Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-11-24 City Council (2)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL HONORABLE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 1 FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:NOVEMBER 24, 2003 CMR:524:03 SUBJECT:STUDY SESSION ON THE CHARLESTON/ARASTRADERO ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN RECOMMENDATION This staff report provides information for the study session. Council does not take action in study sessions, but Council’s review and feedback on the draft Charleston/Arastradero Road Corridor Plan will assist staff as it finalizes its recommendations. BACKGROUND At its April 14, 2003 meeting, Council directed staff to prepare a plan of transportation and urban design/landscape improvements for the Charleston/Arastradero Road Corridor (CMR:237:03). A map of the corridor is included as Attachment A. Council also directed staff to return with a report on land use assumptions, to be included in projecting future traffic conditions on the corridor before such predictions were undertaken. The range of land use projections was reviewed by the Council on June 9, 2003 (CMR:310:03). The expected outcomes of the Charleston/Arastradero redesign include safer; more attractive routes to schools; well-landscaped medians where possible; and pedestrian, bicycle, and bus transit improvements all along the corridor. Other key purposes of the transportation plan will be to provide safer traffic flow along the corridor and to reduce the incidence of vehicle speeding, without reduction in vehicle travel times or causing diversion of through traffic to other streets. An initial set of performance measures for the Corridor, based on best practices in traffic engineering assessment, was presented for discussion at public meetings on July 10 and July 15 (see Attachment D). A refined and expanded set of road performance measures was then presented to an informal focus group of Corridor stakeholders. The set of road performance measures was further refined and expanded for presentation to the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council (CMR:430:03), which approved them on September 22, 2003. CMR:4-30r0-3 Page 1 of 14 Conceptual plans and alternatives for improving the Charleston/Arastradero corridor were presented and discussed at public meetings on October 15 and October 22, 2003 (see Attachment B for public comments from these workshops) and at meetings of the informal focus group of Corridor stakeholders. Staff and a project consultant made a presentation on the conceptual alternatives to Corridor PTA representatives and one principal (Terman Middle School) on November 13. Staff also presented information of the Corridor Plan conceptual alternatives to the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee on November 12. A variety of information on the Corridor plan effort is being disseminated on the project web site: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/charleston-arastradero/index.html. DISCUSSION Morning weekday peak hour traffic volume on the Corridor is projected to rise from the current average of from 765 to 866 (depending on street section) to from 999 to 1,163 (depending on street section and land development scenario) by the year 2015. These projections do not take into account increases in public transit and Palo Alto Shuttle use (a 50 percent increase in passenger boardings by 2010), bicycling (a 20 percent increase by 2010 and a 40 percent increase by 2020), and walking (a 20 percent increase by 2010 and a 40 percent increase by 2020). Traffic engineers consider that a three lane cross-section is capable of accommodating up approximately 1,000 vehicles per hour before cross street and residential driveway motorists begin to experience difficulty entering the vehicle stream. In these circumstances, entering motorists have an average time gap for entry of 3.6 seconds. The proposed Charleston/Arastradero Road Corridor improvement plans comprise a set of physical, operational, electronic, and aesthetic measures to improve safety for all modes of travel (with particular emphasis on cycling and walking conditions) while ensuring efficient traffic flow and avoiding traffic shift onto nearby residential streets. The plans were developed to meet expected traffic conditions to the year 2015, as forecast by Palo Alto’s new citywide computer traffic model, according to two future land use scenarios approved for traffic modeling purposes by Council on June 9, 2003. The two scenarios are: 1) Comprehensive Plan EIR growth scenario extended to 2015, and 2) "known (development) proposals" to the year 2015. These computer forecasts and traffic analysis of the current and expected conditions on the Corridor suggest that CharlestordArastradero Road can be re- designed to enhance traffic safety without inducing increased vehicle travel time or vehicle delay at signalized intersections. Integral to this finding is the conclusion that the potential traffic capacity (up to a 20 percent increase according to the Federal Highway Administration) can be handles by automating the traffic signals along the Corridor to operate in "traffic-adaptive" mode (i.e. electronic reallocation of green time at each signalized intersection in response to real time traffic conditions); and providing dedicated left-turn pockets and lanes, which move left-turning vehicles out of the through traffic stream. Attachment C presents the preliminary traffic analysis for the Corridor and information about trdffic-adaptive signal operation. Additional CMR:430:03 Page 2 of 14 work is being completed on the traffid analysis, including the effect of achievement of the non,auto mode (transit, cycling, and walking) use performance targets for the Corridor under a three-lane cross section scenario. This additional work is anticipated to show even more favorable results in terms of trip times and vehicle delay with a future three-lane cross section. The physical, operational, electronic, and aesthetic measures proposed for the Corridor, along with their likely advantages and disadvantages, are as follows: Traffic Capacity and Flow: 1.Implement automated, "traffic-adaptive" traffic signal operation along the entire corridor to improve traffic capacity and traffic flow efficiency at signalized intersections. Advantages: If funding were available, signal automation could be implemented as the next phase of the City of Palo Alto’s Advanced Transportation Management System (ATMS - CMR:273:03), since the ATMS upgrades to the traffic signal system are an essential pre-requisite to traffic-adaptive operation. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that traffic-adaptive signal operation can increase efficiency, hence capacity, of a street by approximately 20 percent without adding lanes, removing parking, or grade separating streets. Disadvantages: Implementing traffic-adaptive signal operation is expensive. Staff has estimated the cost of traffic-adaptive signalization on the Corridor to be approximately $1.3 million, inclusive of design and construction contingencies. It should be noted that staff has already applied for grant funding through the Valley Transportation Authority’s Local Streets and County Roads program, to install traffic-adaptive signalization on five residential arterial streets, including Charlestolv’Arastradero Road (CMR:454:03). Alternative: Better coordination of traffic signal timing can be implemented in the shorter term or as an alternative to signal automation. While much less expensive, this alternative will only yield a fraction of the efficiency benefits of traffic-adaptive operation. 2.Provide a dedicated westbound right-turn lane at the Gunn High School driveway to reduce vehicle queuing and enhance safety. Advantages: Construction of a dedicated right-turn lane at this location will mitigate the long morning queue for westbound drivers waiting to turn into the Gunn driveway; reduce traffic intrusion onto Georgia Avenue and other nearby residential streets; improve access to and egress from Georgia Avenue and other residential cross streets east of Gunn High School during the morning school commute period, as well as CMR:430:03 Page 3 of 14 enhance safety by reducing abrupt lane changes by drivers and the crowding out of cyclists in the vicinity of the Gunn driveway. Disadvantages: There may not-be sufficient right-of-way available to create a long enough right turn lane. Staff is currently assessing turn lane length requirements based on likely right turn demand (which is heaviest during the 10 to 15 minute morning school commute peak). Alternative: Reserving the current outside westbound through lane on Arastradero east of the Gunn High School entrance for peak period only (e.g. for 30 minutes or an hour each weekday morning during the school year) right turn use was considered, but not recommended. This solution is highly unconventional and requires considerable attention to transitioning through drivers out of the outside lane during the stated time period (via road striping and signing). Since for approximately 98 percent of the year the outside lane would function as a standard through lane, driver expectations during the remaining 2 percent of the year may be violated, resulting in last moment lane changing (unsafe driving behavior) and relatively low compliance with the lane use restriction, both of which would eliminate some of the efficiency gains from the right-turn lane designation. o Provide a center left-turn lane from East Charleston Road into the easterly driveway of Hoover School should the school agree to reverse the circulation flow of its two driveways onto East Charleston. Advantages: Left turns are now prohibited into Hoover on eastbound Charleston, partly due to the proximity of the Carlson intersection to the current (westerly) Hoover driveway. By reversing the circulation into and out of Hoover School so that ingress is via the easterly driveway onto Charleston, it will be possible to provide a long enough left-turn lane from Charleston to accommodate peak demand. As a result, parents will be able to access Hoover from both the westbound and the eastbound direction of travel. The current problem of some drivers making u-turns on Nelson, or one of its cross- streets, to reverse direction on Charleston, to make an allowed right turn into Hoover will be eliminated. Disadvantages: Hoover School will have to agree to this change and parents will have to adjust to the new ingress and egress arrangements. Staff is assessing whether sufficiently long gaps in traffic will be available for left turns during the morning peak hour in the circumstances of a three-lane cross-section (one opposing through lane). However, since traffic signals at Nelson and Middlefield will create gaps in westbound Charleston the opposing traffic flow will not be continuous. CMR:430:03 Page 4 of 14 Alternative: Creating a short eastbound left-turn pocket on Charleston for turns into the existing Hoover ingress drive was considered but discarded, since the short distance between the westerly Hoover driveway and Carlson would only allow room for a left- turn pocket too short to meet morning peak demand. This would likely cause spillback onto the Carlson intersection and attendant safety and efficiency concerns. Traffic Safe _ty: 1.Install electronic radar read out ("V-Calm") signs at additional selected locations along the corridor. Advantages: This device, which is relatively inexpensive ($7,000 to $10,000 each, installed depending on proximity to a power source). It has been deployed successfully in Palo Alto in six locations and has high public acceptance to date. Disadvantages: Driver awareness of the electronic speed advisory signs may lessen over time, and with it the speed reduction effect of these devices. Alternative: Radar speed trailers could be deployed and periodically re-positioned along the Corridor. Re-positioning the trailers periodically over time will entail ongoing labor costs. The trailer and car set will require on-street parking space. Experience has shown that the speed reduction effect of radar trailer disappear in a given location after the trailer leaves. 2.Shorten pedestrian crossing distance, improve aesthetics, and enhance traffic safety ("prudent driver sets the pace" to moderate vehicle speeds) a!ong East Charleston from Fabian to Alma and potentially West Charleston and Arastradero Road from Alma to Miranda (excepting reservation of four lanes for adequate space for storage of motor vehicles at both approaches to major signalized intersections-Middlefield, E1 Camino Real, and Charleston and the Caltrain tracks) through provision of two through lanes and sections of landscaped medians interspersed with left-turn pockets in place of four through lanes. Advantages: The three-lane design will reduce prevailing vehicle speeds and increase safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicle users. Pedestrians would enjoy shorter through lane crossing distance and time, as well as the protection of raised center refuge medians at crosswalks. Cyclists would enjoy wider bike lanes due to the reallocation of road space, as one through lane in each direction (except in the vicinity of major intersections and Caltrain) is dropped. The safety benefits to pedestrians and cyclists would induce more walking and cycling along the Corridor, thereby reducing motor vehicle volumes and the attendant impacts of motor vehicle use (e.g. noise and air pollution). Provision of continuous bike lanes and intermittent CMR:430:03 Page 5 of 14 o center left-turn pockets, along with any available empty curbside parking, will provide adequate room for emergency and other vehicles to maneuver around inoperative vehicles in the travel lane. Disadvantages: Interspersing medians in the middle lane (to discourage use of the lane for potentially unsafe "by-pass" maneuvers), even while retaining all vehicle movements at all cross-streets, may prevent some residents on the Corridor from making left turns out of and into their driveways. Should future traffic growth be much greater than projected, the three-lane design alternative may not be sufficient to meet vehicle demand and not induce driver shortcutting onto nearby residential streets due to travel time delays. It should be noted that since Arastradero Road has more cross streets per mile than does Charleston Road, a three-lane section may have more interruption to traffic flow on Arastradero, as cross-street drivers turn to merge into the traffic flow. Preliminary cost estimates for these improvements range from $2,131,000 to $2,649,000, depending on the extent of the median treatment. Alternative: A four lane cross-section on Arastradero is a viable alternative, but does not yield the safety benefits to all modes of travel or the amount of improvement in walking and cycling conditions that are provided by a three-lane cross-section design. Install center medians in selected locations to physically separate motor vehicle traffic in opposing directions. Advantages: Center medians provide safety benefits through separating opposing traffic streams. The medians may also provide opportunities for tree planting and other landscaped amenities. Disadvantages: Depending on location, center median can prevent residents along a roadway to make left turns into and out of their driveways. Alternative: Center median are "scalable" in that a greater or lesser number of them in lesser or greater dimension can be provided along a roadway depending on design objectives. As examples, narrower center medians can thus be provided with a four- lane section and both fewer and shorter center medians can be provided with a three- lane cross-section. Continuous center medians (interspersed with left-turn pockets or lanes at signalized intersections), which provide the greatest safety enhancement, were considered for Arastradero, but are not recommended since they also provide the most access restrictions for both on-street residents and cross street drivers. Staff is recommending a balanced approach to safety and access with emphasis on improving safety of the most vulnerable street users: those on foot and those riding bicycles. CMR:430:03 Page 6 of 14 Bicycling Safety and Comfort: 1.Paint or tint continuous bicycle lanes for the entire corridor, including through intersections. Advantages: This sends a clear visual message to drivers and cyclists about the presence of cycling facilities on the two streets, thus has both practical (as guidance to both motorists and cyclists) and symbolic ("bikes belong") importance. Making the bike lanes more visible means that drivers will be more aware of cyclists and prepared for taking bicyclists into account as fellow travelers. Portland, Oregon, and many Dutch communities have has good success with tinted or painted bike lanes. The preliminary cost estimate for this improvement is $217,500. Disadvantages: This is not a convention treatment for bicycle lanes in Palo Alto or statewide, thus would need to undertaken as a demonstration project. Some cyclists have expressed concern that continuing the tinted or painted lanes into and through the intersection does not give drivers adequate guidance, particularly in making fight turns. Alternative: The tinted or painted bicycle lanes could be dashed in both the approach to and through intersections. It should be noted that standard practice is to dash bicycle lanes on the approach to intersections, which gives drivers guidance that crossing the bicycle lane near the intersection to make a fight turn is permissible. An off-road side path (separated from. the street by both the curb and a planting strip) alternative to continuous on-street bike lanes was considered for a section of Charleston Road where sufficient fight of way was available or could be obtained, but was discarded due to concerns by staff and members of the bicycling community. The reasons for this are that drivers at cross streets will not expect bicyclists to cross their path in advance of an intersection and that some bicyclists will not slow down or stop at cross streets without being forced to by placement of bollards and other restrictive devices. This safety concerns are the reasons why side paths are not considered a good alternative to on street bicycle lanes. Sufficient fight-of-way exists for this purpose. 2.Widen bicycle lanes to 7 feet on Arastradero!West Charleston and to 6 feet on the south and 8 feet on the north side of East Charleston Road. Advantages: Wider bicycle lanes provide both bicyclists and drivers a larger "forgiveness zone" in the event of human error or mechanical problem, as well as greater psychological security for cyclists. This combination will induce more people to bicycle on a street with wide bicycle lanes, all other things considered equal. CMR:430:03 Pa:., 7 of 14 Disadvantages: Widening bicycle lanes will require re-allocating space for other uses. Depending on location and design (three lane or four lane), these uses include through movement and daytime parking. While much of the Corridor is characterized by eleven- foot lane widths, in some locations space will be reallocated from a reduction of through lane width from eleven feet to ten feet. Ten-foot lane widths are acceptable on streets such as Charleston and Arastradero, which have low proportions of trucks and full-size urban transit vehicles on them; however, some drivers may prefer 11-foot lanes for added maneuverability. Alternative: Maintenance of five-foot bicycle lanes on arterial streets like Arastradero and Charleston is the desirable minimum in Palo Alto. Bicycle lanes above eight feet are likely to be violated by some drivers using them as (illegally) as travel lanes, thus creating a potential safety hazard. Replace the free right turn ("pork chop islands") on the southwest and southeast comers of the E1 Camino Real and West Charleston/Arastradero intersection to enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety. Advantages: Bicycle and pedestrian safety is enhanced in that vehicle approach and merge speeds on right turns onto and off on E1 Camino Real at Arastradero/West Charleston will be reduced. The preliminary cost estimate for this improvement is $25,000. Disadvantages: Right turns at these locations will take slightly longer and vehicle delay and queues for these turns at peak congestion periods will also be somewhat longer. This will not result in a degradation of overall intersection efficiency as measured by level of service, however. Alternative: These free right turn islands can be left in place, although staff believes that the safety benefits to pedestrians and bicyclists of removing them far outweighs any consequent inconvenience to motorists. 4. Implement attractive bicycle lane signage along the entire corridor. Advantages: Driver awareness that "bikes belong" would be increased by such signage and heightened awareness should have safety benefits. The encouragement given to bicyclists should have a positive impact on use of the bicycle lanes. Disadvantages: Unless attractive, additional signs can contribute to aesthetic concerns ("sign pollution"). CMR:430:03 Page 8 of 14 Alternative: Conventional bicycle lane legends and logos can be used or the more visible tinted or painted bicycle lanes with or without logos and legends, in either case without a signage program. Pedestrian Safety and Comfort: Shorten pedestrian crossing distance, improve aesthetics, and enhance traffic safety ("prudent driver sets the pace") along East Charleston from Fabian to Alma and potentially West Charleston and Arastradero Road from Alma to Miranda (excepting reservation of four lanes for adequate space for storage of motor vehicles at both approaches to major signalized intersections-Middlefield, E1 Camino Real, and Charleston and the Caltrain tracks) through provision of two through lanes and sections of landscaped medians interspersed with left-turn pockets in place of four through lanes. See "Traffic Safets"’. 2. Provide center median islands for pedestrian refuge at intersection crosswalks. Advantages: Safer pedestrian conditions and as a result more walking along and across the corridor with some congestion relief and other public benefits (air quality, reduced noise, etc.) Disadvantages: The space needed for these refuges must be acquired through re- allocation from other uses, such as parking spaces. Alternative: Enhanced crosswalk striping can be provided at each signalized crosswalk location without provision of a center median refuge. Staff recommends installation of center median pedestrian refuges since they provide a protected space for pedestrians to regroup and shift their focus (e.g. to look right instead of left). Without such a refuge, pedestrians have to maintain focus on both directions for much of their crossing and have no place to wait in case they cannot complete a full crossing safely. 3. Provide of bulb-outs at selected locations to shorten pedestrian crossing distance. Advantages: Enhances pedestrian safety by shortening crossing distance and time and can at the same time provide a protected parking bay if applicable. Disadvantages: Can be expensive in that it requires breaking down the existing curb line and installing new curbing and may - depending on location - require movement of catch basins and portions of storm drains. CM~ 430:03 Page 9 of 14 Alternative: Conventional or enhanced crosswalks can be provided. Enhanced striping and yellow-green pedestrian crosswalk warning signs can raise driver awareness of a crosswalk and enhance safety. 4.Enhance crosswalk striping and install more visible texture or paving on crosswalk surfaces at the E1 Camino Real and West Charleston/Arastradero. Advantages: Enhances pedestrian safety at the busiest Corridor intersection while also enhances visual aesthetics. Disadvantages: Can be expensive, depending on materials and treatment. Alternative: Enhanced crosswalk striping and crosswalk warning signage can be installed without also installing textured or specially paved crosswalks. o Replace the free right turn ("pork chop islands") on the southwest and southeast comers of the E1 Camino Real and West Charleston/Arastradero intersection to enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety. See "Bicycling Safety and Comfort". 6.Install pedestrian "countdown" signals at the major signalized intersections along the corridor. Advantages: Enhances pedestrian safety by giving useful information to pedestrians on how long they have to complete a crossing. The countdown device at Bryant and Hamilton has been successful in this respect. Disadvantages: Some pedestrians may misjudge their walking pace and not make good use of the countdown information. Alternative: Conventional pedestrian symbol signal heads. 7.Enhance pedestrian crossing safety between signalized intersections at selected locations through provision of lighted crosswalks or pedestrian-actuated traffic signals. Advantages: Enhances safety by increasing the visibility of crosswalks and raises motorists’ awareness and alertness. In addition, pedestrian-actuated signals provide positive right of way control and a higher level of pedestrian safety than when such control is not provided. Disadvantages: Lighted crosswalks cannot be installed at signalized intersections due to concerns about distracting attention from the essential information provided by the traffic signal. Prevailing car speeds should be below 30 miles per hour for installation of CMR:430:03 Page 10 of 14 lighted crosswalks; pedestrian demand should be high, for driver expectancy and cost- effectiveness; and they are safer on two lane instead of four lane cross-sections (in the latter case, one driver may yield to a pedestrian, while another alongside and slightly behind may not seethe pedestrian being yielded to). Pedestrian-actuated signals are effective for safety but do induce added vehicle delay and make traffic signal foreordination on a street corridor more difficult. Alternatives: Enhanced crosswalk striping and signing at existing pedestrian crosswalks. Visual Aesthetics: Shorten pedestrian crossing distance and improve aesthetics along East Charleston from Fabian to Alma and potentially West Charleston and Arastradero Road from Alma to Miranda (excepting reservation of four lanes for adequate space for storage of motor vehicles at both approaches to major signalized intersections-Middlefield, E1 Camino Real, Charleston, and the Caltrain tracks) through provision of two through lanes and sections of landscaped medians interspersed with left-turn pockets in place of four through lanes. See "Traffic Safety". o Enhance the roadside planting strip in selected locations. (Attachment D illustrates schematically and in representative fashion improvements recommended along the Corridor.) Advantages: Makes the roadway environment more pleasant and adds value to the travel experience. Disadvantages: Can be costly to install, irrigate, and maintain. Alternative: Conventional planting strips and existing street trees can be maintained. 3.Install vertical gateway monuments with aerial connection between each side of the street near Fabian and near Miranda. Advantages: Provides an attractive entry to the Corridor and can be used for seasonal displays. The preliminary cost estimate for this improvement is $200,000. Disadvantages: It may be difficult to come to a community consensus on design and aesthetics for this improvement. Alternative: A Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Improvement Area sign could be installed on either end of the Corridor. CMR:430:03 Page 11 of 14 Improvements Being Evaluated and Not Yet Recommended: A conceptual plan has been prepared for a new pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing of Alma and Caltrain near Charleston (see Attachment D). This design, which would not require acquisition of any additional right of way, would require cyclists to dismount before entry into the tunnel. A design and construction cost of from $2.5 million to $3.0 million has been estimated for this facility, exclusive of contingencies. Given the preliminary nature of this estimate, a contingency of up to 50 percent would be advisable, which would increase the estimated cost to from $3.75 million to $4.5 million. Staff is still evaluating this design for feasibility, so it is not recommended at this time. A more elaborate design, which would not require bicyclists to dismount, would require elaborate "switch-backs" and acquisition of additional right of way. The cost of this approach, while not yet estimated, would be significantly higher than the design illustrated in Attachment D. Conclusion Installation of traffic-adaptive signal technology, along with mode shift performance measures, could result in less congestion on the Corridor than at present or projected for 2015. Assuming these changes, overall travel time is projected to fall from Fabian to Miranda from 2 to 3 minutes, depending on land development scenario and cross-section design (three-lane or four-lane). Similarly, vehicle delay at traffic signals is [projected to fall by up to 2 minutes. Tables I and II in Appendix C provides detail on these current and projected traffic conditions. Even without the targeted shift toward alternatives modes, deployment of traffic-adaptive signal technology itself will result in a reduction in overall corridor travel time in the year 2015 from 1 to 2 minutes, even with a three-lane cross- section. These findings suggest that implementation of traffic-adaptive technology, along with achievement of the mode shift performance standards, will enable re-design of all portions of the Corridor to accommodate a three-lane cross-section without increasing delay or travel time or, as a consequence, induce traffic shift onto nearby residential streets. RESOURCE IMPACT On April 14, 2003, the City Council authorized an expenditure of $200,000 for preparation of the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan. The Corridor plan itself will include a funding element, comprising an assessment of a variety of financing options, including federal, state, and regional grants, traffic impact fees, and other sources. The Corridor plan will also include estimated costs of any improvements and a phasing plan for implementation. Project implementation after Council approval of a preferred plan for the Corridor will proceed within the context of the City’s capital improvements planning process. Preliminars’ cost estimates for implementing the Corridor plan are approximately $2.3 million (roughly one half of this cost is for traffic-adaptive signal technology) without landscaped center medians, to $5.9 million with landscaped center medians on selected street sections from Fabian to Miranda. These estimates are exclusive of any costs for a new pedestrian and CMR:430:03 Page 12 of 14 bicycle under crossing of Alma and Charleston. It should be noted and emphasized that these are preliminary cost estimates, thus will likely change with more refinement of design detail. It is also important to note that a decrease or increase in the number of improvements will change cost estimates accordingly. Council can choose to authorize a Corridor Plan in phases, matching availability of grant and other funding with City resources; and/or reduce the proposed Corridor Plan scope to manage the resource impact of the Plan. Council has already authorized staff to apply for grant funding for installation of traffic- adaptive technology on Charleston and Arastradero Road (CMR:454:03). Both traffic- adaptive technology and bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements are included in a draft expenditure plan for a proposed citywide traffic impact fee presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission at a study session on August 27, 2003. Such a fee and expenditure plan, if adopted by Council, could partially fund bicycle and pedestrian improvements on the Corridor. Selected other potential funding sources are the following grant programs: the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Transportation for Livable Communities, Caltrans’ Safe Routes to School, the California Office of Traffic Safety, the Bay Area Air Quality Management Districts’ Transportation Fund for Clean Air, the US Department of Transportation’s Congestion Management and Air Quality Improvement and Enhancements, and future calls for projects from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s Local Streets and County Roads. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The Charleston/Arastradero Road Corridor Plan addresses the first six goals of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan: ¯T-l: "Less Reliance on Single Occupant Vehicles". ¯T-2: "A Convenient, Efficient Public Transportation System that Provides A Viable Alternative to Driving". ¯T-3: "Facilities, Services, and Programs that Encourage and Promote Walking and Bicycling". ¯T-4: "An Efficient Roadway Network for All Users". ¯T-5: "A Transportation System that Minimizes Impacts on Residential Neighborhoods". ¯T-6: "A High Level of Safety for Motorists, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists on Palo Alto Streets". In addition, the Corridor Plan should facilitate achievement of Policy B-19: "Use street corridor improvements as catalysts for economic revitalization in selected Centers." While the Corridor plan is a transportation and not a land use plan, the Corridor Plan will be consistent with Comprehensive Plan Housing Goal H-l: "A supply of Affordable and Market Rate Housing that meets Palo Alto’s share of Regional Housing Needs" and Goal B- 1" "A Thriving Business Environment that is Compatible with Palo Alto’s Residential Character and Natural Environment." CMR:430:03 Page 13 of 14 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An environmental assessment will be prepared and presented to the Planning Transportation Commission and City Council for consideration along with the complete draft Charleston/Arastradero Road Corridor Plan. Since the Corridor plan is intended to implement important provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, an important focus of the Environmental Assessment will be consistency of Corridor Plan with the Council-adopted Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. ATTACHMENTS A. Map of Charleston Road/Arastradero Road -Road Corridor B Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan Public Meeting Notes, October 15 and October 22, 2003. C. Draft Traffic Analysis and Description of Traffic-adaptive Coordination D. Schematic of representative Charleston!Arastradero Road Corridor improvements E. Schematic of potential new pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing of Alma and Caltrain. PREPARED BY: JOSEPH KOTT Official DEPARTMENT HEAD: STEVE EMSLIE Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: EMILY HARRISON Assistant City Manager cc:CharlestordArastradero Corridor Plan Informal Input Group CMR:430:03 Page 14 of 14 City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL HONORABLE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 1 FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:NOVEMBER 24, 2003 CMR:524:03 SUBJECT:STUDY SESSION ON THE CHARLESTON/ARASTRADERO ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN RECOMMENDATION This staff report provides information for the study session. Council does not take action in study sessions, but Council’s review and feedback on the draft CharlestordArastradero Road Corridor Plan will assist staff as it finalizes its recommendations. BACKGROUND At its April 14, 2003 meeting, Council directed staff to prepare a plan of transportation and urban design/landscape improvements for the Charleston/Arastradero Road Corridor (CMR:237:03). A map of the corridor is included as Attachment A. Council also directed staff to return with a report on land use assumptions, to be included in projecting future traffic conditions on the corridor before such predictions were undertaken. The range of land use projections was reviewed by the Council on June 9, 2003 (CMR:310:03). The expected outcomes of the Charleston!Arastradero redesign include safer; more attractive routes to schools; well-landscaped medians where possible; and pedestrian, bicycle, and bus transit improvements all along the corridor. Other key purposes of the transportation plan will be to provide safer traffic flow along the corridor and to reduce the incidence of vehicle speeding, without reduction in vehicle travel times or causing diversion of through traffic to other streets. An initial set of performance measures for the Corridor, based on best practices in traffic engineering assessment, was presented for discussion at public meetings on July 10 and July 15 (see Attachment D). A refined and expanded set of road performance measures was then presented to an informal focus group of Corridor stakeholders. The set of road performance measures was further refined and expanded for presentation to the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council (CMR:430:03), which approved them on September 22, 2003. CMR:430:03 .Page 1 of 14 Conceptual plans and alternatives for improving the Charleston/Arastradero corridor were presented and discussed at public meetings on October 15 and October 22, 2003 (see Attachment B for public comments from these workshops) and at meetings of the informal focus group of Corridor stakeholders. Staff and a project consultant made a presentation on the conceptual alternatives to Corridor PTA representatives and one principal (Terman Middle School) on November 13. Staff also presented information of the Corridor Plan conceptual alternatives to the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee on November 12. A variety of information on the Corridor plan effort is being disseminated on the project web site: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/charleston-arastradero/index.html. DISCUSSION Morning weekday peak hour traffic volume on the Corridor is projected to rise from the current average of from 765 to 866 (depending on street section) to from 999 to 1,163 (depending on street section and land development scenario) by the year 2015. These projections do not take into account increases in public transit and Palo Alto Shuttle use (a 50 percent increase in passenger boardings by 2010), bicycling (a 20 percent increase by 2010 and a 40 percent increase by 2020), and walking (a 20 percent increase by 2010 and a 40 percent increase by 2020). Traffic engineers consider that a three lane cross-section is capable of accommodating up approximately 1,000 vehicles per hour before cross street and residential driveway motorists begin to experience difficulty entering the vehicle stream. In these circumstances, entering motorists have an average time gap for entry of 3.6 seconds. The proposed Charleston/Arastradero Road Corridor improvement plans comprise a set of physical, operational, electronic, and aesthetic measures to improve safety for all modes of travel (with particular emphasis on cycling and walking conditions) while ensuring efficient traffic flow and avoiding traffic shift onto nearby residential streets. The plans were developed to meet expected traffic conditions to the year 2015, as forecast by Palo Alto’s new citywide computer traffic model, according to two future land use scenarios approved for traffic modeling purposes by Council on June 9, 2003. The two scenarios are: 1) Comprehensive Plan EIR growth scenario extended to 2015, and 2) "known (development) proposals" to the year 2015. These computer forecasts and traffic analysis of the current and expected conditions on the Corridor suggest that Charleston/Arastradero Road can be re- designed to enhance traffic safety without inducing increased vehicle travel time or vehicle delay at signalized intersections. Integral to this finding is the conclusion that the potential traffic capacity (up to a 20 percent increase according to the Federal Highway Administration) can be handles by automating the traffic signals along the Corridor to operate in "traffic-adaptive" mode (i.e. electronic reallocation of green time at each signalized intersection in response to real time traffic conditions); and providing dedicated left-turn pockets and lanes, which move left-turning vehicles out of the through traffic stream. Attachment C presents the preliminary traffic analysis for the Corridor and information about traffic-adaptive signal operation. Additional CMR:430:03 Page 2 of 14 work is being completed on the traffic analysis, including the effect of achievement of the non-auto mode (transit, cycling, and walking) use performance targets for the Corridor under a three-lane cross section scenario. This additional work is anticipated to show even more favorable results in terms of trip times and vehicle delay with a future three-lane cross section. The physical, operational, electronic, and aesthetic measures proposed for the Corridor, along with their likely advantages and disadvantages, are as follows: Traffic Capaci _ty and Flow: 1.Implement automated, "traffic-adaptive" traffic signal operation along the entire corridor to improve traffic capacity and traffic flow efficiency at signalized intersections. Advantages: If funding were available, signal automation could be implemented as the next phase of the City of Palo Alto’s Advanced Transportation Management System (ATMS - CMR:273:03), since the ATMS upgrades to the traffic signal system are an essential pre-requisite to traffic-adaptive operation. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that traffic-adaptive signal operation can increase efficiency, hence capacity, of a street by approximately 20 percent without adding lanes, removing parking, or grade separating streets. Disadvantages: Implementing traffic:adaptive signal operation is expensive. Staff has estimated the cost of traffic-adaptive signalization on the Corridor to be approximately $1.3 million, inclusive of design and construction contingencies. It should be noted that staff has already applied for grant funding through the Valley Transportation Authority’s Local Streets and County Roads program, to install traffic-adaptive signalization on five residential arterial streets, including Charleston/Arastradero Road (CMR:454:03). Alternative: Better coordination of traffic signal timing can be implemented in the shorter term or as an alternative to signal automation. While much less expensive, this alternative will only yield a fraction of the efficiency benefits of traffic-adaptive operation. 2.Provide a dedicated westbound right-turn lane at the Gunn High School driveway to reduce vehicle queuing and enhance safety. Advantages: Construction of a dedicated right-turn lane at this location will mitigate the long morning queue for westbound drivers waiting to turn into the Gunn driveway; reduce traffic intrusion onto Georgia Avenue and other nearby residential streets; improve access to and egress from Georgia Avenue and other residential cross streets east of Gunn High School during the morning school commute period, as well as CMR:430:03 Page 3 of t4 enhance safety by reducing abrupt lane changes by drivers and the crowding out of cyclists in the vicinity of the Gunn driveway. Disadvantages: There may not be sufficient right-of-way available to create a long enough fight turn lane. Staff is currently assessing turn lane length requirements based on likely right turn demand (which is heaviest during the 10 to 15 minute morning school commute peak). Alternative: Reserving the current outside westbound through lane on Arastradero east of the Gunn High School entrance for peak period only (e.g. for 30 minutes or an hour each weekday morning during the school year) right turn use was considered, but not recommended. This solution is highly unconventional and requires considerable attention to transitioning through drivers out of the outside lane during the stated time period (via road striping and signing). Since for approximately 98 percent of the year the outside lane would function as a standard through lane, driver expectations during the remaining 2 percent of the year may be violated, resulting in last moment lane changing (unsafe driving behavior) and relatively low compliance with the lane use restriction, both of which would eliminate some of the efficiency gains from the right-turn lane designation. o Provide a center left-turn lane from East Charleston Road into the easterly driveway of Hoover School should the school agree to reverse the circulation flow of its two driveways onto East Charleston. Advantages: Left turns are now prohibited into Hoover on eastbound Charleston, partly due to the proximity of the Carlson intersection to the current (westerly) Hoover driveway. By reversing the circulation into and out of Hoover School so that ingress is via the easterly driveway onto Charleston, it will be possible to provide a long enough left-turn lane from Charleston to accommodate peak demand. As a result, parents will be able to access Hoover from both the westbound and the eastbound direction of travel. The current problem of some drivers making u-turns on Nelson, or one of its cross- streets, to reverse direction on Charleston, to make an allowed right turn into Hoover will be eliminated. Disadvantages: Hoover School will have to agree to this change and parents will have to adjust to the new ingress and egress arrangements. Staff is assessing whether sufficiently long gaps in traffic will be available for left turns during the morning peak hour in the circumstances of a three-lane cross-section (one opposing through lane). However, since traffic signals at Nelson and Middlefield will create gaps in westbound Charleston the opposing traffic flow will not be continuous. CMR:430:03 Page 4 of 14 Alternative: Creating a short eastbound left-turn pocket on Charleston for turns into the existing Hoover ingress drive was considered but discarded, since the short distance between the westerly Hoover driveway and Carlson would only allow room for a left- turn pocket too short to meet morning peak demand. This would likely cause spillback onto the Carlson intersection and attendant safety and efficiency concerns. Traffic SafeW: 1.Install electronic radar read out ("V-Calm") signs at additional selected locations along the corridor. Advantages: This device, which is relatively inexpensive ($7,000 to $10,000 each, installed depending on proximity to a power source). It has been deployed successfully in Palo Alto in six locations and has high public acceptance to date. Disadvantages: Driver awareness of the electronic speed advisory signs may lessen over time, and with it the speed reduction effect of these devices. Alternative: Radar speed trailers could be deployed and periodically re-positioned along the Corridor. Re-positioning the trailers periodically over time will entail ongoing labor costs. The trailer and car set will require on-street parking space. Experience has shown that the speed reduction effect of radar trailer disappear in a given location after the trailer leaves. Shorten pedestrian crossing distance, improve aesthetics, and enhance traffic safety ("prudent driver sets the pace" to moderate vehicle speeds) along East Charleston from Fabian to Alma and potentially West Charleston and Arastradero Road from Alma to Miranda (excepting reservation of four lanes for adequate space for storage of motor vehicles at both approaches to major signalized intersections-Middlefield, E1 Camino Real, and Charleston and the Caltrain tracks) through provision of two threugh lanes and sections of landscaped medians interspersed with left-turn pockets in place of four through lanes. Advantages: The three-lane design will reduce prevailing vehicle speeds and increase safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicle users. Pedestrians would enjoy shorter through lane crossing distance and time, as well as the protection of raised center refuge medians at crosswalks. Cyclists would enjoy wider bike lanes due to the reallocation of road space, as one through lane in each direction (except in the vicinity of major intersections and Caltrain) is dropped. The safety benefits to pedestrians and cyclists would induce more walking and cycling along the Corridor, thereby reducing motor vehicle volumes and the attendant impacts of motor vehicle use (e.g. noise and air pollution). Provision of continuous bike lanes and intermittent CMR:430:03 Page 5 of 14 center left-turn pockets, along with any available empty curbside parking, will provide adequate room for emergency and other vehicles to maneuver around inoperative vehicles in the travel lane. Disadvantages: Interspersing medians in the middle lane (to discourage use of the lane for potentially unsafe "by-pass" maneuvers), even while retaining all vehicle movements at all cross-streets, may prevent some residents on the Corridor from making left turns out of and into their driveways. Should future traffic growth be much greater than projected, the three-lane design alternative may not be sufficient to meet vehicle demand and not induce driver shortcutting onto nearby residential streets due to travel time delays. It should be noted that since Arastradero Road has more cross streets per mile than does Charleston Road, a three-lane section may have more interruption to traffic flow on Arastradero, as cross-street drivers turn to merge into the traffic flow. Preliminary cost estimates for these improvements range from $2,131,000 to $2,649,000, depending on the extent of the median treatment. Alternative: A four lane cross-section on Arastradero is a viable alternative, but does not yield the safety benefits to all modes of travel, or the amount of improvement in walking and cycling conditions that are provided by a three-lane cross-section design. 3.Install center medians in selected locations to physically separate motor vehicle traffic in opposing directions. Advantages: Center medians provide safety benefits through separating opposing traffic streams. The medians may also provide opportunities for tree planting and other landscaped amenities. Disadvantages: Depending on location, center median can prevent residents along a roadway to make left turns into and out of their driveways. Alternative: Center median are "scalable" in that a greater or lesser number of them in lesser or greater dimension can be provided along a roadway depending on design objectives. As examples, narrower center medians can thus be provided with a four- lane section and both fewer and shorter center medians can be provided with a three- lane cross-section. Continuous center medians (interspersed with left-turn pockets or lanes at signalized intersections), which provide the greatest safety enhancement, were considered for Arastradero, but are not recommended since they also provide the most access restrictions for both on-street residents and cross street drivers. Staff is recommending a balanced approach to safety and access with emphasis on improving safety of the most vulnerable street users: those on foot and those riding bicycles. CMR:430:03 Page 6 of 14 Bicycling Safe~ and Comfort: 1.Paint or tint continuous bicycle lanes for the entire corridor, including through intersections. Advantages: This sends a clear visual message to drivers and cyclists about the presence of cycling facilities on the two streets, thus has both practical (as guidance to both motorists and cyclists) and symbolic ("bikes belong") importance. Making the bike lanes more visible means that drivers will be more aware of cyclists and prepared for taking bicyclists into account as fellow travelers. Portland, Oregon, and many Dutch communities have has good success with tinted or painted bike lanes. The preliminary cost estimate for this improvement is $217,500. Disadvantages: This is not a convention treatment for bicycle lanes in Palo Alto or statewide, thus would need to undertaken as a demonstration project. Some cyclists have expressed concern that continuing the tinted or painted lanes into and through the intersection does not give drivers adequate guidance, particularly in making right turns. Alternative: The tinted or painted bicycle lanes could be dashed in both the approach to and through intersections. It should be noted that standard practice is to dash bicycle lanes on the approach to intersections, which gives drivers guidance that crossing the bicycle lane near the intersection to make a right turn is permissible. An off-road side path (separated from the street by both the curb and a planting strip) alternative to continuous on-street bike lanes was considered for a section of Charleston Road where sufficient right of way was available or could be obtained, but was discarded due to concerns by staff and members of the bicycling community. The reasons for this are that drivers at cross streets will not expect bicyclists to cross their path in advance of an intersection and that some bicyclists will not slow down or stop at cross streets without being forced to by placement of bollards and other restrictive devices. This safety concerns are the reasons why side paths are not considered a good alternative to on street bicycle lanes. Sufficient right-of-way exists for this purpose. 2.Widen bicycle lanes to 7 feet on Arastradero/West Charleston and to 6 feet on the south and 8 feet on the north side of East Charleston Road. Advantages: Wider bicycle lanes provide both bicyclists and drivers a larger "forgiveness zone" in the event of human error or mechanical problem, as well as greater psychological security for cyclists. This combination will induce more people to bicycle on a street with wide bicycle lanes, all other things considered equal. CMR:430:03 Page 7 of 14 Disadvantages: Widening bicycle lanes will require re-allocating space for other uses. Depending on location and design (three lane or four lane), these uses include through movement and daytime parking. While much of the Corridor is characterized by eleven- foot lane widths, in some locations space will be reallocated from a reduction of through lane width from eleven feet to ten feet. Ten-foot lane widths are acceptable on streets such as Charleston and Arastradero, which have low proportions of trucks and full-size urban transit vehicles on them; however, some drivers may prefer 11-foot lanes for added maneuverability. Alternative: Maintenance of five-foot bicycle lanes on arterial streets like Arastradero and Charleston is the desirable minimum in Palo Alto. Bicycle lanes above eight feet are likely to be violated by some drivers using them as (illegally) as travel lanes, thus creating a potential safety hazard. o Replace the free right turn ("pork chop islands") on the southwest and southeast comers of the E1 Camino Real and West CharlestordArastradero intersection to enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety. Advantages: Bicycle and pedestrian safety is enhanced in that vehicle approach and merge speeds on right turns onto and off on E1 Camino Real at Arastradero/West Charleston will be reduced. The preliminary cost estimate for this improvement is $25,000. Disadvantages: Right turns at these locations will take slightly longer and vehicle delay and queues for these turns at peak congestion periods will also be somewhat longer. This will not result in a degradation of overall intersection efficiency as measured by level of service, however. Alternative: These free right turn islands can be left in place, although staff believes that the safety benefits to pedestrians and bicyclists of removing them far outweighs any consequent inconvenience to motorists. 4. Implement attractive bicycle lane signage along the entire corridor. Advantages: Driver awareness that "bikes belong" would be increased by such signage and heightened awareness should have safety benefits. The encouragement given to bicyclists should have a positive impact on use of the bicycle lanes. Disadvantages: Unless attractive, additional signs can contribute to aesthetic concerns ("sign pollution"). CMR:430:03 Page 8 of !4 Alternative: Conventional bicycle lane legends and logos can be used or the more visible tinted or painted bicycle lanes with or without logos and legends, in either case without a signage program. Pedestrian Safety and Com~brt: Shorten pedestrian crossing distance, improve aesthetics, and enhance traffic safety ("prudent driver sets the pace") along East Charleston from Fabian to Alma and potentially West Charleston and Arastradero Road from Alma to Miranda (excepting reservation of four lanes for adequate space for storage of motor vehicles at both approaches to major signalized intersections-Middlefield, E1 Camino Real, and Charleston and the Caltrain tracks) through provision of two through lanes and sections of landscaped medians interspersed with left-turn pockets in place of four through lanes. See "Traffic Safe .ty". 2. Provide center median islands for pedestrian refuge at intersection crosswalks. Advantages: Safer pedestrian conditions and as a result more walking along and across the corridor with some congestion relief and other public benefits (air quality, reduced noise, etc.) Disadvantages: The space needed for these refuges must be acquired through re- allocation from other uses, such as parking spaces. Alternative: Enhanced crosswalk striping can be provided at each signalized crosswalk location without provision of a center median refuge. Staff recommends installation of center median pedestrian refuges since they provide a protected space for pedestrians to regroup and shift their focus (e.g. to look right instead of left). Without such a refuge, pedestrians have to maintain focus on both directions for much of their crossing and have no place to wait in case they cannot complete a full crossing safely. 3. Provide of bulb-outs at selected locations to shorten pedestrian crossing distance. Advantages: Enhances pedestrian safety by shortening crossing distance and time and can at the same time provide a protected parking bay if applicable. DisadvantagEs: Can be expensive in that it requires breaking down the existing curb line and installing new curbing and may - depending on location - require movement of catch basins and portions of storm drains. CMR:430:03 Page 9 of !4 Alternative: Conventional or enhanced crosswalks can be provided. Enhanced striping and yellow-green pedestrian crosswalk warning signs can raise driver awareness of a crosswalk and enhance safety. 4.Enhance crosswalk striping and install more visible texture or paving on crosswalk surfaces at the E1 Camino Real and West Charleston/Arastradero. Advantages: Enhances pedestrian safety at the busiest Corridor intersection while also enhances visual aesthetics. Disadvantages: Can be expensive, depending on materials and treatment. Alternative: Enhanced crosswalk striping and crosswalk warning signage can be installed without also installing textured or specially paved crosswalks. Replace the free right turn ("pork chop islands") on the southwest and southeast comers of the E1 Camino Real and West CharlestordArastradero intersection to enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety. See "Bicycling Safety and Comfort". 6.Install pedestrian "countdown" signals at the major signalized intersections along the corridor. Advantages: Enhances pedestrian safety by giving useful information to pedestrians on how long they have to complete a crossing. The countdown device at Bryant and Hamilton has been successful in this respect. Disadvantages: Some pedestrians may misjudge their walking pace and not make good use of the countdown information. Alternative: Conventional pedestrian symbol signal heads. 7.Enhance pedestrian crossing safety between signalized intersections at selected locations through provision of lighted crosswalks or pedestrian-actuated traffic signals. Advantages: Enhances safety by increasing the visibility of crosswalks and raises motorists’ awareness and alertness. In addition, pedestrian-actuated signals provide positive right of way control and a higher level of pedestrian safety than when such control is not provided. Disadvantages: Lighted crosswalks cannot be installed at signalized intersections due to concerns about distracting attention from the essential information provided by the traffic signal. Prevailing car speeds should be below 30 miles per hour for installation of CMR:430:03 Page 10 of 14 lighted crosswalks; pedestrian demand should be high, for driver expectancy and cost- effectiveness; and they are safer on two lane instead of four lane cross-sections (in the latter case, one driver may yield to a pedestrian, while another alongside and slightly behind may not seethe pedestrian being yielded to). Pedestrian-actuated signals are effective for safety but do induce added vehicle delay and make traffic signal foreordination on a street corridor more difficult. Alternatives: Enhanced crosswalk striping and signing at existing pedestrian crosswalks. Visual Aesthetics: Shorten pedestrian crossing distance and improve aesthetics along East Charleston from Fabian to Alma and potentially West Charleston and Arastradero Road from Alma to Miranda (excepting reservation of four lanes for adequate space for storage of motor vehicles at both approaches to major signalized intersections-Middlefield, E1 Camino Real, Charleston, and the Caltrain tracks) through provision of two through lanes and sections of landscaped medians interspersed with left-turn pockets in place of four through lanes. See "Traffic Safety". Enhance the roadside planting strip in selected locations. (Attachment D illustrates schematically and in representative fashion improvements recommended along the Corridor.) Advantages: Makes the roadway environment more pleasant and adds value to the travel experience. Disadvantages: Can be costly to install, irrigate, and maintain. Alternative: Conventional planting strips and existing street trees can be maintained. 3.Install vertical gateway monuments with aerial connection between each side of the street near Fabian and near Miranda. Advantages: Provides an attractive entry to the Corridor and can be used for seasonal displays. The preliminary cost estimate for this improvement is $200,000. Disadvantages: It may be difficult to come to a community consensus on design and aesthetics for this improvement. Alternative: A Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Improvement Area sign could be installed on either end of the Corridor. CMR:430:03 Page 11 of 14 Improvements Being Evaluated and Not Yet Recommended: A conceptual plan has been prepared for a new pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing of Alma and Caltrain near Charleston (see Attachment D). This design, which would not require acquisition of any additional right of way, would require cyclists to dismount before entry into the tunnel. A design and construction cost of from $2.5 million to $3.0 million has been estimated for this facility, exclusive of contingencies. Given the preliminary nature of this estimate, a contingency of up to 50 percent would be advisable, which would increase the estimated cost to from $3.75 million to $4.5 million. Staff is still evaluating this design for feasibility, so it is not recommended at this time. A more elaborate design, which would not require bicyclists to dismount, would require elaborate "switch-backs" and acquisition of additional right of way. The cost of this approach, while not yet estimated, would be significantly higher than the design illustrated in Attachment D. Conclusion Installation of traffic-adaptive signal technology, along with mode shift performance measures, could result in less congestion on the Corridor than at present or projected for 2015. Assuming these changes, overall travel time is projected to fall from Fabian to Miranda from 2 to 3 minutes, depending on land development scenario and cross-section design (three-lane or four-lane). Similarly, vehicle delay at traffic signals is [projected to fall by up to 2 minutes. Tables I and II in Appendix C provides detail on these current and projected traffic conditions. Even without the targeted shift toward alternatives modes, deployment of traffic-adaptive signal technology itself will result in a reduction in overall corridor travel time in the year 2015 from 1 to 2 minutes, even with a three-lane cross- section. These findings suggest that implementation of traffic-adaptive technology, along with achievement of the mode shift performance standards, will enable re-design of all portions of the Corridor to accommodate a three-lane cross-section without increasing delay or travel time or, as a consequence, induce traffic shift onto nearby residential streets. RESOURCE IMPACT On April 14, 2003, the City Council authorized an expenditure of $200,000 for preparation of the CharlestordArastradero Corridor Plan. The Corridor plan itself will include a funding element, comprising an assessment of a variety of financing options, including federal, state, and regional grants, traffic impact fees, and other sources. The Corridor plan will also include estimated costs of any improvements and a phasing plan for implementation. Project implementation after Council approval of a preferred plan for the Corridor will proceed within the context of the City’s capital improvements planning process. Preliminary cost estimates for implementing the Corridor plan are approximately $2.3 million (roughly one half of this cost is for traffic-adaptive signal technology) without landscaped center medians, to $5.9 million with landscaped center medians on selected street sections from Fabian to Miranda. These estimates are exclusive of any costs for a new pedestrian and CMR:430:03 Page 12 of 14 bicycle under crossing of Alma and Charleston. It should be noted and emphasized that these are preliminary cost estimates, thus will likely change with more refinement of design detail. It is also important to note that a decrease or increase in the number of improvements will change cost estimates accordingly. Council can choose to authorize a Corridor Plan in phases, matching availability of grant and other funding with City resources; and/or reduce the proposed Corridor Plan scope to manage the resource impact of the Plan. Council has already authorized staff to apply for grant funding for installation of traffic- adaptive technology on Charleston and Arastradero Road (CMR:454:03). Both traffic- adaptive technology and bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements are included in a draft expenditure plan for a proposed citywide traffic impact fee presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission at a study session on August 27, 2003. Such a fee and expenditure plan, if adopted by Council, could partially fund bicycle and pedestrian improvements on the Corridor. Selected other potential funding sources are the following grant programs: the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Transportation for Livable Communities, Caltrans’ Safe Routes to School, the California Office of Traffic Safety, the Bay Area Air Quality Management Districts’ Transportation Fund for Clean Air, the US Department of Transportation’s Congestion Management and Air Quality Improvement and Enhancements, and future calls for projects from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s Local Streets and County Roads. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The Charleston!Arastradero Road Corridor Plan addresses the first six goals of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan: ¯T-l:"Less Reliance on Single Occupant Vehicles". ¯T-2: "A Convenient, Efficient Public Transportation System that Provides A Viable Alternative to Driving". ¯T-3: "Facilities, Services, and Programs that Encourage and Promote Walking and Bicycling". ¯T-4: "An Efficient Roadway Network for All Users". ¯T-5: "A Transportation System that Minimizes Impacts on Residential Neighborhoods". ¯T-6: "A High Level of Safety for Motorists, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists on Palo Alto Streets". In addition, the Corridor Plan should facilitate achievement of Policy B-19: "Use street corridor improvements as catalysts for economic revitalization in selected Centers." While the Corridor plan is a transportation and not a land use plan, the Corridor Plan will be consistent with Comprehensive Plan Housing Goal H-l: "A supply of Affordable and Market Rate Housing that meets Palo Alto’s share of Regional Housing Needs" and Goal B- 1: "A Thriving Business Environment that is Compatible with Palo Alto’s Residential Character and Natural Environment." CMR:430:03 Page 13 of 14 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An environmental assessment will be prepared and presented to the Planning Transportation Commission and City Council for consideration along with the complete draft Charleston/Arastradero Road Corridor Plan. Since the Corridor plan is intended to implement important provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, an important focus of the Environmental Assessment will be consistency of Corridor Plan with the Council-adopted Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. ATTACHMENTS A. Map of Charleston Road/Arastradero Road -Road Corridor B Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan Public Meeting Notes, October 15 and October 22, 2003. C. Draft Traffic Analysis and Description of Traffic-adaptive Coordination D. Schematic of representative Charleston/Arastradero Road Corridor improvements E. Schematic of potential new pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing of Alma and Caltrain. PREPARED BY: JOSEPH KOTT Official DEPARTMENT HEAD: STEVE EMSLIE Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: "I- EMILY HARR!SON Assistant City Manager cc:Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan Informal Input Group CMR:430:03 Page 14 of 14 Charleston Co~idor Attac~hrnent A lii ATTACHMENT B City of Palo Alto Arastradero / Charleston Corridor Study Community Meeting #2: Street Design Options -10/15/03 Community Comments Summary The comments summarized below were made by participants and recorded during the course of the meeting. (R) indicates a response by City staff or consultants ¯Keeping curbside parking may not be a crucial concern of residents who live along or in the vicinity of the corridor. ¯There are different kinds of cyclists. Are the proposed grade-separated paths only for kids? What is the goal of these design options as regards cycling speed? ¯As a serious cyclist I prefer to ride on the street, rather than on a bike path. ¯Regarding process, how are solutions reached? There are too many alternatives. Where is the analysis of community needs? What are the options and choices? (R) The basic options and choices relate to medians, bikeway locations, pedestrian crossings, planting, and street signs and lig~hting. There are a number of ways to combine these different elements to create a street that has a more neighborhood- oriented character. ¯It is important to create visual cues for drivers. An example of this is the electronic speed sign near Fabian. Drivers instantly reduce their speed from 40mph to 25mph, at least until they hit Middlefield Road. Then they speed back up. ¯Serious cyclists d__~o use grade-separated bike paths. You’d be surprised. Once they’re installed you just can’t help but ride on them. Also they increase the value of properties located along the paths. ¯Two-way bike paths can be unsafe at intersections and can make it difficult to reach the opposite side of the street. I prefer one-way grade-separated bike paths located on both sides of the street. ¯I prefer maintaining outside lanes for vehicular travel lanes (on the 4-lane options), rather than programming them for parking during off peak times. ¯Painting the bike lanes doesn’t go far enough in preventing vehicles from veering into bike lanes. Have you considered a raised surface strip to separate the bike lane from vehicle lanes? Little round domes? (R) A raised surface, or even a change in surface textures can be hazardous for cyclists. At the city we are conservative about using any kind of raised surface along bike lanes. ¯Near the cemetery it is very dangerous for cyclists. They try to cross to the south/east side of Arastradero from Foothi!l. A safe crossing is needed there. Also, many Terman students travel in the bike lane against traffic on that side of the street; this is not safe. ¯I like the grade-separated bike paths. I have kids and would feel good about allowing them to ride their bikes to school on these paths. I also think the safety benefits (to motorists, pedestrians) of medians outweigh any inconvenience they may cause. My concern involves how bike paths may work at the major intersections like Alma, Middlefield, and E1 Camino. I prefer the idea of over-crossings for pedestrians and cyclists. Community participation in Palo Alto is an illusion. The parameters are already set. Why don’t you just tell us w-hat they are? Shouldn’t you base your options on these parameters? ¯I don’t think traffic diversion (that could result from street improvements) onto residential streets is an issue. ¯Oh yes it is! ¯I am a homeowner across from Hoover School and I prefer grade-separated bike paths. I would be more than happy to sacrifice curbside parking for the safety and beauty (offered by those plan options). ¯Do these plans extend to San Antonio Road? (R) As of now the improvement concepts end at Fabian Way. ¯I think grade-separated bike paths and medians are a good idea for East Charleston and should be extended to the rest of the corridor (including Arastradero). Currently, there is more traffic, relatively, east of E1 Camino. But in the near future it is not expected to be that much different there. Safety should be the number one priority along the entire corridor. ¯Are there funds available for grade Separated bike paths? (R) We have applied for a grant to pay for additional electronic speed signs. There are other grants we can and will apply for. And the city is looking at funding projects from its traffic impact fee program ¯It is important to get drivers to slow down. Safety is the issue, so I like the idea of the medians. ¯Does expense effect the timeline of implementation? (R) Yes. It would take time to package the funding needed, especially if it includes grants. ¯We need to improve travel on San Antonio to deter through traffic on this corridor. (R) There is a network of streets that we are part of, and what happens on other streets definitely affects us. The county is interested in improving efficiency on Page Mill and the Oregon Expressway, which are county highways, and this would relieve some of the traffic on this corridor. ¯I am a cyclist commuter and would definitely use grade separated bike paths. I am however concerned about trees blocking visibility near intersections. Would treatment of the grade separated bike paths be the same at every intersection? (R) No, each intersection is different and would require some independent analysis and design. We would make sure visibility at intersections is very good. ¯I like the Louis island. It prevents through traffic on Louis, which was a tea! problem before it was installed. ¯The Louis Street island serves a good function but can stand improvement. ¯The Louis island does not prevent through traffic on Montrose however. People use this as an alternate route to reach Fabian and avoid San Antonio. ¯Street lighting should be more pedestrian-oriented than vehicle oriented. We don’t want the li~hting to be so bright that it attracts cars (by making the street seem like it is supposed to be a through route). ¯I am concerned about medians blocking access to streets. ¯Off-peak parking is dangerous, especially for kids on bikes. They have to ride around parked cars (especially on Arastradero) and drivers don’t look out for them. One solution is towing. ¯I have a concern regarding traffic between Middlefield and Gunn. Currently traffic is diverted onto residential streets. Drop-off zones would help. But ho~v do we get cars offMaybell? (R) There will be more analysis of Maybell. It requires a custom solution. ¯A potential solution would be to make Page Mill and Oregon freeways. ¯A 60’ cross-section (curb to curb) is too constrained. We should consider taking room from some of the frontages to make the street better. ¯I have a concern regarding medians and kids using them to cross the street rather than using designated (signalized) crossings. But the medians would be safer for elderly people. It is very difficult for my father to cross the entire width of a street (in the time allowed by a traffic signal). ¯On West Charleston between Alma and E1 Camino parking is used for businesses and special destinations; in other areas it is just residential guest parking. If we are going to have grade separated bike paths I’d like to propose that we also have on street bike lanes (for commuter cyclists). City of Palo Alto Arastradero / Charleston Corridor Study Community Meeting #2b: Street Design Options-10/22/03 Community Comments Summary The comments summarized below were made by participants and recorded during the course of the meeting. (R) indicates a response by City staff or consultants ¯Medians are an inconvenience to people turning left (into driveways). Would it be possible to combine medians and center turn lane? (R) Yes. Median wouldn’t be continuous. There would need to be places for left and u-turns. ¯With a median is it possible to make a u-turn at intersections? (R) It depends on the location; e.g. cross street vs. mid-block. It may be possible to have shorter medians, making u-turns possible. Thoug)h this can reduce safety. ¯Is it possible to make some sections four lanes and some three, as shown in the options (at Alma)? Won!t this create a back up, similar to when the number of lanes on a freeway is reduced? (R) Traffic on the corridor is different from that on a freeway. It is more complicated because it’s not a single direction flow through, but comes and goes at different intersections. It is possible to have a transition at intersections. Still, we do want to minimize transitions between different lane conditions to maintain traffic flow. ¯Perhaps all we need along the corridor is traffic enforcement and shrub trimming. Also, not too many cars park on Arastradero. If you remove it that frees up extra space for bike lanes. Why do you need a six-foot median to create a pedestrian refuge? Wouldn’t three feet be sufficient? (R) Six feet is generally the preferred minimum for a refuge for safety, though any width is safer than no refuge. ¯Which alternative would slow traffic the most? (R) Any of the alternatives with three narrowed lanes and pedestrian refuges. ¯I like the option which maintains the four vehicle lanes on Arastradero with a median. This is a main road into and out of town. Traffic will flow slower and more smoothly. I also like the grade separated bike paths, but am unclear about how to get cyclists out of the streets and onto paths. ¯I like grade separated bike paths and medians. Safety is the priority, not speed and convenience. Traffic will continue to get worse in the future. If people want to race down the street to reach the highways they should use the thoroughfares. This is a residential street. Our goal should be to improve the street for pedestrians and cyclists. I also like the idea of including street trees because they screen the sun and improve visibility along the street (relative to shrubs). This will make the street safer and prettier. ¯t’m concerned about traffic gridlock. How are you going to synchronize signals with the railroad crossing? (R) The railroad crossing will not have a significant impact on the signal system. In the future the train will run more frequently and we may need to look at grade-separated streets. That would be the safest and most efficient confignration. ¯When I ride my bike on the street the VTA buses cannot even stay in an eleven-foot lane. How will they stay in a ten-foot lane? (R) The bike lanes are proposed for -1- widening in all of the options. . Regarding pedestrian refuges. How will these slow traffic, when drivers calmot see pedestrians in the refuge. (R) The purpose of the refuges is not to slow traffic, but rather to make it safer and more convenient for pedestrians to cross the street. The City of Palo Alto is conservative about using pedestrian crossings (without refuges) on four-lane streets because of the danger this may create for pedestrians. I live near Gunn Hi~dh. Currently it is not recommended for cyclists to use Arastradero, but to use Maybell instead. If we had safe bike paths on the (Arastradero) corridor cyclists would use them. ¯Regarding the electronic speed sign near Fabian. There should be a differentiation ¯between the actual driver’s speed and the enforced speed. When it switches back and forth between the two it is difficult to determine what speed you are actually going. The speed limit should be shown as well as the driver’s speed. ¯A nationally recogrtized bicycle accident study shows that most biking accidents occur at intersections. How do you minimize this occurrence with grade separated bike paths? (R) Bicyclists need to stop at intersections and cross with pedestrians. ¯There is a Palo Alto study that compares on-street bike lanes with off-street bike paths. It determines that off-street bike paths are twice as unsafe at intersections and in instances where cyclists ride on the wrong side of the path. Drivers don’t expect to see cyclists coming from paths behind the curb. Therefore experts have serious reservations about grade separated bike paths. (R) Two-way bike paths on one side of the street were discouraged (at last week’s workshop). If we change the atmosphere of the street people can adapt to change. Adding bollards to the bike paths at intersections and a sign system along the corridor would be recommended to alert motorists and cyclists to the new conditions. ¯If you put bollards cyclist will ride in the street. How will you put in street trees with storm drains and other utilities in the way? (R) We are mapping utilities including storm drains, and they are not in consistent locations. In certain locations street trees could conflict with utilities, in others they wouldn’t. Medians and sidewalk widenings could still be constructed, though trees may not be consistent. ¯When you talk about the right-of-ways being behind the sidewalk does this mean you plan on taking portions of frontage properties? (R) The right-of-way actually extends behind the back of walk. We could add street trees in this strip to make the street more beautiful, but not take any property, no. ¯I live on the corridor and it is very difficult to back out of my driveway. I use the parking lane to edge out of my drive and gain visibility. If you remove the parking it will make it even more difficult to back out. ¯I have a seven-year-old son. I love the idea of a designated bike path and trees in a center median. I would never allow my son to ride on the street along the corridor, even with wider bike lanes. ¯There is a problem with traffic back up at Gunn High. A right-hand turn lane would alleviate this problem. Also, in other locations there are flashing yellow lights alerting people to drive 15 mph in a school zone during active times; we should have that here too. If people need a cut-through street (between 101 and 280) let them use another road. ¯Where would cyclists stop at intersections? On-street they have the same right-of- -2- way as traffic and off-street they are pseudo-pedestrians? (R) In all the options presented cyclists can ride in the street. There is a choice of where to ride in the bike path options. ¯How does the combination of bike lanes with corner bulb-outs work at intersections? (R) You can only have bulbouts parallel to a bike lane where there is a parking lane, other~vise you would block the bike lane. ¯In a three-lane alternative how do emergency vehicles fit on the street? (R) The sixteen-foot combined travel lane and bike lane provides sufficient room for emergency vehicles; or if there is just a bike lane the combination of the bike lane and travel lane. ¯I am a cyclist on East Charleston and find the street extremely fri~tening. The idea is to regulate traffic flow. Simple things could be done to accomplish this. ¯If there is a question regarding the safety of ~ade separated bike paths then I am not for them. ¯I have a two-year-old and would like to have her ride her bike to school in the future. I am for maximum traffic calming. Bike lanes (on-street) won’t be safe if traffic is not slowed considerably. ¯I support improving existing bike lanes and calming traffic. I am also for iron clad traffic enforcement. Currently enforcement is nonexistent. The cost would be about $1million per year and the fear would deter speeders. ¯A combination of medians and center turn lanes could be used to suit unique situations. They should be used flexibly. ¯As long as we have four-lanes of traffic, speed will be problem. Perhaps if we have four-lanes we should have speed humps. ¯Parking on Arastradero should not be eliminated. ¯There is no enforcement to prohibit truck traffic along the corridor today; there should be. ¯The two-way ~ade separated bike path alternatives should be eliminated. (R) That is the consensus. ¯In terms of bike lane safety, color may not make a difference but widening bike lanes and eliminating parking lanes does. ¯If we want a fast and cheap solution we should narrow traffic lanes, widen bike lanes, and paint a colored striped to delineate bike lanes. Also painting °°>" in traffic lanes makes the lanes appear more narrow the faster the driver goes, and can calm traffic; this has been tested. ¯As a cyclist I find intersections to be highly dangerous. Also, swinging car doors pose a hazard to cyclists when bike lanes are next to parking lanes. Storm drains are an additional hazard. The ridges run parallel to the lane catching bicycle tires and causing serious accidents. (R) In a four-foot bike lane the cyclist is in the swinging door zone. But a six-foot lane (within a fourteen-foot bike/parking zone) provides enough room for cyclists and open car doors. (R) Nowadays the storm drain covers are made of criss-cross bars to avoid bike tires catching in the ridges. ¯There is an off-road bike path along the water company property near Gunn. It doesn’t quite reach Gunn yet but most likely will in the near future. It would then cross Arastradero and continue past Terman School. Currently there is no vehicle access between the area behind Terman School and E1 Camino. But the bicycle path -3- could extend from Gulm High to the south, thus allowing cyclists to avoid Arastradero altogether. The mid-block bike/ped crossing should be aligned with this route. ¯Often people think of safety and comfort as one in the same. But really these are two different things. In this case, however, we can accomplish both. I believe the option with three lanes, including the left turn pocket, accomplishes this best. ¯I would rather drive in traffic than risk swinging doors in bike lanes. If we cut down on cut-through traffic we will increase the safety of the corridor. ¯It is very difficult to get out of driveways currently. This can be a problem in emergency situations. ¯There should be a bicycle route behind Gunn High. (R) Currently there is one between Bull Park and Gunn High. ¯There should be a law requiring cyclists to use bells in order to alert pedestrians when they are coming. Transportation Consultants ATTACHMENT C DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM November 14, 2003 To:Joe Kott, City of Palo Alto Project No.: 42-023 From:Christopher Thnay, PE, AICP Jurisdiction: Palo Alto Subject:Future Roadway Alternative and Travel Time Analysis Existing Traffic Condition The existing peak direction traffic volumes for the study corridor varies from a low of approximately 400 vehicles per hour (vph) to highs of approximately 1,200 vph. The roadway segment between Fabian Way and Alma Street are generally below 900 vph in the peak direction. The average is approximately 770 v-ph during the am peak hour and 790 during the pm peak hour. Since a residential arterial street can generally carry approximately 900 to 1,000 vph per lane per hour, this segment provides the most opportunity to create a three-lane section with median left-turn lane at intersections. A typical residential arterial street could carry higher volumes, but the available gaps for pedestrian crossing would be much reduced. The existing peak hour volumes on Arastradero Road (west of E1 Camino Road) in the peak direction generally carries between 900 and 1,200 vph. This higher volume does not lend itself to comfortably accommodate a three-lane section. Besides carrying higher volumes, this segment also includes several roadway and operational characteristics that are different from the East Charleston Road (Alma to Fabian). Arastradero Road serves both Gunn High School and Terman Middle School. During the morning school commute traffic queues could be quite long and sometimes extend over several blocks towards Terman Drive. In addition there are more side streets that intersect with Arastradero Road than at East Charleston Road. A total of 14 streets intersect with Arastradero Road verses eight on East Charleston Road (Alma Street to Fabian Way). Consequently, there will be many more conflicts with side street traffic on Arastradero Road. A three-lane section will also mean more U-turns in this section. Lastly, there is a long 800-foot section adjacent to the Hoover Elementary School that provides for some queuing in the westbound direction without blocking any side streets. 5960 tnglewood Ddve, Suite 100 Pleasanton, CA 94588-8535 PLEASANTON 925463-0611 phone 925-463-3690 fax www.tjkm.com SANTA ROSA Joe Kott, November 14, 2003, Pg. 2 Future Traffic Projections Working with City staffTJKM devoted an extensive amount of effort to develop the model forecasts. Two future scenarios were analyzed in this study: namely, 2015 Comp Plan and 2015 with Known Proposed Projects. 2015 Comp Plan This scenario includes all the land use in the Comprehension Plan. In addition, the Terman Middle School was included in the scenario. ~ The Charleston-Arastradero Road corridor covers 1 approximately a 2.2-mile section. Within the corridor, there are some distinct roadway and land use characteristics. For ease of comparison, the corridor has been divided into four roadway segments as shown in Figure 1 and briefly described as follows: Segment 1: Fabian Way to Middlefield Road Segment 2: Middlefield Road to Alma Street Segment 3: Alma Street to E1 Camino Real (ECR) Segment 4: ECR to Gurm High The results of the model forecasts for these segments are shown in Table I. Segment 2 rnent 4 Table I Projected Link Level Peak Hour Roadway Volumes Existing 2015 Comp Plan 2015 Known Proposal PM 803/778 Scenarios/Link Segments AM PM PuM PM AM 1. Segment I: Fabian to Middlefield 866/477 502/692 1,114/652 778/795 1,121/711 2. Segment II: Middlefield to Alma 765/693 582/944 1,127/1,116 933/1,032 1,129/1,182 937/1,022 3. Segment III: Alma to ECR 838/537 597/730 999/1,011 1,094/821 1,004/1,112 1,139/817 4. Segment IV: ECRto Gunn High 846/1,136 828/903 1,143/1,063 1,055/833 1,163/1,142 1,071/815 Note: 866/477 = Eastbound/Westbound peak hour volumes Joe Kott, November 14, 2003, Pg. 3 2015 with Known Proposed Project This scenario includes all the known proposed projects including the Terman Middle School, Hyatt Rickey’s, Elks Club and the Sun site. As shown in Table I, compared to the 2015 Comp Plan scenario, it is projected that there is generally a slight increase of approximately three to ten percent for most roadway links. Potential Three-Lane Sections Based on the Projected Volumes As mentioned earlier, the existing average am peak hour traffic volumes on Arastradero Road are approximately 1,100 vph, almost 50% higher than the average peak hour volumes of approximately 770 vph on East Charleston Road. As shown previously in Table I, based on the 2015 model forecasts it is projected that the two road~vay segments would be carrying almost an equal amount of traffic in the future. In the am peak hour, it is projected that the peak directiona! flow is approximately 1,100 vph while in the pm peak hour the peak directional flow is approximately 900 vph. Therefore, based on the volume alone it seems like a case might be made for a three-lane treatment. However, based on the different roadway characteristics as mentioned above, it is still our opinion that a three-lane section is more appropriate on East Charleston Road. The current volume on Arastradero Road is much higher and the access to Gunn High School should be resolved before any three-lane segment could be considered. As part of the project, three or four additional crosswalks would be added to the corridor. These crosswalks would probably include special colored pavement treatment and be fitted with a lighted crosswalk. Instead of lighted crosswalks, the City might consider installation of pedestrian signals. If pedestrian signals were installed at all major crosswalks, pedestrians and bicyclists would be able to safely cross the street regardless of the available gaps. Under this scenario, a three-lane section could be considered on Arastradero Road. That is our best judgment based on the information available. Of course, City Council or staff might decide to install a three-lane segment in the whole corridor based on other information or priorities that we are not aware of. Projected Travel Times A comparison of the travel times and delays for the 2015 forecasts were conducted. The evaluation is based on the travel time from San Antonio Road to the Foothill Expressway. As a part of the study, it is our understanding that the City has applied for funds to install traffic signal adaptive capability on the whole corridor. Traffic signal adaptive technology has been proven to increase the signal efficiency by as much as 20 percent over current time of day signal timing. The details are contained in Appendix A. Joe Kott, November 14, 2003, Pg. 4 Four future scenarios were analyzed: 2015 Comp Plan, 2015 Proposal, 2015 Known Proposal (meets non- auto mode criteria) and 2015 Known Proposal (three lane section from Alma to Fabian). The results of the analysis are shown in Table II. Table II Charlesfon/Arastradero Road Corridor Study Travel Time and Delay Comparisons Travel Time (s)Signal Delay (s) Existing Scenarios 2015 Comp Plan (A) 2015 Known Proposal (B) 2015 Known Proposal Meets Non-Auto Mode Criteria) 2015 Known Proposal Three Lane Section) * EB WB ~.\’I 678 I 726 ?M 716 I 749 %M 637 I 622 ?M 552 I 586 %M 670 [667 ?M 577 600 ~VI 606 609 ?M 531 [580 673 [ 617 614 578 Ave Change Time (min) 702 733 629 -1 569 -3 668 -I 588 -2 607 -2 556 -3 645 -1 596 -2 % Change -10% -22% -5% -20% -14% -24% -8% -19% AM 294 PM 332 AM 332 PM 248 AM 364 PM 272 AM 300 PM 226 AM 373 PM 313 EB WB Ave Change % Time (min)Change 336 315 360 346 313 322 0 2% 278 263 -1 -24% 358 361 1 15"/o 290 28t -1 -19% 299 300 0 -5% 27O 248 -2 -28% 310 341 0 8% 270 291 -1 -16% Note: *Three lane sec~on from AlmaStto Fabian Way. Include effec~ oftraffic adaptive system along the corridor All change statistics areas compared ~vithexisfing conditions. Besides the 2015 Comp Plan and 2015 Known Proposal forecasts scenarios, two additional alternatives have been developed based on the 2015 Known Proposal forecasts. The 2015 Known Proposal (Meets Non-Auto Mode Criteria) was developed to meet the bike, walk and transit non-auto mode performance criteria. Based on the Gunn High mode shares information provided by the City, it was determined that the current non-auto mode use is approximately 39 percent (14 percent walk, 12 percent bike and 13 percent transit). In addition, mode share information was also obtained for Terman Middle School. It was determine that approximately 63 percent of the students biked, walked or took the bus on the fn-st Monday follmving the start of schoo!. Joe Kott, November 14, 2003, Pg. 5 As part of this study, bike and walk connectivity would be substantially improved. Full bike lanes would be provided throughout the whole corridor and either lighted crosswalks or pedestrian signals would be provided as well. To be conservative, TJKM only estimated that the combined increased of bike, walk and transit use would increase by no more than 20 percent at Gunn High. The potential increases at Terman Middle School and from the regular commuter traffic were not considered. The analysis of the Embarcadero Ridership data between 2000 and 2002 shows almost 20 percent increase in rideship. And the Crosstown Weekday Ridership shows increase of approximately 45 percent (based on available 3ra/4th Quarter data in 2001 and 2002). Therefore, the potential for mode shifts to transit and bike use could be substantia! with good service routes and improved bike lanes. The 2015 With Known Proposal (Three Lane Section) scenario assume a three-lane segment with left- turn pocket on East Charleston Road from Alma Street to Fabian Way. As shown in Table II, due to the improved signal coordination provided by traffic signal adaptive system, it is expected that the travel times for the corridor for all the future traffic scenarios would improve. The travel time savings range from one to three minutes. It is also expected that the total signal delay for the corridor range from one minute increase to a reduction of two minutes. Transportation Consultants APPENDIX A TRAFFIC ADAPTIVE COORDINATION Traffic Adaptive Control - Latest & Greatest Strategy for Traffic Control Systems New control strategies and concepts have been lurking on the fringes of the mainstream traffic control system arena since the 1980s. The predominant "other" strategy is collectively known as traffic adaptive control. The main players in this category include SCOOT (Split Cycle and Offset Optimization Technique), SCATS (not an acronym for anything), and more recently Adaptive Control Systems (ACS). Less well-known players include Urban Traffic Optimization by Integration Automation (UTOPIA), Signal Pro~ession Optimization Technology (SPOT), ContROl of Net~vorks by Optimization of Switchovers (CRONOS), and (PRODYN). SCOOT was developed in England by the Transportation Road Research Laboratory of the U.K. government. SCATS was developed in Australia by the New South Wales Department of Main Roads government. Starting in the mid-1990s, the FHWA has partially funded the development of a collection of three competing traffic adaptive control strategies, ACS, previously called RT-TRACS (Real-time Traffic Adaptive Signal Control System). The common aspect of government sponsorship is not coincidence. Rather, it is out of necessity because the task of producing a workable, viable, marketable signa! system based on a traffic adaptive strategy was clearly beyond the capability of any private enterprise. SCATS is available through TRANSCORE. RT-TRACS is available as an optional control strategy of PB Farradyne’s NIIST system. SPOT and UTOPIA, developed in Italy, are available through Peek Traffic. PRODYN, developed in France, has not been deployed yet in the U.S. The concept of most traffic adaptive control is that the supervising system monitors traffic flows on (a whole lot of) critical links in the system on a minute-by-minute (or even more frequent) basis. Given this much analytical information, it crunches numbers and decides on a cycle-by-cycle basis what each signal under its control needs to do. The system can require an intersection to revise its green splits, to use a different cycle length, to shift its end-of-coordinated-green offset value, or any combination of the three. Traffic adaptive systems, therefore, typically don’t utilize the UTCS concept of a "timing pattern". They sort of look like timing patterns, but they stretch and shrink and bend and adjust on each subsequent cycle, all dancing at the behest of the master traffic system computer’s software program. In fact, there may not even be any stored patterns in the system that it pulls from. That library of stored patterns is a hallmark of all traditional traffic control systems. Rather than the classic pattern matching process of comparing link flows to a look-up table in order to pick a ’best’ pattern, the traffic adaptive system continually runs an optimization routine using those current flows. ’°The algorithm systematically evaluates combinations of phase termination points to determine the optimum t#ne at which to end the arterial’s phases. The optimum set of phase terlnination times is defined as the combination that minimizes a weighted f!tnction of total intersection delay and stops, accumulated over the horizon in a simulation of traffic flow. The user selects the delay and stops weighing factors. For each combination, the algorithm begins with initial conditions for the intersection and then simulates traffic over the user-specified horizon, calculating queues and accumulating delay and stops. The combination that minimizes the function of delay and stops is chosen for implementation. This 5960 Inglewood Drive, Suite 100 Pleasanton, CA 94588~8535 PLEASANTON 925-463-0611 phone 925.,463-3690 fax www.tjkm.com SANTA ROSA Joe Kott, November 14, 2003, Pg. 7 phase termination selection is reevaluated evely interval with updated head and tail arrival patterns and timing information for eachphase. " [Note: this phraseology is straight from a MIST document.] Slightly different is SCATS, which decentralizes the optimization routine. SCATS calculates and implements the next intersection’s cycle len~h using the detectors at the stop line. SCATS allows for phase skipping. Offsets between adjacent intersections are predetermined and adjusted with the cycle time and progression speed factors. [Note: This class almost used SCATS rather than SPOT-Utopia for the virtual signal laboratory. The adaptation of the system for virtual operation could not be completed in time.] An extraordinary amount of system detection is required for a traffic adaptive system. Unlike traditional systems that use system detectors (on maybe 5 percent of the system’s links) to determine when to change from pattern 11 to pattern 48 as an assist on making a pattern change that would have occurred anyway as a result of a time-of-day command, the traffic adaptive system needs all of these detectors (on maybe 25 percent of the system’s links?) in good operating condition all the time. Most signal system managers know that system detectors are notoriously flaky or defective, which have relatively lower maintenance priority. This simply cannot happen with a traffic adaptive system, or the system’s much sought after improved traffic flow will quickly disappear. The great benefit, on the other hand, of a traffic adaptive system, is that it is continually refining and improving its own plans. There are no timing plan libraries that contain ever more stale coordination plans, so there is no need to mount a major retiming effort every few years. Also, a properly operating traffic adaptive system produces better traffic flow than a traditional, classic traffic pattern-based system. In this regard, traffic adaptive is significantly different from traffic responsive. A signal system that has traffic responsive operation engaged is actively and continually seeking to find the best coordination pattern (from its library) to implement. Because each pattern change will result in some degree of transition, as manifested in the green times presented to drivers, the pattern change can often take 2 or 3 cycles to complete. During this transition period, the signal operation is quite often not, welt, great. As a result, a system that is in traffic responsive mode needs to be constrained so that it is not making a new pattern selection every several cycles. Otherwise, the intersections will be transitioning a greater percentage of the time than they are cycling in the new, better, optimum pattern. Base on field implementation data, it has been estimated that a traffic adaptive system could achieve travel time savings in many practical situations of 20 percent or more depending on the quality and age of the previous fixed time plan and on the rapidity with which flows change. The following is a summary of several major traffic adaptive systems. Real-time Traffic Adaptive Signal Control System (RT-TRACS) - In 1991 the FHWA solicited proposals for the development of a real-time, traffic adaptive signal control system called RT-TRACS. Shortly thereafter, the FHWA contracted with PB Farradyne to devetop and implement RT-TRACS. The RT- TRACS control logic assesses the current status of the network with forecasting capabilities, allowing proactive, not reactive, response. The most fundamental requirement of this system is to effectively manage and respond to rapid variations in traffic conditions. RT-TRACS consists of a number of real- time control prototypes that each function optimally under different traffic and geometric conditions. When conditions dictate, RT-TRACS can automatically switch to another strategy. The FHWA realizes Joe Kott, November 14, 2003, Pg. 8 that this contro! logic must be integrated with freeway performance data and provide network wide control. A thorough understanding of past experience with advanced traffic signal control strategies is critical to the development of effective RT-TRACS strategies for ITS. Features of the RT-TRACS design include: ¯both distributed and centralized traffic control; ¯dynamic priority control on selected routes; ¯capability to interact with dynamic traffic assignment to implement proactive control; ¯improved fallback capabilities in case of surveillance system failure; ¯effective use of the accumulated experience with real-time control. Five prototype strategies are currently being developed and evaluated for use in the RT- TRACS program. The FHWA awarded five separate contracts to develop these real-time prototype strategies. The contracts were awarded to the University of Arizona, the University of Minnesota, the University of Massachusetts (Lowell)/PB Farradyne, Wright State University in Ohio, and the University of Maryland/University of Pittsburgh. Kaman Sciences Corporation is responsible for evaluating these prototypes using the CORSIM simulation model. In late 1997, the FHWA and the University of Arizona teamed to develop and field test one of these prototypes, RHODES, an open architecture version of RT-TRACS that will utilize an alternative database management system and NTCIP protocol. Three of these prototypes, the RHODES prototype from the University of Arizona, OPAC (Optimization Policies for Adaptive Control) from PB Farradyne/University of Massachusetts (Lowell), and RTACL from the University of Pittsburgh!University of Maryland, are at an advanced state of development. Initial simulation testing showed that these prototype strategies produced statistically significant improvements in traffic throughput and reduced average delay. The results of the laboratory evaluation of the RHODES prototype have indicated a reduction in delay, stops, and fuel consumption of 24 percent, 9 percent, and 6 percent, respectively, while maintaining the same throughput as the baseline case (vehicle actuated control). A 16-intersection arterial in Reston, Virginia has been selected for the field implementation. Instrumentation of the arterial is in prog-ress. Further testing is expected to occur in Seattle, Washington, and Chicago, Illinois. Detailed System Descriptions SCATS Operation of the SCATS System: The SCATS system controls signals in groups, known as sub-systems, where the critical intersection for each subsystem is specified by the traffic engineer. Sub-systems are grouped together and a regional computer can control signals at up to ten intersections. Systems can expand by the addition of extra regional computers that control traffic in their own area, but a central monitoring computer usually controls data input and traffic monitoring to the different regional computers. Range of Operation: SCATS has been used in Sydney, Australia since about 1975 and has a user base of 26 systems in Australia and New Zealand and further systems in Shanghai, Shenyang (China), Singapore, Sandakan (Malaysia), Rauia Lumpur and Dublin (Ireland). According to SAIC (consulting company) there are three installations in the United States: Oakland County, MI (350+ signals), Hennepin County, MN (71 signals), and Durham, NC. Joe Kott, November 14, 2003, Pg. 9 System Evaluation: A survey carried out in Paramatta in 1981 by the Australian Road Research Board showed no significant reduction in travel times compared with operation using TRANSYT; however there was a large reduction in the number of stops, some 9 percent in the central area and 25 percent on arterial roads. Other studies have indicated improvements in travel times but compared to the original systems that were of unknown efficiency. The SCOOT System Introduction: SCOOT is a fully adaptive traffic control system which uses data from vehicle detectors to optimize traffic signal settings so as to reduce vehicle delays and stops. It was developed in the United Kingdom by the Transport and Road Research laboratory together from three UK signal companies. Range of Operation: SCOOT has been operational in the UK since 1980 in Coventry. There are now around forty implementations within the UK, with the largest controlling the central part of Lohdon and other parts of Greater London. There are also systems in Bejing, Hong Kong, Santiago, Durban and Port Elizabeth. Further systems are proposed in Madrid, Cyprus and Nijmegen (Netherlands). There are four systems in North America; these are Toronto, Red Deer and Halifax (Canada) and Oxnard, California in the USA. [A separate reference lists three installations: Arlington, VA, Minneapolis, MN, and Anaheim, CA.] Syste~n Evaluation: The effectiveness of the SCOOT strategy has been assessed by major trials in five cities as shown in Table D-3. The trials in Glasgow and Coventry were conducted by TRL and those in Worcester, Southampton and London by consultants, a university, and the local traffic authority, respectively. In most cases, comparisons were made against a good standard of up to date fixed time plans, usually produced by TRANSYT. The following table shows that the largest benefits are achieved in comparison with isolated vehicle actuation but, of course, part or this benefit could be achieved by a good fixed time system. The relative effectiveness of SCOOT varies by area and time of day, but overall it is concluded that SCOOT achieved an average saving in delay of about 12 percent compared with good fixed time plans. Since SCOOT does not "age" in the way typical of fixed time plans, it follows that SCOOT should achieve savings in many practical situations of 20 percent or more depending on the quality and age of the previous fixed time plan and on the rapidity with which flows change. On the basis of the surveys and subsequent experience, SCOOT is likely to be of most benefit where vehicular flows are heavy, complex and vary unpredictably. Review of the UTOPIA System Introduction: UTOPIA was developed in Italy with the objective of improving private and public transport efficiency. Characteristics of the system are described in the sections which follow. Range of Operation: UTOPIA was first used in 1985 in Turin. This is the only current operational system, but there are plans to implement UTOPIA in Gothenburg and Salerno. The Gothenburg system will be designed using its own central controller and UTOPIA SPOT units. Syste~n Evaluation: It is believed that research to asses the benefits of UTOPIA have not been carried out against fixed time control. The improvements attributed to UTOPIA in Turin are believed to have been calculated against some other control strategy previously installed there. Trials on the Turin network Joe Kott, November 14, 2003, Pg. 10 were carried out over many months. After implementing UTOPIA, private traffic speeds were found to increase 9.5 percent in 1985 and 15.9 percent in 1986, following system tuning. In peak times the speed increases were 35 percent. Public transport vehicles, which were given absolute priority, showed a speed increase of 19.9 percent in 1985. Transportation Consultants Appendix B Peak Spreading As commute traffic on highway facilities reaches congested levels, commuters begin to change their travel patterns by either finding less-congested routes or commuting during off-peak hours. This second phenomenon, known as peak spreading, has begun to occur on Bay Area area freeways. It is becoming especially pronounced on 1-680, for which no uncongested reasonable alternative route exists. The graph at right illustrates peak spreading on 1-680. On 1-680, the southbound a.m. peak period essentially lasted from 7:00 to sometime after 9:00 in 1991 and 1994. The 1996 data indicate the peak had extended well past ! 0:00, with traffic volumes also growing during the hours before 7:00. By 1997, the start of the a.m. peak period was close to 5:00. (TJKM’s 1997 counts ended at 8:00, so 1997 data for the end of the peak period are unavailable.) Between 1994 and 1997, the 1-680 southbound volume between 5:00 and 9:00 a.m. increased from 15,854 to 21,698 (a 37 percent increase). Essentially all of this traffic growth occurred between 5:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. Note that in 1996 and 1997 the peak-hour volumes have decreased even while the total peak-period volumes have increased. Note also that 1-680 was widened from 4 to 6 lanes between 1991 and 1994. Peak Spreading: 1-680 AM SB n/o SIR 262 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 mr a cjmn ( v 5960 Inglewood Drive, Suite 100 Pleasanton, CA 94588-8535 PLEASANTON 925-463-0611 phone 925-4.63-3690 fax www.tjkrn.com SANTA ROSA ATTACHMENT D Street W 1/2 Bulbout ~ West Side Street 8~ 8’ 11’ 16’ 11’ 6’ 8’ 8’ Full Bulbout East Side Street E Enlarged Plan Residential (Orientation of Residences Varies) 5’ Side- walk 8’ .,8’ 1 11’ Planting Bike Travel Strip Lane/Lane Flex Parking GM SD SD 16’ Median / 10’ Left Turn Lane SS SS 60’ ’111’14’ Travel Parking / Bike Lane Lane ¯ ¯ WM GM Planting Si~e- Strip walk Residential (typ.) ¯Reduce from 4-Lane to 3-Lane Cross Section ¯Install 6’ Median Islands w/Pedestrian Crossing Refuges ¯Stripe Auto Lanes 11’/10/11’ ¯Maintain Curbside Parking on East Side ¯Widen Bike Lanes to 6’ on East and 8’ on West ¯Sign Bike Lane on West Side for Programmed Curbside Parking (e.g. 7pm to 7am) ¯Paint/Tint Bike Lanes ¯Install Lights / Signs, e.g., "Bike Boulevard" Section East Charleston CHARLESTON / ARASTRADERO CORRIDOR STUDY CITY OF PALO ALTO 10’ 10’ 6’ 10’ 10’ o Parking Zone Bike Lane Narrows to 5’ Neighborhood Street W No Parking Zone Bike Lane Narrows to 5’ @ Side tS~reet; typ. E R.O.W. No Parking Zone Median Island Widens / Bike Lane Narrows @ Intersection Enlarged Plan Residential (Orientation of Residences Varies) 5’ 5’7’10’10’6’an 10’10’7" 4’ ~P.U.E.? Side- ] Bike Travel Travel Isl d Travel Travel Bike Side walk | Lane/Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane! ]walk IFlex Prkng ¯¯¯¯Flex:rkng/SD WM W SS GM ¯Maintain 4-Lane Cross Section ¯Install 6’ Median Islands* w/Pedestrian Crossing Refuges ¯Stripe Auto Lanes 10’/10/10’/10’ ¯Remove Curbside Parking Lane West Side ¯Widen Bike Lanes to 7’ * ¯Sign Bike Lanes Both Sides for Programmed Curbside Parking (e.g. 7pm to 7am) ¯Paint!Tint Bike Lanes ¯Construct Regular Curb East Side ¯Install Lights / Signs, e.g., "Bike Boulevard" ¯Install Street Trees in ROW/PUE Area *Islands widened to 10’ at Local Streets to Create Left Turn Pockets; Requires Narrowing Bike Lanes to 5’ and Eliminating Curbside Parking Residential Section Arastradero /West Charleston CHARLESTON / ARASTRADERO CORRIDOR STUDY CITY OF PALO ALTO W @ Side Street Refuge Enlarged Plan W Residential (Orientation of Residences Varies) 5’ 5’ 8’6’11’ P.U.E+ Side- Parking Bike Travel walk I lane Lane ¯¯SD WM Median Travel Bike Side- Lane lane walk SS GM ¯Reduce from 4-Lane to 3-Lane Cross Section ¯Install 16’ Median Islands w/Pedestrian Crossing Refuges ¯Stripe Auto Lanes 11’/10/11’ ¯Maintain Curbside Parking on West Side ¯Widen Bike Lanes to 6’ on West and 8’ on East ¯Sign Bike Lane on East Side for Programmed Curbside Parking (e.g. 7pm to 7am) ¯Paint/Tint Bike Lanes ¯Install Lights / Signs, e.g., "Bike Boulevard" ¯Construct Regular Curb East Side ¯Install Street Trees in ROW/PUE Area Residential (Typ.) Section Arastradero /West Charleston CHARLESTON / ARASTRADERO CORRIDOR STUDY CITY OF PALO ALTO