion surveys, and community meetings during project development and during the review period for the Draft Implementation Plan. Outreach meetings have been held with the business and development communities. The County Roads Commission and County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) have also been included in the process. Schedule January 2002-March 2003 - TWG and PAB developed policies, priorities, and funding options leading to a Draft Implementation Plan. April-May 2003 - City Council and public review of the Draft Implementation Plan. May-June 2003- Draft Plan revised based on comments; TWG, PAB, and Board of Supervisors approves Final Implementation Plan. Contact lnfo Written correspondence may be sent to: Dan Collen, Pr~ect Manager Santa Clara County Roads and Airpo~s Depa~ment 101Skypo~ Drive San Jose, CA 95110 Or call the Project Hotline at 408-544-2476, ext. 333 Or visit our website at www.expresswavs.info (Revised: April 4, 2003) o "I Expressway Vision Statements Almaden ~ High-end express arteria! with freeWay-like segments. Capitol ~Corridor median. in transition to high-capacity arterial with lightrail transit in Central > High-end express arterial with freeway:like segments. Foothill > Attractive express arterial, not freeway-like, that also plays an important rote as a regional bicycle facility. . La~ence Southern end more arterial-like; mid-section more high-end expressway with freeway-like segments; and northern end more high-end express arterial. Montague Multi-modal, pedestrian friendly arterial roadway in Milpitas east of 1-880; west of 1-880, high-end express arterial with freeway-like segments. Oregon-Page Mill ~Multi-modal, pedestrian friendly arterial roadway with slower, sn’~ooth- flowing traffic. San Tomas > High-end express arterial with freeway-like segments. Figure 2-2 Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study 05/29/03 PaQe 2 - 12 Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Draft Implementation Plan ATTACHMENT B The Expressway Study provides a long-term plan for the improvement and maintenance of the County Expressway System. This summary provides an overview of the Draft Implementation Plan including the capital improvement program, maintenance and operations needs, and the proposed funding strategy. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Roadway Capacity and Operational Improvements The Capital Improvement Program includes roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, sound wall, and landscaping improvements. A brief description of these improvements and cost estimates are provided below. Sixty-nine (69) roadway improvement projects are identified for the expressway system. They include the following types of projects: Capacity Projects - Roadway widening, new turning lanes at intersections, and new or reconfigured interchanges/grade separations. Operational and Safety Improvements - Auxiliary lanes, median closures, and bridge replacements. Signal Operational Improvements - Traffic Operations System (TOS) equipment using advanced technologies to monitor and improve traffic flow, replacement of outdated equipment, and expanded coordination with city signal systems. High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) System Projects - Improves effectiveness of HOV system. Includes adding one new HOV lane segment, removing HOV lanes experiencing operational problems, and adding HOV expressway-freeway direct connector ramps. By the Numbers... 8 expressways 62 miles of expressway 134 signalized intersections 55 bridges 1.5 million vehicles use expressways daily 55% of Santa Clara County residents use an expressway daily (based on 2001 telephone survey) 30 LOS F intersections in 2001/2002 50 LOS F intersections projected in 2025 Other Summaries available... Study Purpose, Process & Schedule v"Almaden Expressway v"Capitol Expressway v"Central Expressway v"Foothill Expressway ~"Lawrence Expressway v"Montague Expressway ,/OregonlPage Mill Expressway v"San Tomas Expressway v"Expressway Maintenance, Operations & Aesthetics The full Draft Implementation Plan is available at www.exDresswavs.info and at the County, of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department Plan Counter located at 101 Skyport Drive, San Jose. Or, visit your local library for web site access. Deadline for comments is May 14, 2003. To submit comments, use our web site or call our hotline at 408-544-2476, extension 333. Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Roadway Improvements Costs and Priorities The total cost for the roadway improvement capital program is $1.64 to 1.94 billion. To determine priorities for funding and implementation, the roadway projects were divided into tiers using specific criteria. The table below summarizes the tiers. # of Capital CostTier Tier Description Projects (Millions) 1A Improves LOS F intersection or other 25 $149-151 operational improvements 1B Constructs interchange at LOS F 7 $261-271 intersection 1C Improves 2025 projected LOS F 13 $49-53 intersection 2 Other expressway capacity improvements 15 $585-671 and new technologies 3 Major existing facility reconstruction and 9 $593-795 new facilities TOTALS 69 $1,637-1,941 What is LOS? Level of service (LOS) is a measure of traffic flow and congestion levels. LOS A is the best condition representing freely flowing traffic. LOS F is the worst condition representing excessive delays and jammed conditions. Effectiveness of Roadway Improvements ¯6 of the 8 expressways would operate at corridor level of service (LOS) D or better. ¯Montague Expressway would have LOS E and F corridor segments but queuing and overall delay would be reduced significantly over existing levels. ¯Capitol Expressway may have LOS E or F segments northeast of US 101; however, a light rail line is planned for this expressway providing a travel alternative. ¯28 existing LOS F intersections and 43 projected 2025 LOS F intersections would be improved to at least LOS E, with most improved to LOS D or better. ¯The Tier 1A list of projects improves 18 existing and 24 projected 2025 LOS F intersections. Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Bicycle Projects Pedestrian Facilities Sound Walls Landscaping MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS Provides adequate continuous bicycle travel width along expressway shoulders and through intersections with appropriate striping. Includes striping improvements and shoulder widening projects. Identifies pedestrian improvements needed for traveling along and for crossing the expressways. Includes new sidewalks, improved connections and directional signage to parallel pedestrian facilities, intersection crossing enhancements, and new pedestrian overcrossings (POCs). Identifies locations where new or higher sound walls are needed. Includes installation of new landscaping and irrigation systems to bring entire expressway system up to an acceptable level of landscaping. Maintenance and operations include all activities and materials necessary to keep the expressways functioning and looking presentable. While the County’s current practices are limited by available revenue, the Expressway Study recommended levels of effort comparable to the cities’ current practices. Listed below are the total estimated costs by type of activity: Category Annual Operating Cost (Millions) i $1.5Signal OperationsFFOS Sweeping I $1.2 Landscape Maintenance t $4.0 Pavement Maintenance I $3.8 Infrastructure Replacement !$6.6 (all types) All Other $1.5 TOTAL i $18.6 Cost Summary (millions) Bicycle $3.8 Pedestrian $21.4 Sound Walls $47.7 Landscaping $19 - 23 Part of Roadway Projects *< $19.2 > Net Capital Cost $73 - 77 * Roadway capacity/operational projects include these other improvements within project limits. Capital Program Total $1.71 to 2.02 billion Goal: The expressways should be cleaner and greener with smooth pavement and synchronized signals. Cost Summary (millions) Annual Needs $18.6 Annual $ 5.2 Revenue Unmet Needs $13.4 Maintenance & Operations Unmet Needs $!3.4 million annually Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study FUNDING STRATEGY N EXT STEPS The pdmary funding sources for the ~apital improvement program are federal and state grants. These grants are allocated through VTA’s Valley Transportation Program (VTP) 2020. Currently, out of a $2 billion roads program, VTP 2020 allocates $80 million for expressways. VTP 2020 also includes competitive grant programs for bicycle, pedestrian, and sound wall improvements. VTP 2020 requires a 20% local match for all capital projects. The County does not have sufficient funds to meet this match requirement, which can approach several million dollars a year depending on the amount of capital grants received. The only maintenance and operations funding program in VTP 2020 is for pavement management. All other maintenance and operations needs do not qualify for V-I’P 2020 grant funds. Based on the Expressway Study’s Implementation Plan needs and the current outlook for funding sources, the following funding strategy is recommended: Request the VTA Board of Directors to increase the VTP 2020 expressway allocation from $80 million to at least $150 million to allow full implementation of Tier 1A projects. An additional $270 million will be needed to complete the Tier 1B projects. Jointly with VTA, pursue additional revenue for meeting both the transit operating needs and the expressway maintenance/operations needs, including capital program local match requirements. Work with the cities to collect expressway traffic mitigation fees and expressway pedestrian, sound wal!, and landscaping improvements through land use development approval processes Pursue grants and partnerships for non-roadway capacity projects, such as pedestrian, bicycle, sound wal!, and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) projects. At the conclusion of the public comment period, the Draft Implementation Plan will be revised. The Final Implementation Plan will be approved by the Expressway Study Policy Advisory Board and County Board of Supervisors in May/June 2003. It will then be submitted to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for inclusion in the VTP 2020 Update scheduled to begin in late 2003. (Revised: April 7. 2003) SanTomasExpw~ p ~ Lawrence Expwy .,~ ~ Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Oregon-Page Mill Expressway ATTACHMENT C Vision Roadway Capacity and Operational Improvements Multi-modal, pedestrian friendly arterial roadway with slower, smooth-flowing traffic. The roadway improvement projects recommended for Oregon-Page Mill Expressway are listed below: Tier Cost Priodty Project Description (t)(millions) 1A 1A $5 Oregon corridor improvements: ¯ Replace signal poles and optimize timing plan ¯ Construct pedestrian ramps with relocation of traffic signal poles at signalized intersections ¯ Study median closures and other operational changes at the unsignalized intersections at Waverley, Ross, and Indian ¯ Conduct feasibility study of adding turn lane at Middlefield Road and converting to 8-phase signal operation to enhance efficiency and safety without taking d£lht of wa), 1-280/Page Mill interchange modification: remove SB loop on-ramp and construct SB diagonal on-ramp with signal operations; signalize NB off-ramp intersection; and provide proper channelization for pedestrians and bicycles Alma Bridge Replacement Feasibility Study Provide a separate WB right-turn lane and lengthen WB left-turn lane at El Cam!no Real $5 1A $0.25 2 N.A. Add a second SB right-turn lane from Junipero Serra to Page Mill; extend the SB right-turn lane half way to Stanford Avenue intersection. Maintain through bike lane, no free right-turn lane, avoid inadvertently inducing traffic shift onto Stanford Total Tier 1A: Total Tier 3: TOTAL: 3 Alma Bridge Reconstruction (1) When funding is obtained, each project will undergo design, environmental review, and community outreach as appropriate. (2) Palo Alto may provide improvements for the El Cam!no Real intersection, as specified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. $2-4 $100 $10.25 $102-104 $112.25- 114.25 (3) Although this is an existing LOS F intersection, Palo Alto would like to wait on improvements until they can evaluate the benefits of the Sand Hill Road improvements and programs to encourage alternate modes of transportation on the LOS at this location. Should a future evaluation indicate improvements are still needed, the project could be moved into Tier 1 with Palo Alto’s concurrence. Why a Vision Each expressway has its own unique character, function, and community relationship. The vision, developed through a collaborative process, shaped the expressway’s improvement strategies. About Oregon-Page Mill Expressway ¯4.7 miles long ¯4 lanes wide ¯14 signalized intersections ¯2 freeway connections (US 101, ~-280) ¯ 2 cities served (Palo Alto, Los Altos Hills) ¯ 50,000 vehicles use Oregon- Page Mill daily ¯ 1 LOS F intersections in 2001/2002 ¯ 1 LOS F intersections projected in 2025 What is LOS?. Level of service (LOS) is a measure of traffic flow and congestion levels. LOS A is the best condition representing freely flowing traffic. LOS F is the worst condition representing excessive delays and.jammed conditions. Roadway Project Tiers Tier 1A -Improves LOS F intersections or other operational improvements Tier 1 B -Constructs interchange at LOS F intersection Tier 1C -Improves 2025 projected LOS F intersections Tier 2- Other capacity improvements Tier 3- Major facility reconstruction/ new facilities The full Draft Implementation Plan is available at www.exDresswavs.info and at the County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department Plan Counter located at 101 Skyport Drive, San Jose. Or, visit your local library for web site access. Deadline for comments is May 14, 2003. To submit comments, use our web site or call our hotline at 408-544-2476, extension 333. Comprehensive County Expressway Planrting Study Effectiveness of Roadway Improvements Bicycle Improvements Pedestrian Improvements Sound Wall Improvements ¯Oregon-Page Mill would continueto operate at LOS D and the LOS F intersection would be improved to LOS E or better. All necessary re-striping to bring the expressway into compliance with the Bicycle Accommodation Guidelines (BAG) will be completed as part of a system-wide re-striping project. Shoulder widening is needed through the Alma bridge area; however, this widening must be completed as part of the bridge reconstruction project. Oregon has continuous frontage roads along the north side for pedestrian use and Page Mill has sidewalks from El Camino Real to Foothill Expressway. A parallel path is recommended for pedestrian travel west of Foothill. Pedestrian crossing enhancements are recommended at four locations along Oregon (Bryant, Cowper, Louis, and Greer). The primary need is to add pedestrian ramps, which will require moving signal poles. These ramps are included in the Tier 1A Oregon Corridor Improvement project. Preliminary noise level analysis indicates that sound walls should be added along both sides of Oregon between US 101 and Alma at a potential cost of $5.7 million. It is recommended that these new sound walls be considered when the existing landscaping reaches the end of its life cycle and needs replacement allowing an integrated installation plan to be pursued. Bicycle Accommodation Guidelines (BAG) The BAG includes standards for bicycle travel area widths, striping, signage, trail connections, and maintenance. Based on the concept that expressways are for advanced-skill bicyclists, bike travel area will be delineated but not designated as bike lanes. There is a process for designating bike lanes under certain conditions. Pedestrian Use of Expressways Pedestrian treatments along the expressway va~ and include use of sidewalks, parallel streets or paths, and wide shoulders/informal paths depending on conditions. Pedestrian Crossings High demand crossing locations were identified for possible improvements. Potential improvements include eliminating free right turns, longer pedestrian signal timing, pedestrian countdown timers, median signal push buttons, and pedestrian ramps. Expressway Finishing Program The Finishing Program involves improvements to expressway medians and edges, including sidewalks, landscaping, and sound walls. This summary describes recommended new sidewalks and new/higher sound walls for noise abatement. The Maintenance, Operations. & Aesthetics summary provides details about landscaping and replacing old sidewalks and sound walls. (Revised: April 7, 2003) Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Foothill Expressway Vision Roadway Capacity and Operational Improvements Effectiveness of Roadway Improvements Attractive express arterial, not freeway-like, that also plays an important role as a regional bicycle facility. The roadway improvement projects recommended for ~ Foothill Expressway are listed below: Tier Cost Priority Project Description (1)(~)(millions) 1A $10Replace Loyola Bridge (This improvement project should also provide necessary bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and channelization and operational improvements at adjacent intersections.) 1A Traffic/signal operational corridor improvements $1.5 between Edith and El Monte including adjacent side street intersections & at Grant/St. Joseph 1A Extend existing WB deceleration lane at San $0.5 Antonio by 250 feet (1) When funding is obtained, each project will undergo design, environmental review, and community outreach as appropriate. (2) The Foothill/Page Mill intersection (an existing and 2025 LOS F intersection) is lis~d as part of Oregon-Page Mill Expressway. TotalTier IA: TOTAL: $12 $12 Foothill Expressway would continue to operate at LOS D and all existing and project LOS F intersections would be improved to LOS E or better. Why a Vision Each expressway has its own unique character, function, and community relationship. The vision, developed through a collaborative process, shaped the expressway’s improvement strategies. About Foothill Expressway ¯7.3 miles long ¯4 lanes wide ¯11 signalized intersections ¯1 freeway connection (I-280) ¯4 cities served (Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Palo Alto) ¯110,000 vehicles use Foothill daily ¯1 LOS F intersections in 2001/2002 ¯ 2. LOS F intersections projected in 2025 What is LOS? Level of service (LOS) is a measure of traffic flow and congestion levels. LOS A is the best condition representing freely flowing traffic. LOS F is the worst condition representing excessive delays and jammed conditions. Roadway Project Tiers Tier 1A -Improves LOS F intersections or other operational improvements Tier 1 B -Constructs interchange at LOS F intersection Tier 1C-Improves 2025 projected LOS F intersections Tier 2- Other capacity improvements Tier 3 -Major facility reconstruction/ new facilities The full Draft Implementation Plan is available at www.exDresswavs.info and at the County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department Plan Counter located at 10t Skyport Drive, San Jose. Or, visit your local library for web site access. Deadline for comments is May 14, 2003. To submit comments, use our web site or call our hotline at 408-544-2476, extension 333. Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Bicycle Improvements Pedestrian Improvements Sound Wall Improvements All necessary re-striping to bring Foothill Expressway into compliance with the"Bicycle Accommodation Guidelines (BAG) will be completed as part of a system-wide re-striping project. Shoulder widening is needed at the following locations: ¯Near San Antonio - can be accomplished as part of extending the deceleration lane. If pursued independent of the roadway project, it will cost $0.2 million. Near Magdalena - will cost $0.3 million. Under Loyola Bridge - must be completed as part of bridge reconstruction project. Foothill has wide shoulders for emergency and occasional pedestrian use. It also has long stretches of frontage roads for pedestrian travel. Improvement recommendations include: A short stretch of sidewalk is recommended at the NW comer of Magdalena to encourage pedestrians to walk to the Magdalena crosswalk rather than jaywalking from the church to the commercial center. Total cost is $0.05 million. Two pedestrian crossing enhancement locations were identified for school, park, and commercial access: St. Joseph/Grant and Main/Burke. Total potential cost is $0.4 million. Crossing improvements for the Magdalena intersection are already being made as part of the Safe Routes to Schools Program. A significant amount of new sound walls are recommended along Foothill Expressway at a total cost of $8.39 million. A higher replacement sound wall is also needed in one area for a total cost of $0.45 million. Bicycle Accommodation Guidelines (BAG) The BAG includes standards for bicycle travel area widths, striping, signage, trail connections, and maintenance. Based on the concept that expressways are for advanced-skill bicyclists, bike travel area will be delineated but not designated as bike lanes. There is a process for designating bike lanes under certain conditions. Pedestrian Use of Expressways Pedestrian treatments along the expressway vary and include use of sidewalks, parallel streets or paths, and wide shoulders/informal paths depending on conditions. Pedestrian Crossings High demand crossing locations were identified for possible improvements. Potential improvements include eliminating free right turns, longer pedestrian signal timing, pedestrian countdown timers, median signal push buttons, and pedestrian ramps. Expressway Finishing Program The Finishing Program involves improvements to expressway medians and edges, including sidewalks, landscaping, and sound walls. This summary describes recommended new sidewalks and new/higher sound walls for noise abatement. The Maintenance, Operations, & Aesthetics summary provides details about landscaping and replacing old sidewalks and sound walls. Total Other The bicycle, pedestrian, and sound wall Capital Costs improvements recommended for Foothill total $9.79 million. (Revised" April 7, 2003) Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study ATTACHMENT D DRAFT CAPACITY AND OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT The Capacity and Operational Improvement Element of the Expressway Study focuses on automobile-related improvements. It includes projects that will increase roadway capacities; improve operational and safety conditions; facilitate traffic flow using signal coordination and advanced traffic operations system (TOS); and provide direct High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) connectors between expressways and freeways where HOV facilities exist or have been planned. This report provides a summary of the capacity and operational improvement projects and the criteria used for tier prioritization. The process to develop the list of improvements began with a comprehensive traffic analysis, including existing and projected 2025 traffic volumes, intersection level of service (LOS), and intersection collision data. A preliminary list of improvements was developed to address problems areas. These improvements ranged from signal and operational improvements to capacity enhancements. Working with local cities and other agencies, the list was further expanded to include desired improvements that will help achieve the vision for each expressway. The detailed list of improvement projects, with cost estimates, is included at the end of this report. The Capacity and Operational Improvements map (Figure 1) illustrates the variety of improvements spread over the entire expressway system. Systemwide Results Figure 2 illustrates the overall benefits of the Capacity and Operational Improvements Element. The "Baseline 2025" map indicates projected corridor LOS and intersection LOS F locations without the projects. The "Project" map indicates 2025 LOS conditions with full implementations of all recommendations. The corridor-wide traffic analysis shows overall corridor LOS to be significantly improved with the implementation of the capacity/operational improvements. Six of the eight expressways would operate at a minimum of LOS D with some expressway segments achieving LOS C. Montague, east of ~880, would improve from LOS F to E. West of ~-880, Montague would continue to operate at LOS F but the queuing and overall delay would be reduced significantly (25% reduction in delay of all vehicles; 13 minute reduction in travel time). Capitol from Nieman through US 101 interchange would improve from LOS F to E and would remain LOS D west of US 10!. Projected LOS information for Capitol north of Nieman to 1-680 is not available since the projects have not yet been fully defined. Draft Capacity and Operational Improvement Element March 12, 2003 Page 1 San Tomas Expwy~.~ ~ 2025 BASELINE CONDITIONS 2025 PROJECT CONDITIONS Legend B~LOS A-C Corridors ~-TLOS D Corridors ;i; LOS E Corridors ~LOS F Corridors ¯ LOS F Intersections Date : 3-12-03 Figure 2 - 2025 PM Peak Conditions Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Altogether, the capacity and operational projects listed mitigate 28 out of 30 existing LOS F intersections. The remaining 2 existing LOS F intersections are as follows: ¯Capitol/Story - This intersection is par[ of the initial phase of the Downtown East Valley light rail project. Any potential improvement project for this location will be determined through coordination with the light rail project and San Jose policies. ¯Montague/First - The 1999 Montague Study included a policy decision to accept LOS F conditions at this intersection.- Under 2025 projected conditions, the overall list of projects mitigates 43 out of 50 LOS F intersections, with the following 7 intersections remaining at F: ¯The 2 existing LOS F intersections listed above. ¯Three additional intersections on Capitol Expressway (Ocala, Tully, and Quimby) -Like Capitol/Story, any potential improvement projects for these locations will be determined through coordination with the light rail project and San Jose policies. ¯Montague/Zanker- Like Montague/First, the 1999 Montague Study included a policy decision to also accept LOS F conditions at this intersection. ¯Lawrence/Homestead - An interchange project at this location is not supported by local cities due to the right-of-way impacts. The total list of capacity/operational projects will cost from $1.64 to $1.94 billion to implement. Some project descriptions indicate specific improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians. All cost estimates include appropriate bicycle, pedestrian, and sound wall improvements within the project limits. The total cost also includes $100-150 million for HOV direct connectors and $83-105 million for signal operations/TOS improvements. Detailed descriptions of the signal operations/’ros and HOV direct connector projects can be found in the respective element report. There is also a line item regarding the South County Circulation Study, which will develop improvement recommendations for Rural Commute Routes, such as Santa Teresa Boulevard in Gilroy. Although not technically County expressways, these routes will require funding from the same sources as the expressway projects. Draft Capacity and Operational Improvement Element March 12, 2003 Page 4 Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Prioritization The project list also shows the prioritization by tier for implementation. Described below are the criteria used to prioritize the improvement projects and each tier’s project delivery time once funding is secured: Tier Criteria: ~ At-grade improvements to mitigate existing LOS F intersections to E or better. ~ Operational improvements to eliminate weaving, merging/diverging, and queuing problems, thus improving safety conditions. ~- Signal operations improvements that improve traffic flow. ~ Low-cost feasibility studies needed to answer critical questions about interchange reconfigurations that have a high level of local support. Overall, the Tier 1A projects are relatively low cost improvements that provide significant congestion relief and/or address a major operational/safety concern. Once implemented, these projects will both improve existing LOS F intersections and keep them from downgrading back to LOS F by 2025. Project Completion Timing (once funds become available): Most of the projects in this tier can be completed in 3-4 years (including time for environmental review, community outreach, design, right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation, and construction). ¯A couple projects may stretch to 6 years due to structures involved and coordination with other agencies. ¯Projects where right-of-way is available (i.e., no right-of-way impact or acquisition) and complex utility relocation is not needed can be completed within 2 years. ¯The feasibility studies will take 1 to 2 years to complete. Tier 1B Criteria: ~ Grade separation/interchange projects to mitigate existing LOS F intersections. These projects are relatively high cost and tend not to be as cost-effective as the at-grade improvements in Tier 1A. Grade separations/interchanges are recommended because there are no at-grade solutions to mitigate the LOS F condition. Once constructed, these projects will both improve existing LOS F intersections and keep them from downgrading back to LOS F by 2025. Project Completion Timing (once funds become available): Draft Capacity and Operational March 12, 2003 Improvement Element Page 5 Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study These projects can typically be completed within 6-8 years. The 6-8 year implementation time frame anticipates 2 years for environmental clearance and preliminary engineering, 1-2 years for final design, 1~2 years for right-of-way acquisition and utility relocation, and 2 years for construction. The only exception is the Montague/Mission College/101 par-clo interchange project, which will have a similar project schedule as Tier 3 projects (8-10 years) because of Caltrans involvement. Tier lC Criteria: ~ Improvements (both at-grade and grade separation/interchange projects) needed to mitigate the projected 2025 LOS F intersections. ~ Longer term signal operational improvements. Capacity projects that only solve future LOS F conditions are placed in Tier 1C. Tier 1A does include some projects that mitigate projected 2025 LOS F intersections that are not existing LOS F locations. This is attributed to implementation strategies for existing LOS F intersections that benefit adjacent intersections, either with operational or capacity improvements. Project Completion Timing (once funds become available): ¯The at-grade improvement projects in Tier 1C will have a similar implementation time frame as the Tier 1A projects (1-4 years depending on right-of-way and utility impacts). ¯The grade separation/interchange projects will have schedules similar to the Tier 1B projects (6-8 years). Tier 2 Criteria: ~ All other expressway capacity improvement projects that can further facilitate traffic flow. ~ Enhancements and upgrades to signal systems using new technologies that will become available over the next 30 years. Project Completion Timing (once funds become available): ¯Most of these projects are grade separation/interchange projects that will have a similar implementation schedule as Tier 1B projects (6-8 years). Tier 3 Criteria: ~ Major existing facility reconstruction and new facilities such as HOV direct connectors. Project Completion Timing (once funds become available): Draft Capacity and Operational March 12, 2003 Improvement Element Page 6 Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study ¯Tier 3 projects will require significant right-of-way acquisitions and a relatively long project development process that will take 8-10 years to complete. All of these projects, except Alma Bridge reconstruction, involve Caltrans review and approval. The 8-10 year time frame anticipates 34 years for Caltrans Project Study Report (PSR), Project Report (PR) and Environmental Document (ED), 2 years for final design, 1-2 years for right-of-way acquisition and utility relocation, and 2 years for construction. ¯The Alma Bridge reconstruction will involve coordination with the public utility commission (PUC) and Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) due to the Caltrain tracks. This will affect delivery timing similar to a Caitrans project. Draft, Capacity and Operational March 12, 2003 Improvement Element Page 7 Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Tier Tier Description Summary Of Tier Results # of Projects # of LOS F Intersections Miti~lated Cost (Millions)2001/2002 Baseline Existing 2025 Measure B Funded Improvements N.A.2 N.A.N.A. 1A Existing LOS F intersection at-25 18 24 $149-151 grade improvements and operational improvements 1B Existing LOS F intersection 7 7 7 $261-271 interchange projects 1C 2025 LOS F intersection 13 0 11 $49-53 improvements and long term operational improvements 2 All other expressway capacity 15 0 0 $585-671 improvements and new technologies 3 Major existing facility 9 1 *1 *$593-795 reconstruction and new facilities TOTALS 69 28 43 $1,637-1,941 * At the local city’s request, one existing/future LOS F intersection improvement project has been placed in Tier 3 rather than Tier 1A. Draft Capacity and Operational March 12, 2003 Improvement Element Page 8 Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Implementation Strategies When funding is obtained, each capacity improvement project will undergo design, environmental review, and community outreach as appropriate. Operational improvement projects (such as median closures, HOV conversions) will also have appropriate traffic analysis, community outreach, and environmental review before implementation. All capacity improvement projects will incorporate pedestrian, bicycle and sound wall needs into the design and construction of the project. The costs for these improvements are included in the project’s cost estimate. The Tier 1A projects should be funded with existing resources without breaking up the package of improvements. The Tier 1A package addresses the top priorities for each expressway and improves most of the current LOS and operational problem areas. These projects can be delivered relatively quickly once funds are secured. However, not all 25 projects in Tier 1A can be worked on concurrently and the funding will likely not be available all at once. A project delivery schedule will need to be developed once roadway funds become available. The project lists and tier assignments should be revised regularly by the County as part of each VTP 2020 Update. Project description/definition, cost, and tier assignments are based on conditions known today. They are also based on the limited design work that is completed in a long-range planning study. As funding becomes available for project development, the project description and cost estimates will be further defined and may require some changes. In addition, it is likely that new land use and transportation system decisions will affect the 2025 traffic projections that were used as the basis for planning in this Study and will require changes in the project list and tier assignments. Draft Capacity and Operational Improvement Element March 12, 2003 Page 9 E <."<." o Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study ATTACHMENT E DRAFT SIGNAL OPERATIONS/TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SYSTEM (mos) ELEMENT This report provides a brief description of the current practice and operations of traffic signals along the county expressways and the funded expressway Traffic Operations System (TOS) Program. The report then documents the recommendations for signal operations and TOS program improvements to be included in the Expressway Study. The costs of the recommended capital projects are incorporated in the Study’s Capacity/Operational Improvements Project Element, while signal operations costs are folded into the Study’s Maintenance and Operations Element. Current Traffic Signal Synchronization Practice There are 134 signalized intersections along the eight expressways. Figure 1 shows the current groupings of synchronized traffic signals. Intersections that are not included in a group are operating in isolation from other traffic signals. Typically, breaks in the signal groupings occur where the travel patterns change or the signals are controlled by Caltrans, such as at freeway interchanges and El Camino Real. The signals at the western end of Central Expressway and the First Street area of Montague Expressway operate without synchronization due to frequent train pre-emption of the signals. The goal of synchronization along expressways is to give priority to through traffic on the expressways. It’s designed to progress large volumes of through traffic in the peak direction, especially during the peak hour periods, from one end of each group to another. Thus, delays and stops on the expressway are relatively low while delays and stops are relatively high for side street movements. All expressway signal groups are coordinated in the weekday AM and PM peak periods for the commute direction. The exact peak period varies by expressway depending on travel patterns. Some of the expressway signal groups are coordinated for weekday mid-day periods and during the weekends. When not coordinated, the signals are free-running and responsive to the left ’urns and cross-street activation by approaching vehicles. Current practice is to conduct signal timing studies and re-time the signals as funding allows, which is generally limited to responding to specific requests from cities and the public. Funded Traffic Operations System Program In the mid-1990s, the County embarked on a cooperative effort with other agencies to study and deploy Smart Corridor technologies (i.e., advanced technologies such as Intelligent Transportation Systems or ITS). The first Smart Corridor deployment occurred in 2000, and Draft Signal Operations/TOS Element March 12, 2003 Page 1 0© .> o Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study included improvements on San Tomas and Montague Expressways. Many extensions have been constructed or are scheduled for construction since then. The County is also studying and deploying Traffic Operations System (TOS) improvements. TOS is a system made up of various ITS components which improve and monitor traffic operations. A countywide review of traffic signal equipment and operations, including synchronization, was completed in 2000. Construction of initial improvements on Central and Lawrence Expressways is currently underway, and construction of improvements on Oregon-Page Mill, Foothill, and Almaden Expressways is scheduled over the next two years. The Measure B Sales Tax Program has allocated $24.5 million for expressway TOS improvements, including traffic management center upgrades, new loop and video sensors along the various expressways, and fiber optic interconnect between traffic signals. Additionally, a demonstration Traffic Adaptive System project is in progress along Lawrence Expressway between Oakmead and Kifer intersections. The adaptive module optimizes the timing split based on the current conditions. If all the cars in a phase do not make it through the intersection, then a set amount of time is added to that phase in the next cycle. If significant gaps develop in the flow of cars, then a set amount of time is removed from that phase in the next cycle. Recommended Signal OperationsFrOS Projects Table 1 (see pages 7-9) summarizes the funded TOS projects and the recommended signal operations and TOS improvement projects that will require additional funding. Signal Operations Projects The following projects totaling $6.7 million have been identified as part of Tier 1A projects for capacity and operational improvements. These projects were selected because they have the potential to improve LOS problems and facilitate traffic flow along specific expressway segments as described below: Foothill operational corridor improvement Signalized intersections along Foothill between Edith and Magdalena are closely spaced with the adjacent local intersections in the City of Los Altos. This project includes upgrading signal controllers at the local intersections, providing communication between the expressway and local signals, and developing timing plans to facilitate traffic flow within the corridor. Lawrence/I-280/Stevens Creek signal optimization study This study will develop optimal signal phasing and timing plans for operations during different times of the day and/or different days of the week to facilitate traffic flow in the interchange area. The study will include three traffic signals along Stevens Creek being operated by the City of Santa Clara and the County’s signal at Lawrence/Calvert/I-280 southbound on-ramp. Draft Signal Operations/TOS Element March 12, 2003 Page 3 Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study ¯Lawrence-Saratoga corridor signal operations study - This study will develop multiple timing plans to facilitate traffic flow between Route 85 and Lawrence Expressway during the peak hour periods. Oregon.corridor improvement project - This study includes replacing and relocating the traffic signal standards at signalized intersections between El Camino Real and US 101, constructing pedestrian ramps when the standards are relocated, potentially adding a southbound left-turn lane at Middlefield Road for 8-phase signal operations, closing the median at Waverley, Ross, and Indian to eliminate pedestrian crossing and potential vehicle conflicts at these unsignalized intersections, and developing new timing plans based on the corridor improvements. TOS Improvements A total of $83-105 million has been identified for continuous update of the expressway TOS using available and new technologies over the next 30 years. As shown in Table 1, the unfunded items of the current TOS Master Plan and upgrades to the County’s standard signal controllers to allow for automatic traffic count collection are recommended as Tier 1A projects. The automated count collection system can help identify trouble spots in the signal operationsFFOS and aid in future design. The County is already deploying a trial installation of a fully adaptive system on three intersections on Lawrence Expressway. Depending on the success of this trial, the adaptive module can be added to the current County signal timing toolbox. Depending on the feasibility and the number of intersections, implementation of adaptive signal system would cost $10-12 million. This project has the potential to provide operational improvements in the longer term and is, therefore, prioritized as a Tier 1C project. Additionally, $55-75 million has been estimated and prioritized in Tier 2 to provide TOS enhancements and update the system as new technologies become available over the next 30 years. The availability and cost of new technologies over a 30-year period cannot be predicted with any accuracy. To arrive at a reasonable cost estimate as a placeholder, we assumed that a sum equal to the current TOS Master Plan cost (approximately $55 million including both funded and unfunded elements) will be needed to replace the TOS over the 30-year period. Another $20 million has been added to account for further enhancements to the current TOS, such as incident management and communications with systems in other agencies. Operations and Maintenance Currently, the County adjusts the signal timing plans along the expressways in response to requests or complaints from the local agencies and the public. In response to the concerns on signal timing issues during the course of the Expressway Study, the County has already initiated the following projects working closely with the involved local agency staff as part of the study: Draft Signal Operations/TOS Element March 12, 2003 Page 4 Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Oregon between El Camino Real and Indian - The purpose of this study is to validate the need to include the El Camino Real sign’al for coordination with the Page Mill system in the PM peak hours and with the Oregon system in the AM peak hour to facilitate traffic flow along Oregon-Page Mill during the commute peak hours. Coordination is required with Caltrans and the City of Palo Alto staff. Foothill from Magdalena to Edith -The purpose of this study is to facilitate traffic flow between El Monte and San Antonio Road and balance this movement with the through traffic flow on Foothill Expressway during the commute peak hours. ¯San Tomas from Moorpark to Scott - The purpose of this study is to optimize timing plans to balance expressway and side street delays during the peak hours. ¯San Tomas between Hamilton and Budd - The County staff has been working closely with the City of Campbell staff to optimize timing plans for this coordinated system and to provide coordination with the City’s signal system on Hamilton. To continue and further expand this type of signal operations efforts to the entire expressway system, a total of $1.5 million annual cost has been estimated for signal operations and maintenance. The estimated cost includes $1.0 million to develop and optimize variable timing plans for different times of the day and days of the week for all expressways annually and another $0.5 million to operate and maintain the TOS. Inter-Agency Signal Coordination As shown on Figure 1, the expressway signal synchronization system is disrupted by Caltrans-operated signals along the expressways and by train crossings receiving signal pre-emption. Currently, there are railroad grade crossings on Montague Expressway and light rail transit (LRT) crossings on Montague, Lawrence, and Central Expressways. Traffic flow along local streets and on the expressways can also be impaired when there are city-controlled signals at local intersections closely spaced with expressways signals. Several of the signal projects listed in this Element involve improved coordination between County and other agencies’ signals and/or incorporating the other agencies’ signals into the expressway signal system. Specific recommendations for continuing to improve inter-agency signal coordination include: Work with Caltrans to bring more Caltrans-operated signals along the expressways into the expressways’ synchronized signal system. Explore additional opportunities to increase coordination between city-operated signals on major cross streets with expressway signals to help optimize traffic flow on both roadways. Draft Signal Operations/TOS Element March 12, 2003 Page 5 Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Continue coordination efforts with rail operators to minimize expressway traffic impacts, and where appropriate, support grade separation of the facilities. A potential instrument for expressway coordination with LRT operations would be a joint operation agreement to optimize peak commute operations for users of the crossing, both on the expressway and LRT. Draft Signal Operations/TOS Element March 12, 2003 Page 6 Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Table 1 Signal Operations and TOS Project Summary Category Status/Project Description Cost Recommended Tier ($million) Measure B Program $23Capital Improvements (Funded) Capital Improvements (Unfunded) TOS Improvements including traffic management center upgrades, new loop and video sensors along the expressways, and fiber optic interconnect between traffic signals Traffic Adaptive System Implementation along Lawrence between Oakmead and Kifer Already included in Tier 1A Capacity/Operational Improvement Projects Total Tier 1A Capacity/Operational Improvement Projects $1.5 Total Funded $24.5 $1.5Foothill Operational Corridor improvements between Edith and El Monte including adjacent side street intersections & at Grant/St. Joseph Lawrence/I-280/Stevens Creek: optimize signal phasing and timing plans including City of Santa Clara signals at Stevens Creek and County’s signal at Lawrence/Calvert/I-280 SB on- ramp Lawrence-Saratoga corridor signal optimization between Prospect and Route 85 Oregon corridor improvements, including replacing signal standards and re-timin9 accordingly $0.1 $0.1 $5 $6.7 Draft Signal Operations/TOS Element March 5, 2003 Page 7 .,~omprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Category Capital Improvements (Unfunded) Continued Operations/Maintenance Status/ Recommended Tier Included in TOS Master Plan but 1A not funded Table 1 Signal Operations and TOS Project Summary (continued) Project Description 1A 1A Potential TOS 1Aprojects to include in the Expressway 1C Study 2 Total Unfunded TOS In progress by Expressway Study Potential’ needs to include in Expressway Study Total Operations/Maintenance Traffic information outlets such as electronic information signs, advisory radio, cable TV feeds, and a web page Install equipment to coordinate expressway signals with city signals on perpendicular streets Install equipment to connect with Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos traffic signal interconnect systems .... Upgrade traffic signal system to allow automatic traffic count collection Adaptive traffic signal system for selected or all expressways based upon further feasibility study New technology/ITS update over the next 30 years Update signal timing plans along the following three expressway corridors: ¯ Oregon between El Camino Real and Indian ¯Foothill from Magdalena to Edith =San Tomas from Moorpark to Scott ¯San Tomas retiming between Hamilton and Budd and coordination with Hamilton system Annual maintenance of TOS Master Plan projects Develop & update multiple timing plans for different times of days and days of week Cost ($million) $5 $10 $2.5 $0.5 $10-12 $55-75 $83-105 N.A $0.5 annually $1.0 annually $1.5 annually Draft Signal Operations/TOS Element Ma~h 5,2003 Page 8 Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Table 1 Signal Operations and TOS Project Summary (continued) Totals Measure B Program Unfunded Capital Improvements Annual Operations/ Maintenance Tier 1A Capacity/Operational Improvement Proiects TOS projects 1A 1C 2 Total Unfunded Capital Improvements Cost (million) $6.7 $18 $10-12 $55-75 Cost (million) $24.5 $89.7-111.7 $1.5 annually Draft Signal Operations/TOS Element March 5, 2003 Page 9 Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Maintenance, Operations & Aesthetics ATTACHMENT F Maintenance, operations and aesthetics involve all activities and materials necessary to keep the expressways functioning and looking presentable. The key feature about these activities is that their costs are recurring rather than a one-time capital outlay. The County’s current practices are limited by available revenue. The Expressway Study is proposing increased levels of effort comparable to many of the cities’ current practices. The recommended levels of effort and estimated annual costs for each activity are described below. For some activities (e.g., signal operations, sweeping, and landscaping), the costs are incurred annually. For infrastructure replacement and pavement management, the costs are incurred at various intervals. For these categories, the total cost over the Study’s 30-year planning period was calculated and then divided by 30 for an average annual cost. Recommended Levels of Effort: Element Description Signal O~erations/TOS Sweeping Landscape Maintenance Develop and optimize variable timing plans for different times of the day and days of the week for all expressways annually. Maintain newly installed Traffic Operations System (TOS) providing video sensors, fiber optic signal interconnections, and other advanced technologies to monitor and improve traffic flow. Increase frequency from once per month to twice per month plus on-call response. ¯Maintain the enhanced level of landscaping systemwide. ¯Replace old plantings as needed. ¯Control weeds, clean up litter, and repair fences. Annual Cost (millions) $1.2 $4.0 Pavement ¯Patch potholes as encountered.$3.8 Maintenance ¯Implement a preventive maintenance/ rehabilitation program with regularly scheduled resurfacings. Goal: The expressways should be cleaner and greener with smooth pavement and synchronized signals. By the Numbers ¯ 8 expressways ¯ 62 miles of expressway ¯ 134 signalized intersections ¯ 55 bridges ¯ 150,000 feet of existing sound walls Keeping the Signals Synchronized In public opinion surveys, the most popular improvement is for the signals to be synchronized. The signals are synchronized for limited time periods, but need retiming regularly as traffic conditions change. There is also a delicate balance in providing as many greens as possible along expressway and avoiding excessive waits for cross-street traffic. Recommended Landscaping ¯ Trees and limited shrubs ¯Ground cover for median finishes ¯ Sound walls covered with vines ¯ Automated irrigation systems The installation cost to bring the entire expressway system up to this level of landscaping is $19 - 23 million. The full Draft Implementation Plan is available at w¢,~w.exDresswavs.info and at the County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department Plan Counter located at 101 Skyport Drive, San Jose. Or, visit your local library for web site access. Deadline for comments is May 14, 2003. To submit comments, use our web site or call our hotline at 408-544-2476, extension 333. Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Recommended Levels of Effort (continued): Element Description Sound Wall Maintenance & Replacement ¯Respond to graffiti within 1 to 3 days of notification depending on type of graffiti. ¯Replace all existing sound walls based on a 30 to 40-year life cycle. Annual Cost (millions) $1.9 Infrastructure ¯Implement preventive maintenance by $4.9 Replacement replacing on scheduled routine before worn out. ¯Replace and upgrade materials to reflect latest technology/materials where cost- effective. Facility, Equipment ¯Implement routine maintenance and replace $1.2 & Fleet when needed. ¯Upgrade and expand as needed to accommodate the proposed increases of levels of maintenance efforts. Enforcement ¯Continue to contract with CHP to patrol San $0.1 Tomas, Montague, and Lawrence. ¯Cities continue to provide enforcement on all other expressways. Costs and Revenue Sources The total cost to provide the proposed maintenance and operations levels of effort is $18.6 million annually The only continuous source of expressway operating funds is the County’s share of state gas tax and future Proposition 42 (sales tax on gas tax) funds. These funds must be divided among the expressways and the 600+ miles of county unincorporated roads. The current annual gas tax revenue available for expressways is $5.2 million, leaving a shortfall of $13.4 million annually Infrastructure Replacement Infrastructure replacement affects all areas of the expressways. Types of infrastructure include: ¯ Signal and lighting systems ¯Guard rails ¯Signs ¯Delineators ¯Sidewalks ¯Drainage ¯Utility systems ¯Major pavement reconstruc tion Enforcement Some expressways are patrolled by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) with the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane violation fines covering most of the costs. If the CHP were to enforce all 8 expressways, the cost to the County and cities would be around $3 million annually. Supplementing the current gas tax revenues are landscape maintenance agreements where cities and private developers pay for routine landscaping maintenance. There are also occasional one-time funding sources, most notably for pavement maintenance. The current expressway pavement resurfacing projects are funded through the Measure B sales tax program. VTP 2020 also provides pavement management grants. These special funding sources cannot be counted on to be available for scheduled routine maintenance necessary to extend pavement life. The lack of adequate sustainable revenue for maintenance and operations affects both the quality of the expressways and the ability to make improvements. For example, the County will not install nor allow others to install new landscaping unless funds are available for maintaining it. Other capital improvements that create increased maintenance/operating costs (e.g., new signal technologies, more roadway pavement) will face the same challenges. (Revised: April 4, 2003) ATTACHMENT B l 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 MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26 Wednesday, June 11, 2003 REGULAR MEET1NG- 7:00 PM City Council Chambers Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 ROLL CALL: 7:05 PM Commissioners: Annette Bialson, Chair Michael Griffin, Vice-Chair Karen Holman Patrick Burt Bonnie Packer Phyllis Cassel- absent Joseph Bellomo - absent Staff: Steve Emslie, Planning Director Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official Ariel Calonne, City Attorney Olubayo Elimisha, Staff Secretary AGENDIZED ITEMS 1.Review of Findings and Recommendations of the County Expressway Study 2.Transportation Strategic Plan 3.Study Session on Citywide Transportation Impact Fee APPROVAL OFMINUTES. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 14, 2003. Chair Bialson: We have five present tonight and we have an agenda that is focused on Transportation. 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 cards for Oral Communications. CONSENT CALENDAR. Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by a Commission Member. Chair Bialson: There are no items on the Consent Calendar. City of Palo Alto Page 1 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 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. Chair Bialson: There are no Agenda Changes. UNFINISHED BUSINESS. Public Hearings: None. Chair Bialson: There is no Unfinished Business. So our first item will be under New Business. It is a Review of Findings and Recommendations of the County Expressway Study. Joe, would you like to give the Staff Report, please? NEW B USINESS. Public Hearings: 1.Review of Findings and Recommendations of the County Expressway Study: Commission discussion of and recommendation to Council regarding the Santa Clara County Expressway Study Implementation Plan. SR Weblink: http~//www.cit¥~fpa~~a~t~.~rg/cit¥agenda/pub~ish/p~anning-transp~rtati~n-meetings/2~84.pdf Mr. Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official: Yes, thank you very much Madam Chair. The Commission has in its agenda packet our Staff Report with attachments from County Roads and Airports regarding their expressway system wide study of future improvement needs for the expressway system. They have been at this for about a year and one-half now. All cities in the County have been involved both on the technical staff level and on the policy level. On the policy level Council Member Kishimoto has represented the City of Palo Alto and I have on the technical staff level. The purpose of our coming to you is to seek comment and suggestions and so forth and hopefully recommendation to our Council to in mm endorse the improvement plan for the Palo Alto segments of the expressway system. Eight cities so far have done that endorsement. There are ten in the County that are being asked to do so. The expressway system in Palo Alto as you all know is a different character than that of most of Santa Clara County. Our Oregon Expressway functions to some extent like a residential arterial. Our Foothill Expressway functions to some extent as a rural arterial and a fine biking facility as the Commission know. Certainly Page Mill Road functions very much as a commercial arterial. So Palo Alto has particular needs in respect to its expressway system and has particular concerns about how it operates and what it is supposed to do and even how it looks. We hope to hear some of that tonight. The expressway system plan envisions an overall $150 million investment in so-called tier one improvements. It is envisioned that about $10 million of this $150 million will be spent on Palo Alto projects so it is very important that Palo Alto in effect steer or guide these investments to suit our own transportation needs and our community desires. City 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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 We have with us tonight two representatives of the study, Dawn Cameron on Study Staff and the other Dan Cullen who is on County Roads and Airport Staff who will present the study recommendations as regards Palo Alto in more detail. If the Commission has no questions of me at this time I would like to ask Dawn to make a presentation. Ms. Dawn Cameron, County Study Staff: Thank you and good evening. I am Dawn Cameron, consulting transportation planner for the County of Santa Clara on this project and as mentioned by Joe, Dan Cullen, our project manager is here as well and we will do some tag teaming as necessary to help answer any questions that you have. I am going to be very brief because I know your time is precious andI would like to have plenty of time for you to ask your questions and get your answers. Basically we were here with you at the end of February and provided you some preliminary information on the recommendations as they stood at that time and got some initial feedback from you. I wanted to let you know that based upon your feedback we worked closely with Council Member Kishimoto and City Staff to change and reword some of the specific recommendations that you see before you. We are hopeful now that we have developed a program of improvements for Oregon and Page Mill Expressway that is more in line with what Palo Alto is seeking. We are here tonight, as mentioned, to request City comments and endorsement on the plan. You would be the ninth city. We are going to visit Mountain View next week, that would the tenth city and that will fmish our round of city visits. Of course it has to go onto your Council, we understand that still. I want to let you know about our next steps. Our County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to adopt the final plan in early August. So time is imperative in order for us to reflect this final opportunity to start to reflect Palo Alto’s comments and endorsement of the plan before it goes to the Board of Supervisors in early August for final adoption. From there the County will submit the plan to the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for inclusion in their next update of the Valley Transportation Plan 2020. That is the long range transportation planning and funding programming document for this County. That is where it is going to be critical that this plan hold together including the concept of the tier 1A project and priorities in seeking a minimum of $150 million of which $10 million could go toward Oregon and Page Mill Expressway. That is where we will be seeking to obtain the fimding so we can move forward with the studies and the various projects that are listed there. I have to warn you, it could take up to 30 years to obtain all the necessary funding. So that is the next step and that is where we are at right now. Rather than get into specific recommendations because I understand that our project fact sheets and summary sheets were included in your packet we would like to just turn it over for questions at this point. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Are you going to make a presentation? Mr. Dan Cullen, Santa Clara County Staff, Project Manager: No, I am just going to see if there are any questions I can help with. Chair Bialson: Okay. Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: i have a question. Back in February we did discuss the issue regarding the potential closure of the medians at Waverley, Ross and Indian I believe were the three. I City 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 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 appreciate the fact that that’s been changed from actually doing to studying it and likewise a feasibility study of adding a turn lane at Middlefield is a study instead of an item to do. However, you have kept the cost for the projects the same at $5 million and there isn’t an item. If it is decided to do something as a result of the study that doesn’t show up anywhere as a project and since you didn’t change the cost I didn’t know how that would pan out. Ms. Cameron: I think I can respond to that if that’s okay. First offmost of that $5 million would be necessary to replace the signal polls so that the first two bullets there, most of it, if decisions are made to make operational improvements and something about the medians that is actually a very low cost and easy to implement. The issue more is the study and deciding exactly what should be done or will be done. The final item dealing with Middlefield Road there is a cost component to that. In order to preserve our options we left it at $5 million because you know what it takes and how many years it takes to get money and if a decision is made not to proceed that means there is just a little extra money there. If the decision is made to somehow proceed the money is there then to do the project. Commissioner Packer: With regard to the study on the closure of the medians how would you go about doing that study and would it include significant outreach to the people who live in the area? Would that be part of the scope of the study? Would Palo Alto be involved in developing the scope of that study? Is that something we can recommend here? Mr. Cullen: Yes, absolutely, we would expect to be working closely with Palo Alto Staffto make sure that we had the right outreach and went to the right neighborhood representatives and groups and organizations. I would expect that in the feasibility study there would be a consideration of some options and we would be looking at traffic data to evaluate the different options. Chair Bialson: Michael. Commissioner Griffin: I wonder if you might give us a brief description of what you have in mind for the Alma Street Bridge Replacement Project in terms of scope and give us a generalized idea of what you have in mind. Mr. Cullen: That’s why we put the feasibility study as 1A. It seems like a very big proposition. As we understand the issues the issues are with sight lines, with accommodating truck turning movements and the sweep required for that and perhaps even the roadway width and provision of shoulder as a safety measure underneath there. Getting into those areas means a large-scale reconstruction. So we have put the feasibility study as a high priority project or effort to get started on trying to scope exactly what the options might be and what the various price tags might be. We would expect that it would be a large undertaking. Commissioner Griffin: That is encouraging to see that on the list. It is a dangerous and awkward and I can think of some other adjectives to use, type of structure long needing attention. Thanks for that. Chair Bialson: Any other questions? Karen. City 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 Commissioner Holman: This sort of tags along with Bonnie’s question about studying the median closures. You left the $5 million in there and I can certainly appreciate why. How specifically targeted are those funds? For instance I think it is the signal standards that is unfunded at this point so if the $5 million isn’t used for the medians can that be then targeted on some other project like the signal lights? Mr. Cullen: Potentially, certainly I think the first and most important effort in our mind is to ensure that the tier 1A is fully funded. Right now is VTP 2020 there is $80 million identified for the expressways over the next 30 years. We have gotten pretty good consensus out of this process from the Policy Advisory Board that yes it is a reasonable thing and we should go forward and work with VTA in the VTP 2020 update to ensure that the expressways are shown at least at $150 million so we can fully fund the tier 1A. If tier 1A is not fully funded then we have to start making decisions about what is in and what is not in and then it becomes more critical. If the full $150 million for tier 1A is available then moving things around and covering something more here or if something is less costly there then there is a lot more flexibility for that. Commissioner Holman: Okay. Another question is sound walls aren’t mentioned as a part of Palo Alto’s study but they are mentioned in the program. So have sound walls been particularly eliminated from Palo Alto? I don’t think they have but they are not mentioned as a part of the Staff recommendations. Ms. Cameron: Actually in the sound wall element of the plan and I believe in your summary sheet about Oregon-Page Mill Expressway we are still listing sound walls as something that should further studied and assessed along Oregon. The initial noise analysis that was done for all the expressways indicated that the noise levels there normally you would look at sound walls being installed. In order to preserve your options we have left it in the plan with funding assigned to it. Please keep in mind that this is different than the $150 million we are going after right now. We don’t know if any sound wall money is going to be available in the next 30 years. If money becomes available and could become available for Oregon Expressway the first step would be to do studies, work with the neighborhoods, work with the City to see whether you even want to pursue sound walls. So just having it listed in the plan as a potential need is not a firm decision that you are actually going to put them in but it leaves options open for the future should funding become available. One suggestion we have made in terms of implementation is that you have a lot of landscaping out there that is almost as high as sound walls would be and at some point landscaping has to be replaced it becomes too old, it becomes mature. That could create an opportunity that if you wanted to provide more of a sound buffer for the residential areas that you could look at integrating sound wall and at the same time you put in brand new landscaping so it becomes a seamless operation. Again, it is listed in there and we do see it as preserving your options for the future should funding become available but final decisions are all based upon actual project studies when money becomes available and working with the community. Commissioner Holman: Just a quick follow up to that. I did see it in the back and applied to Oregon but it wasn’t in the Staff’s summation of that and that is why I wanted clarification on that. I think Pat has a follow up. City of 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 45 46 47 48 Commissioner Burt: Yes, on that same subject do you happen to have a map or does. Staffhave a map that they can post showing the land ownership at the area where Oregon Expressway approaches 101? I don’t know which of the buffer zones associated with the Expressway are City land, County !and or state land. Go ahead, Joe. Mr. Kott: Commissioner I understand your question about the complexity of the land use in those areas. We don’t have a map to show you right now. Mr. Cullen: The County right-of-way ends at the easterly end of Oregon-Page Mill Expressway is the last stop light before the freeway, West Bayshore. Commissioner Burt: So beyond that is state owned land? Mr. Cullen: Right. You can tell by the change in the pavement texture and color. Theirs is actually darker now but ours is lighter and different texture. You can see it. Commissioner Burr: I would then just like to make a comment for consideration at some future date. It sounds as if this would be more a negotiation with CalTrans but we have a neighborhood out where Saint Francis abuts up against Oregon Expressway and that is one of the few neighborhoods in the City lacking even a micro park. One question I have had is are there any oppommities to negotiate with CalTrans to have a recreational easement to be able to better utilize some of that underutilized land for this sort of purpose. I realize that is only tangential to our conversation here but it ties in with the sound wall replacement and those other issues. I just wanted to get it out on the table for future consideration. Mr. Kott: Commissioner Burr, I am sure they would be happy to negotiate with us if we have something they want. Commissioner Burt: Okay. Karen, did you have other questions before I go? Commissioner Holman: Just one more, it regard aesthetics. Aesthetics are address I think on the last page or next to last page. It addresses such things as landscaping and sound wall maintenance and plantings in medians. It doesn’t, however, address what the look of equipment is going to be and there is also mention of electric information signs and it isn’t specified whether that would be considered for application in Palo Alto which would be certainly contrary to the look and feel of both Oregon and certainly of Foothill. So could you clarify on that and could we have something more specific on how that would or would not be applied to Palo Alto? Mr. Cullen: I really don’t know the limits plan for the electronic information signage. There is the element called TOS for Traffic Operation Systems. One would assume that our efforts and our investments there would be focused on those corridors of greatest congestion which would mean Lawrence, San Tomas, Montague, maybe Capital/Almaden but from the congestion point of view Oregon-Page Mill and Foothill are operating at a reasonable level of service. So I would think that it would be probably the last place that we would go with the electronic signage. I can certainly look into that and get back with specific information through your Staff. Commissioner Holman: The other piece of that was as far as the actually physical signposts are going to be put up. City of Palo Alto 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 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Mr. Cullen: The physical sign itself?. Commissioner Holman: The streetlight posts and such. Mr. Cullen: Street lighting? Commissioner Holman: Yes. Mr. Cullen: In general we have not been adding any street lighting. The lighting on the expressway is safety lighting associated with intersections so the lights are usually mounted on the traffic signal standard. So you have the traffic signal and then up above is another light to light the area where the cars would be crossing, merging, whatever. I am not aware of an issue with adding street lighting and we weren’t proposing any. Commissioner Holman: Then the last thing is that none of the replacement light standards and standard means post and not hanging, correct? Mr. Cullen: Right. Commissioner Holman: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Burt: You mentioned several changes that were made to the plan in response to our last input and Council Member Kishimoto’s action on this. Could you briefly summarize those changes? Ms. Cameron: Just working off of memory, dealing with the tier 1A projects Oregon Corridor Improvements the median closure was reworded to specify we will study median closures and other operational changes at the unsignalized intersections. Then the next one was the concept of conducting a feasibility study for Middlefield Road and the key concept for that one is that if anything is done it will be without taking right-of-way. That was a key phrase that was added because we know that is a concern, trying to take right-of-way in that area. The next one down was I don’t any changes needed to be made for 1-280/Page Mill interchange modification. That was pretty straightforward. The Alma Bridge feasibility study. Thank you. In tier three the concept of adding a second southbound right turn lane from Junipero Serra to Page Mill and extending the southbound right lane halfway to Stanford intersection. The next sentence was added to make the intent really clear. Maintain through bike lane, no free right turn lane and avoid inadvertently inducing traffic shift onto Stanford Avenue. So that phrase was added to that project. It sort of sets the conditions by which that project would be pursued. That was another key change that was made. There was some reordering done to show the priority. For instance the Oregon corridor improvements, replacing the signal polls and fixing the timing plan and putting in the ped ramps are kind of up there on top. Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Specifically regarding the 280/Page Mill interchange I understand that it is the practice today to move away from a loop style ofonramps to signalized onramps. So even though I don’t believe we had an extensive discussion on that previously I was interested in understanding a bit more on the impacts of this change. And there is a City 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 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 consideration that may not be overriding but is a factor and that is just as I think about taking this interchange which borders into our foothills and open space are and having it a signalized intersection it is not appealing, it may not be as important as addressing the other concerns but I wanted to understand more the rationale for these changes which constitute half of all of our funding for the phase one. Mr. Cullen: I think Joe is going to help me out with a picture and I will just draw on there. To get oriented, here is 280 and this would be towards San Francisco, obviously then San Jose, Palo Alto isin this direction. There has been over the years a concern with the movement of the vehicles in the afternoon rush hour as they would come from the Palo Alto industry sites and return to 280 particularly to the southbound direction. To deal with the number of vehicles and the awkward merging and weaving that was going on CalTrans came up with a two lane exit so that two lanes would turn onto the loop ramp in this direction. That modification further complicated the movement that bicyclists are trying to make in proceeding westbound on Page Mill and then crossing through this area and then either continuing on to Page Mill or turning to Arastradero. So there was an interest in coming up with a design that removed that conflict. So the design that was suggested was to basically utilize this ramp or shift it a little bit in this direction like that. Then instead of vehicles turning right to go south then they would turn left and use a traffic signal. This ramp could also be reconstructed to align with that which would deal with another issue of the morning commute where these vehicles have to go through a stop sign and experience a long queue because of the stop sign. So we can deal with a couple of different issues at the same time and for the bicycles completely remove the conflict with the motor vehicles on Page Mill wanting to go southbound. On the other side some time ago CalTrans modified Page Mill to accept two right turns coming off of the freeway in an uncontrolled movement, without traffic signal, and also widen Page Mill to allow the eastbound movement to have its own lane, which ultimately then drops about half a mile further up Page Mill. An alternative that we will study and which is included conceptually in the recommendations is that this ramp would also be signalized so that rather than this super high speed crossing that is occurring here then we would utilize a signalized movement which would also simplify access for people trying to get to Christopher Lane over here. Both of these location, because of their modifications to CalTrans facilities, would require going through a CalTrans project study report process that will have a lot to do with what design ultimately is selected to go forward. Commissioner Burt: Would Arastradero Road stay at its same location as currently? Mr. Cullen: Based on what we know about it I don’t see any reason to realign it or affect it. Commissioner Burt: It seems that your new design might actually relieve some congestion that occurs at where we have the off ramp. Then people proceeding off the off ramp wanting to continue across to Arastradero. Thank you. One final question and this is somewhat of both a comment and a question having to do with to what degree form follows function here or vise-versa. We heard Joe Kott refer to Oregon Expressway as somewhat of more like a residential arterial. I notice we have three different names for the expressways that are in our City. We have Foothill Expressway, Page Mill Road City of Palo Alto Page 8 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 45 46 47 1 and Oregon Expressway. I wanted to find out the feasibility of considering renaming of Oregon 2 to Oregon Boulevard with the connotation of that not being an expressway but a residential 3 arterial that is somewhat of a hybrid between a County expressway and the reality of how it 4 functions within residential neighborhoods here. Perhaps the name does not transform its 5 physical state but it I think lays the groundwork for the physical changes to respond to the concept of what it really is in our City. Can you comment on whether that is something that we might be able to pursue and whether you would have any thoughts on that? .~ Mr. Cullen: I will respond as carefully as I can. In our Road Book, which is the official record of the names and limits of the facilities that the County maintains, actually there is only one facility that is called Oregon-Page Mill Expressway. I think that the old street signs that might be out there are remnants from the prior alignments, which were widened and built over to form the expressway. So there are still signs that say Page Mill Road and I think there are some signs that say Oregon Expressway. From our point ol~view there is one facility called Oregon-Page Mill Expressway. We have most notably in San Jose talked to other jurisdictions about the concept of relinquishing the expressways and we have in fact relinquished in the past portions of Santa Teresa Boulevard, which was planned to be an expressway alignment to San Jose. We relinquished a portion of Capital Expressway in the auto mall area to San Jose so they could pursue development of it consistent with what was deemed to be their vision working with the auto sales people. So we did I think mention early on in this process would Palo Alto like to take on any or all of Oregon-Page Mill. There is an obvious benefit to Palo Alto in having the County be the responsible agency for the maintenance and upkeep of the facility and that is why it is in this plan and that is how it is positioned in the scheme of things to qualify for potential funding and improvements. Moving it out of an expressway status might have implications. I don’t know what they are. Commissioner Burt: I wasn’t meaning so much that it would be categorized out of an expressway status but merely a name change. Within the other expressways in the County it strikes me that there are probably some but not many that have 35 mile per hour speed limits throughout. Or none? Mr. Cullen: The Oregon portion of the Oregon-Page Mill isthe only expressway that is not at least 45 miles per hour. Commissioner Burt: So even though it may still be appropriate to have it within the expressway system within the County I was hoping that within that context we could still consider a naming that would be more consistent with the speed and traffic flow and the environment that at least the Oregon portion has, whereas the Page Mill is in a commercial area and I think that represents a different set of values and concerns within the community. So those are my reasons for wanting to toss that out on the table. Chair Bialson: I am sure you appreciate that input and we will consider it. I want to make my comments and build a little bit on what Pat just said and also what Bonnie started this conversation with and that is this so-called study of the improvements of the median whether it be closing them off or doing something else with them. I am very concerned about that and I see that as sort of a camel’s nose under the tent. City of Palo Alto Page 9 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 1 Oregon Expressway whether we like it or not is what divides south and north Palo Alto. I don’t 2 want to do anything to Oregon-Page Mill Expressway, which heightens the sense of division. As 3 I recall San Francisco particularly did not want freeways because of the ways they did divide 4 communities and yet we are talking about causing further division here and I don’t think that in 5 the larger soeio-eeonomie sense of things that closing offany of the wonderful grid type streets 6 we have would be a benefit to us. I don’t think it advances the desirability for pedestrian and bicycle traffic being encouraged. So I would propose that we eliminate the study in so far as it .deals with that possibility. It just seems to run counter to some many of the goals we have expressed in the Comprehensive Plan and which we have heard from the community and from this Commission. When we talk about this matter we look further back at some of these attachments and you are saying here that the study needs to answer certain critical questions about reconfigurations that have "a high level of local support." That is in Attachment D. In Attachment E we again talk about eliminating pedestrian crossings and potential vehicle conflicts at these unsignalized intersections and we again refer to local support. I am not saying that I am really concerned about the cost of these studies as being overwhelming because I hear they are not going to be but I think that we have to take a larger view of this and say that that is not what Palo Alto wants. I think you got the sense from what the Commission said earlier that we are very concerned about it and I appreciate you coming back to us and saying you are going to study it but I would ask my fellow Commissioners how the feel about trying to remove this from the various projects that we have before us at this time. We are not going to have a vote on it because we are going to hear from the public first but I just would like to get some sense. Bonnie since you brought it up first. Commissioner Packer: Well you gave the speech I was going to give. I feel that you said everything that we can say about the north and south division and the fact that if you are going to study this, although I agree with Annette that it would be somewhat pointless, that you have to take into consideration how this street operates in our community. I appreciate the fact that as traffic engineers or transportation engineers that you look at how traffic flows and safety and you count numbers. But one of the things that is missing in the analysis is what role does this pavement, how does it affect our social lives. Where do people live? Why are people using this street? Where are the schools? All these questions that are not part of these kinds of studies. That is why if we do do a study, which I would say I agree with Annette that we shouldn’t, that those are the questions that need to be asked not just the safety and the flow of traffic but what would it mean if you put in a hunk of cement, how is that going to affect the fabric of our town? Chair Bialson: Thank you. I don’t want to beat this to death but if anybody has a comment. Yes, Michael. Commissioner Griffin: I had a question that I was going to ask and now is a good time to do it. Have we had a high accident crash rate at the site of these uncontrolled median openings at Indian, Ross and Waverley? Is there a safety issue that we have not seen here in the report that the Police Department has got on their records? Mr. Kott: Commissioner Griffin we have not documented a safety hazard, it is more of a potential hazard. City 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 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 Commissioner Griffin: So there is no documented safety item here we are just forecasting things to come? I am going to ask that to the County folks to please address the rationale behind this. Mr. Cullen: We do have some experience with signalize and unsignalized intersections on the expressway system. Granted that the Oregon portion of the Oregon-Page Mill due to the number of stoplights and the speed limit operates a little bit differently. We know from other expressways that we do have operating and accident problems at unsignalized intersections. I don’t have the data for these particular intersections. We can just refer to our historic experience. Obviously we would want to gather what data was available as part of the study process. Ms. Cameron: IfI may just add one point. We have had a project website going on that is capable of taking comments. When we released the daft plan for review and comment we didn’t receive a huge number of emails on any topic but this topic did receive the most of any topic on the entire expressway study. They were half and half, half saying they want the closure and have saying they don’t. Each of them had their reasons and these were actual residents of the neighborhoods around these closures. When we see something like that it leads us to the conclusion of well maybe a study is necessary and we need to get out and talk to the community and find out exactly what the issues are and how best to resolve them. Chair Bialson: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I have a question about this. I am very sympathetic based on our previous conversation and the discussion happening this evening too regarding these median closures. If you are studying these median closures is it also possible that you might come up with other ways to make these intersections safer other than median closures at these given points? Mr. Cullen: I want to say that we recognize that each of the three locations probably has unique operating characteristics. Indian is not the same as Waverley is not the same as Ross. Maybe Waverley and Ross are more alike than Indian. Indian is a T, it doesn’t have any place to cross to. So I think in going forward with the study then we would have to look at the unique characteristic of each of those three locations and evaluate them each for their individual situation. It could be at one location that the answer might be to signalize the intersection. At another one it might be to close the median and it could vary. Chair Bialson: Pat. Commissioner Burt: When it comes back to us for discussion, Annette, I may have some proposed language changes for this. One other question I had regarding Oregon is has there been any evaluation of lane widths and the potential to alter lane widths to be able to accommodate some of the other objectives in terms of safety of pedestrians on cross traffic and bike lanes on there and various things like that? Maybe this is more a question for Joe or whichever party is most comfortable answering it. Mr. Cullen: During the recent resurfacing program we did look at the opportunity that is starting out with a clean slate to adjust the striping and it was adjusted in some locations. Certainly we are always open to suggestions that could come from Palo Alto Staff or citizens even. The City of Palo Alto 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 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 resurfacing before this resurfacing we changed one of the treatments for a right turn just based on a citizen suggestion. So we are always open and willing to consider. Commissioner Burr: Joe, how to the current lane widths on Oregon compare to the proposed ones on E1 Camino? Mr. Kott: I think the Oregon lane widths are a foot wider as I recall compared to the E1 Camino Real. Chair Bialson: I have one more question. If you do this study do you then come back to us here on this Commission and the City Council to make any changes that you find from your study would be appropriate? Mr. Kott: Yes, we certainly would Commissioner Bialson. We have suggested very strongly to Dan and Dawn and the others that Palo Alto is particularly concerned about effects on pedestrians and cyclists. We would like to know whether we are inhibiting the use of those modes which are very important in Palo Alto, much more important than other communities, and all the safety effects pro and con of median closures. Working with Dan we have to report back this Commission and Council as to the results. It will be a Palo Alto type decision. It won’t just be based on operational efficiency. Chair Bialson: We will take that in the spirit in which it was said. I have a very difficult time with this mainly because you are creating more of a sense of an expressway and here we have a unique so-called expressway with 35 miles per hour. We have done everything we possibly can elsewhere in Palo Alto to slow down traffic and to calm traffic and then we have this. Mr. Kott: May I say, Commissioner Bialson, we have heard these concerns very strongly. If this is just an overwhelming problem for the community we are not interested in going forward with this. We have so much else to do anyway. We thought we might get some possible safety improvements but there may be so many community concerns about downsides that our time is better spent doing other things. So we wouldn’t at all be averse to not going forward with this. Chair Bialson: Not going forward with the study? Mr. Kott: Yes. Chair Bialson: I appreciate your saying that. I would like to hear from the public now but I don’t have any speaker request cards. Do you want to speak before the public? Commissioner Holman: Yes, I just have one more question if I could please. It is mentioned in the report about on the north side of Oregon-Page Mill the most especially pedestrian but also bicycle route that can be accomplished offthe main road. I am wondering what the feasibility is and what the likelihood is of continuing that bicycle and pedestrian path off the road instead of on such a busy thoroughfare out to the intersection that you are talking about or the exchange that you are talking about improving at 280 and Page Mill and if that has been considered as part of that improvement? City of Palo Alto Page 12 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 1 Mr. Cullen: The parallel facility south of Foothill to 280, we have shown that I don’t think we 2 are showing any improvements in this plan because it gets wrapped into other issues like the 3 Stanford trail planning and whatnot. So I am assuming that when it is appropriate for us to get 4 involved in that process we will. ~We are concerned with the right-of-way of the expressway and 5 that goes a little bit beyond and outside our right-of-way and some of our sphere of influence. We can certainly work with other interested agencies as it is appropriate. Commissioner Holman: Your concems are understood and also if there is going to be a change made at that exchange I do think this ought to be considered as a part of that. Chair Bialson: Thank you. I have one speaker request card and you will have five minutes to speak. Sheri Furman. Ms. Sheri Furman, 3094 Greer Road, Palo Alto: Hi. Well after listening to all your comments, I trust you got the document I sent to you outlining my review and I had talked to Mr. Cullen at the open house they had on this issue and gave him essentially the same document I gave to you. After listening to you, I can’t resist the same Page Mill so to speak. You have expressed a lot of my concerns. One of the concerns I have about the median closures is that that would take traffic off of several of the streets and essentially people on those street now would have basically a little cu-de-sac and that traffic would shift over to other street exacerbating the traffic there, which would be an unfortunate consequence of this. I have lived here a long time and I have not noticed that there are a lot of accidents on this road although there was a fairly nasty one last night down by 101, which had nothing to do with the median at all. Somebody just wasn’t paying attention. I am concerned about sound walls and the aesthetics of that and the sound going up and over kind of bouncing offthe sound walls into the neighborhoods. I am concerned and Commissioner Burt stole my thunder there about thinking of this as more of a boulevard than it is an expressway. It has trees. It is nice. I am not sure we want to make it a get through town as fast as you can at 45 miles an hour by walling it in and closing things off. I believe that apart from a couple of peak hours during the day it is a neighborhood street. It is how we get around from one part of Palo Alto to another and it is not like most of the other expressways that I have been on that are primarily commuter routes. So you have read my document. I just wanted to stand before you and say as the Chair of the Midtown Residents Traffic Association I have not yet convened a meeting on this issue because ! recognize that it is still in the study phase and I don’t really want to get the neighborhood up in arms and alarmed until I have a clearer idea of what might be going on. I do believe it is important for those of us who live there and actually experience this road and drive it and whether or not we have noise to talk to us before we make any decisions about carrying out some of these points. So I thank you for your time. Chair Bialson: Thank you. I want you to remember those five minutes I gave you. I have no other speaker request cards so I will close the public portion of this meeting and bring it back to the Commission. We can have a discussion. We can have a proposed motion. You want to talk about it first? Go ahead Pat. City of Palo Alto Page 13 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: Yes. I am hesitant to preclude consideration of things just because I have an advance disinclination to think that it is something I would necessarily support. On the other hand I am not sure that the objective or project description that is stated is the best one that we might be able to articulate. So I would like to propose some recommendations to changing the wording for the third bullet in the project description, that pertaining to the study median closures and other operational changes at the unsignalized intersections at Waverley, Ross and Indian. My recommendation would be to omit the words "median closures and other," and simply say, "Study operational changes at the unsignalized intersections at Waverley, Ross and Indian." And to add certain contingencies on that first to keep cross and parallel streets free of through traffic which is mentioned in the Staff Report. Also as the Staff Report has mentioned enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety at those intersections, then thirdly to evaluate how to protect vehicular safety as well. So to have those three objectives to the study and to not have as a intended outcome or prospective out necessarily to have the median closures but to study those three concerns at those intersections and come up with whatever would be the best ways to address those concerns. Chair Bialson: I appreciate what you are saying Pat. Given today’s world of constrained budgets and such I would still propose that we strike the study and use the funds for means other than hiring consultants or doing studies. There are a lot of other projects we can do and I think there are so many non-traffic engineer type issues surrounding this that I would prefer not to have a study. Why don’t we move on with this, we have three items on the agenda and now past an hour dealing with this one. So I know from the comments and questions that were stated previously we each have slightly different takes on this but let’s see if we can reach some sort of common ground to give comment to both the County and our Staff. Michael. Commissioner Griffin: What would we do with the money? If we don’t do the study is Joe going to get the money anyway or does it all go back into the pot? Mr. Cullen: We have worked hard with the study to identify specific projects and there are many more projects than there is money available. So one assumes that the money would go to another project somewhere. Commissioner Griffin: Not necessarily in Palo Alto. Mr. Cullen: Not necessarily, no. Chair Bialson: What budget have you assigned for doing the study? Mr. Cullen: We haven’t. I guess we have because it adds up to $5 million but I would guess it is about $100,000. Ms. Cameron: It is probably around $100,000 to do the study and implement whatever the recommendations ends up being. This type of work is not high cost. It is not capital intensive that eats up a lot of money. It is Staff time, it is bringing on some consultant expertise to deal with the various questions about traffic patterns and how they might be affected and working with the community. So it has probably been allocated about $100,000 total out of that $5 million corridor. So I think the key is if we don’t spend the whole $5 million on all those various City of Palo Alto 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 45 46 47 improvements and money is saved it goes back into the overall expressway program to be reallocated among the expressways based upon what the next priority is. Chair Bialson: So if we don’t spend it, from what I am understanding from you it does not have a separate line item on the budget, it is included in this total $5 million so that if we strike the third bullet it stays $5 million if we want it to? Ms. Cameron: At this point it stays $5 million. If we find that we would end up spending less than $5 million to do the other bullets then what is left of the $5 million stays with the expressway program to be reallocated to another priority. Chair Bialson: To our neighboring city? Ms. Cameron: No, it is expressway program money. Chair Bialson: Well it is our neighboring dries in the County. Ms. Cameron: Correct. Chair Bialson: So we have a $5 million item and if we don’t spend the money which I am a little concemed about the number of studies that get to be done yet everyone starts complaining about consultants and the cost there of and the cost of Staff time done on studies. Karen, do you have something that will get us out of this quandary? Commissioner Holman: Possibly. I have a question for Joe. When you are saying that you don’t have statistics on what kind of accident rates are at these intersections but you are trying to preclude something happening in the future is there any way to quantify what kind ofpotenriality that you would see at these? My quandary is that I can appreciate absolutely the points that some of the other Commissioners are making about not closing these streets to the north and south. At the same time if we have an opportunity to do ~/study that might prevent accidents happening in the future then I am feeling responsible for saying no to a study that might be a life safety issue. So I guess I need some feedback if you have some give in that regard. Mr. Kott: Commissioner Holman, just to clarify, as you may know we do keep in our Police Department accident data or crash data for Palo Alto by location and by accident type. I just don’t have it here. I can tell you though there are no hot spots. There is no location along Oregon Expressway we consider one of our top ten accident hot spots. As far as the literature the study would have to go into the literature to determine the increased probability of accidents due to uncontrolled openings. The theoretical point is that drivers may seek shorter gaps and expose themselves to more dangerous cross traffic conditions but we would have to have that documented. Our rule of thumb is the probabilities of accidents are somewhat higher at uncontrolled intersection turning movements. We work with County Roads all the time. We would monitor any situations that arise and with them we would work out some counter measures. So I think if the Commission chooses not to go forward with a study like this it doesn’t mean we would abandon safety counter measures we would just do them in a different area not in a formalized study. City of Palo Alto Page 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 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Chair Bialson: Thank you for saying for the second time you wouldnrt mind. I have one question and then I will go back to Pat. Commissioner Packer: My question is the relationship of optimizing the timing plan of the signals and the impact it could have on the unsignalized intersections. Right now it is possible to cross those intersections because the traffic moves.in these packets because it doesn’t move slowly. If the signals are timed so that the traffic starts moving continuously and doesn’t have these big gaps then that could change the patterns that we have gotten used to over the 40 years that Oregon Expressway has been there that allow us to cross at Ross. I live off of Ross so that is a street I often mm left onto when I am coming down Oregon. That is the way I go home. If the median is closed I am going to go to Middlefield and just mess up that left turn. You are going to have these impacts. I am able to do that because there is a lot of space right now between the cars because of the ways the lights work. So one of the things we may propose is that when the timing is adjusted that when you optimize the timing plan that the impact on the unsignalized intersections are taken into consideration and safety is not jeopardized there and it still allows time for people to get across whether they are biking, walking or making those left turns. Is that a reasonable thing to add to the first bullet? That way we say that any changes that are made to the timing do not negatively impact the safety at the unsignalized intersections and then you don’t have to have an additional study for the unsignalized intersections. Mr. KoR: May I comment, Commissioner Packer? Palo Alto is a big stakeholder because of our cross traffic but we work very closely with County Roads. They know as the Commission knows that Palo Alto puts safety first for all travel modes but particularly for cyclists and pedestrians. So I am very confident that no signal timing improvements or signal system improvements would be detrimental to safety for pedestrians and cyclists. We would make sure of that in working with County Roads. Chair Bialson: Pat. MOTION Commissioner Burr: I would like to make a motion. It is in essence as I stated previously with the addition that I would like to incorporate verbiage that reflects Commissioner Packer’s concerns as just expressed. So under tier one priorities, Oregon corridor improvements, bullet number one states, "replace signal polls and optimize timing plan," I would like to add a contingency that it avoids impacts on safety of unsignalized intersections. Second, under bullet number three strike, "median closures and other," so that it reads, "Study operational changes at the unsignalized intersections at Waverley, Ross and Indian" with the following contingencies: avoid increased traffic impacts on cross and parallel streets, enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety, maintain vehicular safety. That summarizes. Chair Bialson: And keep the last bullet as is? Commissioner Burt: Yes. I was not recommending changes to bullets number two or four or anywhere else in the Oregon-Page Mill Expressway Plan. SECOND City of Palo Alto Page 16 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 45 46 47 48 Commissioner Griffin: Second. AMENDMENT Chair Bialson: Michael I understand seconds the motion. Would you consider a friendly amendment that on the third bullet item where we.say study operational changes we specifically exclude - I am a little unclear whether median closures is an operational change. Commissioner Butt: My understanding would be that median closures would be evaluated as one of the potential operational changes but that the contingencies that would be placed here would place a high hurdle for that and for utilization of median closures, that they would have to achieve these other three objectives in order to be even considered. So I think that the more appropriate way to address this would be to place the parameters on the objectives that we have rather than predetermine the outcome at this time. I just simply think that it is not our proper role to draw a conclusion prior to the study. So I would not accept that as a friendly amendment but I do believe that your concerns are addressed in the motion as stated. Chair Bialson: Do you feel you have spoken to your motion? Commissioner Burr: Yes I do. Chair Bialson: Does the seconder wish to speak? Commissioner Griffin: No. Chair Bialson: Any other comments? Karen. AMENDMENT Commissioner Holman: I would like to propose a friendly amendment to that we remove sound walls from consideration on the Page Mill Oregon Expressway. Chair Bialson: Pat? Commissioner Burr: Karen, could you speak to your proposed amendment? Commissioner Holman: The reason is because there aren’t sound complaints to my reading, there aren’t sound or noise complaints along this, that there are significant plantings along the way. If sound walls are constructed then plantings would be interrupted and that would be a situation that would exist for some time. Sound walls can create actually a lot of reflective noise back onto a roadway and that creates white noise that then sometimes echoes back into a neighborhood. So I am really not for in our situation in this given community I am not seeing advantage to sound wall considerations. Commissioner Burt: I think that I share a concern over sound walls but once again I am hesitant to predetermine an outcome. I am concerned with the language that the expressway study states regarding sound walls in that it says that they should be added along both sides of Oregon. I would certainly be comfortable with recommending changes to that language that would at most City of Palo Alto Page 17 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 consider sound walls and place the contingencies that would address the concerns that you have 2 as a precondition for consideration of whatever mitigation measures would be there in the future 3 whether they be redoing the landscaping or sound walls or some combination of the two. So I 4 would like to focus on the objectives that we wish to achieve and then when those have been 5 evaluated make a decision on what is appropriate. There may be some minority of the expressway where we might at a future date find sound walls appropriate whereas I think many of us consider it generally inappropriate for the length of the expressway. So if there is someway to word that in a less restrictive manner I would be open to that amendment. Commissioner Holman: I think I will try that as a separate motion after your motion. Chair Bialson: Bonnie. SUBSTITUTE MOTION Commissioner Packer: I would like to offer a substitute motion. We endorse this implementation plan with the exception that we remove entirely the third bullet about studying the median closures at Waverley, Ross and Indian. The reason for that is that I appreciate Pat the modifications that you have made to that bullet and the additional qualifiers. I could add a whole lot of further qualifiers to your list of three. Then I started thinking about all the problems I would have with the study and the way studies go in Palo Alto I suspect that if we do such a study it wouldn’t be $100,000 it would be $200,000 because of the way things happen in this town. I think by saying lets not even study this we are sending a message to the County that really underscores the fact that Oregon-Page Mill Expressway is not like the other expressways that the County has jurisdictions over, that it isn’t necessary to have a knee-jerk reaction to an unsignalized intersection and say, "Oh, it is unsignalized! Let’s close it up and make it like an expressway." I think that when we asked that question back in February that was the answer we got. It was a solution that was proposed for a problem that doesn’t even exist. So if it ain’t broke why fix it? I just think as Joe said there are so many things that we could be studying. Lots of things are great to study if we were academicians we could be studying all kinds of things. If we had to publish things we could be studying, studying, studying but we have to prioritize. My motion is that we eliminate the study entirely and let the County get on with the other improvements that need to be done. Chair Bialson: So are you proposing a motion that is exactly as the Staff Report is written with the elimination of the third bullet or are you going with what Pat has modified? Commissioner Packer: It is with the elimination of the third bullet entirely. Chair Bialson: Are you adopting any of the language on the other bullets that Pat had? Commissioner Packer: No, he just had changes to bullet one and Joe said that if they optimize the timing plan they will take all safety into consideration. So I don’t think it is necessary to add that. I just want to eliminate entirely the concept of studying the median closures for those intersections. SECOND City of Palo Alto Page 18 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 Chair Bialson: Okay, I appreciate the clarification and I will second your motion. I have similar concerns to yours that a six-figure study rarely ends up being as small a study as we are first told, that it will eat up both Stafftime in the City and the County and it will not deal with the larger issue of the community values we have. I think we have heard twice from Staff saying it would be fine with them to remove this study. I think that they are being appropriate in saying that. So I will second your motion. Anyone else care to? Any other comments? Pat. Commissioner Burr: I will just say that I think it better public policy to not have what might be called a knee-jerk reaction to a proposal to evaluate a problem. What my motion addressed is whether there are ways to improve problem areas. I do think that unsignalized crossings at an expressway are problems. I don’t lean toward believing that median closures are the most likely best outcome to address those. I think problem has been correctly identified. That having unsignalized crossings there for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles is something that should be evaluated and determine how we can improve that situation. So I think it better public policy to evaluate and then determine what is an appropriate outcome after we have done an evaluation and not predetermine it. Chair Bialson: Thank you, Pat. We have a motion, we have a substitute motion and we have a friendly amendment on these matters. I look to Ariel. The substitute motion first? Thank you I appreciate that. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILS Let’s vote on the substitute motion. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) All those opposed? (nays) That fails to pass with two votes for and three votes against. Now we go to the original motion with or without the friendly amendment? Commissioner Burt: I did not accept it and Karen is going to bring it forward as a separate motion. MOTION PASSED Chair Bialson: Right. those in favor say aye. Now, Karen. MOTION Let’s have the vote on the motion made by Pat, seconded by Michael. All (ayes) All those opposed? (nays) So that if four and one against. Commissioner Holman: I would like to make another motion to eliminate sound walls as considerations along the Oregon-Page Mill Expressway and Foothill Expressway. Chair Bialson: Do I have a second? I don’t hear one. So the motion fails. MOTION City of Palo Alto Page 19 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 Commissioner Burr: Excuse me. I would like to make a motion on the subject of sound walls. I am still trying to straggle through what would be most appropriate. My motion would be to recommend that the County Staff Report strike the conclusion that sound walls should be added along both sides of Oregon between 101 and Alma and that instead that there be an evaluation of most effective sound mitigation measures in that area with an appreciation that sound walls may not be the most appropriate measure in this residential area. SECOND Commissioner Holman: Second. Chair Bialson: I appreciate that. Going back to Staffyou asked for Commission recommendation with regard to tier 1A, tier 2 and tier 3 items and I didn’t see anything with regard to sound walls. Are we correct in giving you something with regard to sound walls to take forward to City Council or not? Mr. Kott: Well it was my laps in not putting it in there. It actually might have been a Freudian laps because I am not very optimistic that we will ever see funding for sound walls. I have some concerns about sound walls myself in terms of the leapfrog effect of sound and so forth. It stands ~the being on the County Improvement Plan. Chair Bialson: I see so this recommendation you asked for is incomplete on the first couple of pages of the Staff Report. Fine. Do you want to speak to your motion? Commissioner Burr: No I think I will let it stand as stated. Chair Bialson: Seconder. Commissioner Holman: I think I have spoken about my opinion of sound walls. MOTION PASSED Chair Bialson: Any discussion or can we take this to a vote? Alright, why don’t we take it to a vote? All those in favor say aye. (ayes) All those opposed? That passes unanimously. I think this matter is completed now. Thank you very much and thank you for coming. City of Palo Alto Page 20