HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 6763
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6763)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 9/19/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: LOS, MMLOS, Bicycle Level of Stress, VMT and CEQA Changes
Study Session
Title: Study Session on Motor Vehicle Level of Service (LOS), Multimodal
Level of Service (MMLOS), Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress, Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT), and CEQA Changes Related to Transportation Impacts
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
This is a study session. No formal action is recommended. The Council may discuss and provide
comments and questions.
Executive Summary
The purpose of this study session is to familiarize the Council with the existing Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority Transportation Impact Analyses Guidelines, current
transportation impact analysis practices in the City of Palo Alto (including thresholds of
significance), changes to the California Environmental Quality Act as a result of the passage of
SB 743, and common methods used to calculate level of service for transit, bicyclists and
pedestrians. This study session is also intended to provide the Council with an opportunity to
discuss and provide comment on the topics above. A similar study session was conducted with
the Planning and Transportation Commission on June 29, 2016. The minutes of the meeting are
included as Attachment A.
Background
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is the state-designated congestion
management agency (CMA) for Santa Clara County under California’s Congestion Management
Program (CMP) statute. The intent of the CMP legislation is to develop a comprehensive
transportation improvement program among local jurisdictions that will reduce traffic
congestion and improve land use decision-making and air quality.
The VTA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (2014) provide a consistent basis for
evaluating development-related impacts to the CMP transportation system. VTA member
City of Palo Alto Page 2
agencies, which include Santa Clara County and all 15 cities in the county, are required to follow
the guidelines when evaluating new development in order to comply with the CMP. The current
guidelines can be accessed here: http://www.vta.org/cmp/tia-guidelines.
VTA currently requires that a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) be completed if a proposed
development will add 100 or more net new trips during the weekday AM or PM peak hours or
during the weekend peak hour. Net new trips are defined as motor vehicle trips generated by
the proposed project, minus motor vehicle trips from existing uses and/or trips allowed under
existing entitlements. The City of Palo Alto may require TIAs for smaller projects and Palo Alto
has often prepared TIAs for smaller projects. Some jurisdictions in Santa Clara County have
incorporated TIAs as the Transportation section of environmental documents, rather than
preparing stand alone reports.
The City of Palo Alto is responsible for determining which CMP roadway facilities should be
included in a TIA. A CMP intersection shall be included in a TIA if it meets any one of the
following conditions:
1. The proposed development project is expected to add 10 or more peak hour vehicles
per lane to any intersection movement;
2. The intersection is adjacent to the project;
3. Based on engineering judgment, [City of Palo Alto] staff determines that the intersection
should be included in the analysis.
Congestion management program intersections within Palo Alto include:
• El Camino Real (SR 82) at Embarcadero Road/Galvez Street
• El Camino Real (SR 82) at Page Mill Road
• El Camino Real (SR 82) at Palm Drive
• El Camino Real (SR 82) at Palo Alto Avenue/Sand Hill Road
• El Camino Real (SR 82) at University Avenue
• El Camino Real (SR 82) at West Charleston Road/Arastradero Road
• Foothill Expressway at Arastradero Road
• Oregon Expressway at Middlefield Road
• Page Mill Road at Foothill Expressway
• Page Mill Road at Hanover Street
• San Antonio Road at East Charleston Road
• San Antonio Road at Middlefield Road
The full list of CMP intersections is included as Attachment B.
VTA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines - Thresholds of Significance
Consistent with VTA’s role as a Congestion Management Agency, CMP impacts are defined as
increased delay for motor vehicles at CMP intersections, using the Highway Capacity Manual
(2010) motor vehicle level of service (LOS) metric for intersection delay. The VTA transportation
City of Palo Alto Page 3
impact analysis guidelines are supplemented by VTA LOS Analysis Guidelines (2003). Broadly
speaking, the VTA transportation impact analysis guidelines tell the analyst what should be
evaluated in a TIA, while the LOS Analysis Guidelines tell the analyst how to evaluate it.
The LOS Analysis Guidelines detail VTA’s recommended procedures for conducting LOS analysis
using TRAFFIX software. Compared to other available software, TRAFFIX is outdated and has
limited capacity to analyze signal timing changes or conditions where congestion occurs or
traffic signals are closely spaced. Currently there is no scheduled update for the LOS Analysis
Guidelines; however VTA is considering options to replace TRAFFIX as the preferred analysis
software. The Systems Operations & Management Working Group of the VTA Technical
Advisory Committee has recently hosted presentations by software vendors on the strengths
and weaknesses of various software packages.
The VTA standard is LOS E. If a transportation impact analysis shows that a development project
is projected to cause LOS on a CMP roadway or intersection to fall from LOS E or better to LOS F
under project conditions, then the project is said to impact the facility. In addition, for facilities
determined to have been at LOS F under the “Without Project” analysis scenario (Existing,
Background or Cumulative Conditions without the project), a project is said to impact the
facility if the analysis shows that the project will cause LOS to deteriorate by a given threshold
amount.
The threshold amounts for each of the three CMP facility types are described as follows:
• Intersections at LOS F: A project is said to impact an intersection determined to have
been at LOS F under the without project analysis scenario if:
o addition of the project traffic increases the average control delay for critical
movements by four (4) seconds or more, and
o project traffic increases the critical v/c value by 0.01 or more.
The exception to this threshold is when the addition of project traffic reduces the amount of
average control delay for critical movements, i.e., the change in average control delay for
critical movements are negative. In this case, the threshold is when the project increases the
critical v/c value by 0.01 or more.
City of Palo Alto - Adopted Thresholds of Significance
Historically, local jurisdictions in Santa Clara County have also used VTA’s guidelines as a model
for evaluating impacts to local intersections, although each jurisdiction has the authority to
establish impact thresholds for intersections and streets within its purview (sometimes called
non-CMP intersections). To be clear, VTA requires local jurisdictions to use VTA’s thresholds for
evaluating CMP intersections, but local agencies have the latitude to adopt alternative
thresholds for these and other intersections. The City may also use alternative thresholds for
CMP intersections for City purposes related to CEQA and general plan consistency. Pursuant to
CEQA, local significance thresholds have to be developed through a public review process and
City of Palo Alto Page 4
be supported by substantial evidence (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7).
If travel demand forecasting models are used to evaluate transportation impacts of land use
decisions, they must be consistent with the VTA Countywide Transportation Model. VTA has
developed procedures for member agencies to use in developing consistent models. These
procedures are described in the Local Transportation Model Consistency Guidelines of the
Technical Standards and Procedures.
The last time Palo Alto discussed significance thresholds in 2007 as part of a Comprehensive
Plan update staff report, it identified the thresholds in effect today, which include:
• Cause a local [City of Palo Alto] intersection to deteriorate below a [motor vehicle] level
of service (LOS) D
• Cause a local intersection already operating at LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average
control delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more, and the critical
volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase by 0.01 or more
• Cause a regional [CMP] intersection to deteriorate from an LOS E or better to LOS F
• Cause a regional [CMP] intersection already operating at LOS F to deteriorate in the
average control delay for the critical movements to increase by four seconds or
more, and the critical V/C value to increase by 0.01 or more
• Cause queuing impacts based on a comparative analysis between the design queue
length and the available queue storage capacity. Queuing impacts include, but are
not limited to, spillback queues at project access locations; queues at turn lanes at
intersections that block through traffic; queues at lane drops; queues at one
intersection that extend back to impact other intersections, and spillback queues on
ramps
• Cause a freeway segment (for each direction of traffic) to operate at LOS F or contribute
traffic in excess of 1% of segment capacity to a freeway segment already operating
at LOS F
• Impede the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities
• Impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion
• Create an operational safety hazard
• Cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Intrusion on Residential
Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more on a local or collector residential street
• Result in inadequate on-site parking capacity
• Result in inadequate emergency access
Nearby Jurisdictions – Adopted Thresholds of Significance
City of Menlo Park (in San Mateo County)
The City of Menlo Park has varying criteria for different roadway classifications:
• City Arterial Intersections: Project traffic increment causes an intersection that operates
at LOS D or better to reach LOS E or F, increases average vehicle delay by more than
23 seconds, or increases vehicle delay for the most critical movements at an arterial
City of Palo Alto Page 5
intersection that operates at LOS E or F prior to the addition of Project traffic by
more than 0.8 second.
• Local Approaches to State-Controlled Intersections: Project traffic increment causes an
intersection that operates at LOS D or better to reach LOS E or F, increases
average vehicle delay by more than 23 seconds, or increases vehicle delay for
the most critical movements at an arterial intersection that operates at LOS E or
F prior to the addition of Project traffic by more than 0.8 second.
• Other City Intersections (Collector and Local Streets): Project traffic increment causes an
intersection that operates at LOS C or better to reach LOS D, E, or F; increases
average vehicle delay by more than 23 seconds; or increases vehicle delay for the
most critical movements at a collector or local street intersection that operates at
LOS E or F prior to the addition of Project traffic by more than 0.8 second.
City of Mountain View
The City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GGRP)
EIR established the following interim level of service policy standards:
• Interim level of service (LOS) standards: Until adoption of the mobility plans described
in Action MOB 1.1.1 [and adoption of alternative impact thresholds in Action MOB
8.1.2], maintain the Citywide vehicle LOS standards from the 1992 General Plan,
which include a target peak hour LOS policy of LOS D for all intersections and
roadway segments, with the following exceptions in high-demand areas:
o Use LOS E for intersections and street segments within the Downtown Core and
San Antonio areas where vitality, activity and multi-modal transportation use are
primary goals; and
o Use LOS E for intersections and street segments on CMP designated roadways in
Mountain View (e.g., El Camino Real, Central Expressway and San Antonio Road).
Significant impacts at signalized City of Mountain View intersections are said to occur when the
addition of project traffic causes one of the following:
• Intersection operations degrade from an acceptable level to an unacceptable level; or
• Exacerbate unacceptable operations by increasing the average critical delay by four
seconds or more and increasing the critical volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or
more; or
• An increase in the V/C ratio of 0.01 or more at an intersection with unacceptable
operations when the change in critical delay is negative (i.e., decreases). This can
occur if the critical movements change.
City of Los Altos
Los Altos and Palo Alto have the same thresholds of significance for signalized intersections:
• Intersection operations degrade from an acceptable level (LOS D or better) to an
unacceptable level (LOS E or F); or
• Exacerbate unacceptable operations (LOS E or F) by increasing the critical delay by more
than four seconds and increasing the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or
City of Palo Alto Page 6
more; or
• An increase in the V/C ratio of 0.01 or more at an intersection with unacceptable
operations (LOS E or F) when the change in critical delay is negative (i.e., decreases).
This can occur if the critical movements change.
VTA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines - Future Year (Cumulative) Conditions
The VTA guidelines specify that the Cumulative Conditions scenario shall evaluate the addition
of the project, along with estimated project-generated trips, to longer term conditions than
those described under the Background Plus Project condition. In general, the Cumulative
Conditions scenario is analyzed as the combination of Background Conditions (Existing
Conditions + Approved Projects) + Expected Growth + Project. This section shall identify project
impacts on the surrounding transportation network. For any impacts identified, mitigation
measures shall be developed based on the results of this study scenario. The parameters of the
Cumulative Conditions scenario should be clearly defined in the TIA. Cumulative Conditions
scenarios can be near- or long-term, as follows:
• Near-Term Cumulative Conditions: This scenario is a near-term cumulative analysis
scenario to be provided for each jurisdiction’s planning and information purposes.
The analysis shall include expected growth until the project is expected to be
available for final occupancy;
• Alternate Cumulative Conditions Analysis: The Lead Agency may substitute an alternate
Cumulative Conditions analysis for the near-term Cumulative Conditions analysis
described above. For example, the long-term Cumulative Conditions analysis
conducted as part of an environmental analysis may be provided in place of the
near-term Cumulative Conditions analysis.
VTA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines - Other Topics
The 2014 VTA guidelines introduced several new analysis requirements, as well as new
approaches to existing analysis requirements.
Transit Delay Analysis
The 2014 update introduced a requirement to evaluate transit delay resulting from project-
related traffic. Except for very large projects (e.g. Levi’s Stadium), the transit delay analysis
supersedes the transit capacity analysis required by the 2009 version of the guidelines. The
transit delay analysis includes both quantitative and qualitative components:
Quantitative Component: The TIA must include an analysis of delay resulting from
project-related congestion at intersections. This analysis can be drawn from the TIA’s
auto LOS calculations
Qualitative Component: The TIA must assess whether delay for transit vehicles would
result from project-related changes to roadway and/or intersection geometry &
operations.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Trip Generation Methodologies
The 2014 update encourages the use of trip generation methodologies that are most
appropriate for proposed projects. In some cases, this leads to the use of methodologies other
than those published in the Trip Generation Manual by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE).
The average trip generation rates for land use categories in the ITE Trip Generation Manual
represent weighted averages from studies conducted throughout the United States and Canada
since the 1960s. Data was primarily collected at suburban locations having little or no transit
service, nearby pedestrian amenities, or travel demand management (TDM) programs. At
specific sites, users may wish to modify trip generation rates presented in the manual to reflect
the presence of public transportation service, ridesharing, or other TDM measures; enhanced
pedestrian and bicycle trip-making opportunities; or other special characteristics of the site or
surrounding area.
When practical, users are encouraged to supplement the data in the manual with local data
that have been collected at similar sites. Trip generation rates and equations in the manual
have been developed for the average weekday, Saturday and Sunday; the weekday morning
and evening peak hours of the land use category; the weekday morning and evening peak hours
that occur during the traditional commuting peak hours of the adjacent street traffic (that is,
7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.); and the Saturday and Sunday peak hours of
the land use category. In some cases limited data was available; thus, the statistics presented
may not be truly representative of the trip generation characteristics of a particular land use.
There are at least four general situations when a Lead Agency should consider using an
alternative to ITE Trip Generation Manual rates:
When ITE data is insufficient
When the project’s land use category has trip generation characteristics that differ from
categories covered by ITE
When the project’s land use context differs substantially from the suburban, single-use
context covered by ITE
When the project includes a mix of land uses.
Potential alternatives to ITE Trip Generation Manual rates include mixed-use methodologies,
locally-validated rates, and other rates adopted by public agencies. In all cases, the VTA
Guidelines emphasize that the choice of trip generation methodology relies on the professional
judgment of Lead Agency staff and transportation planning and engineering consultants.
Trip Reduction Strategies
To reflect current development practice at the local level, the 2014 update permits
transportation impact analyses to reflect a project’s approach to reducing vehicle trips. Three
approaches are identified:
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Standard Approach: This approach allows projects to take specific percentage
reductions for defined trip reduction strategies, including reductions for mixed-use
projects, pass-by trips, transit proximity, and transportation demand management
(TDM) programs. CEQA requires substantial evidence to support all analysis decisions.
Peer/Study-Based Approach: This approach allows projects to take trip reductions based
on documented examples of similar land uses or similar TDM programs. For example, an
employer with a robust TDM program may take a Peer/Study-Based Approach when
conducting a transportation impact analysis for a new campus, since the TDM program
would continue at the proposed project site. This approach allows for greater reductions
than the Standard Approach, but requires more rigorous documentation and ongoing
monitoring to ensure that trip generation remains consistent with what was proposed in
the analysis.
Target-Based Approach: The approach allows projects to take trip reductions based on a
target that is agreed to by the developer and the lead agency. For example, a developer
may agree to operate within a trip cap or single-occupant vehicle mode share target.
This approach allows for greater reductions than the Standard Approach, but requires
more rigorous documentation and ongoing monitoring to ensure that trip generation
remains consistent with what was proposed in the transportation impact analysis.
Queuing Analysis Recommendations
In many cases, isolated intersection LOS analysis does not accurately capture the effects of new
development on the transportation network. To address this issue, the 2014 update provides
new guidance on when a supplemental queuing analysis is appropriate, including four broadly-
defined situations:
Where significant auto LOS impacts to CMP intersections are identified;
At on-ramps with existing or planned operational ramp meters;
At off-ramps controlled by signals at junctions with local streets;
At any other intersection or freeway on-ramp, based on engineering judgment,
proximity of the project to a freeway interchange, existing queuing situations (such as
spillback onto local streets from on ramps), or localized conditions along the project’s
frontage.
Multimodal Level of Service Analysis Methods
The VTA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines requires quality of service (QOS) analysis for
bicycle and pedestrian modes when projects make changes to roadway and/or intersection
geometry or signal operations. The changes can result from project implementation (e.g.
frontage changes) or from mitigations to project-related auto LOS impacts. Bicycle and/or
pedestrian capacity analysis is only required for projects that generate unusually high numbers
of bicycle and pedestrian trips (e.g. Levi’s Stadium). The VTA guidelines do not specify which
QOS methodologies should be used, but do provide guidance on existing methodologies, such
as the Pedestrian Environmental Quality Index, Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS), and
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress. The choice of methodology is up to the lead agency in charge of
the TIA, and is expected to vary according to project type and land use context.
Nationally, there is increased interest in making transportation investment decisions based on
how the system performs. Driven by a recognition of the need to be accountable to the users
of system, public agencies are working to identify performance measures that help them
demonstrate how infrastructure investments meet the goals that they have set for their
transportation systems. In addition, recent federal legislation requires states and regional
agencies report on the performance of the transportation system.
At the national level, much of the work conducted to identify performance measures has
focused on automobile travel, addressing issues such as traffic congestion, safety, freight
movement, and other issues. Increasingly, public agencies interested in investing in active
transportation modes have recognized the need to identify performance measures that help
put these modes on equal footing.
This next section of the staff report describes several recently developed tools that are
intended to improve our understanding of the performance of active transportation systems,
specifically focused on the comfort of travelers. Safety performance measures are also typically
examined, but these are somewhat easier to collect, calculate, and explain; they are not
addressed here.
Summary of Key Issues
On September 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743 into law and started a process
intended to fundamentally change transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance.
These changes include elimination of auto delay, motor vehicle level of service (LOS), and other
similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant
impacts under CEQA. Furthermore, parking impacts will not be considered significant impacts
on the environment for select development projects within infill areas served by frequent
transit service. According to the legislative intent contained in SB 743, these changes to current
practice were necessary to, “More appropriately balance the needs of congestion management
with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active
transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.”
To implement this intent, SB 743 contains amendments to current congestion management law
that allows cities and counties to effectively opt-out of the LOS standards that would otherwise
apply in areas where Congestion Management Plans (CMPs) are still used. Further, SB 743
requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to update the CEQA guidelines
and establish, “... criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects
within transit priority areas.” The new criteria, “… shall promote the reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land
uses.” Once the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency certifies the new guidelines, then
“…automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular
City of Palo Alto Page 10
capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment…,
except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.”
OPR plans to submit new guidelines to the Resources Agency during the summer of 2016 and is
recommending VMT as the preferred CEQA transportation metric and the elimination of motor
vehicle delay and LOS statewide. (A link to OPR’s draft guideline is provided below.)
As noted above, SB 743 requires impacts to transportation network performance to be viewed
through a filter that promotes the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of
multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. VMT can help identify how
projects (land development and infrastructure) influence accessibility (i.e., access to places and
people) and emissions so its selection is aligned with the objectives of SB 743. The draft
guidelines require analysis of the induced travel effects of roadway capacity expansion projects,
which is a significant change from the past. The guidelines recommend accessing trip length
and VMT estimates from the California Statewide Passenger Travel Demand Model. This
statewide model has not been calibrated and validated for local area applications consistent
with the expectations set forth in the modeling guidance contained in the California Regional
Transportation Guidelines (2010). More refined data is available through metropolitan planning
organization models. Other reliable sources of trip length or VMT data include the California
Household Travel Survey (CHTS) and mobile device data from assorted vendors.
Accessibility is an important planning objective in many communities but so is travel time or
delay experienced by users.
SB 743 does not prevent a city or county from continuing to analyze delay or LOS as part of
other plans (i.e. the general plan), fee programs, or on-going network monitoring, but these
metrics will no longer constitute the sole basis for CEQA impacts. With SB 743 eliminating level
of service as the primary transportation impact metric under CEQA, transportation impact
analysis for CMP purposes will have to be done in parallel with (and not as part of) the CEQA
analysis. The same will be true if Palo Alto chooses to maintain LOS thresholds within its
Comprehensive Plan. In both cases, projects can be evaluated for consistency with the adopted
plans, but this will not be considered a CEQA analysis. The latest draft of the new guidelines
includes specifications for VMT methodology and recommendations for significance thresholds.
The draft guidelines can be accessed here:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/Revised_VMT_CEQA_Guidelines_Proposal_January_20_2016.pdf
A slide presentation used as part of a recent SB 743 webinar hosted by OPR can be found here:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/743_February_2016_Webinar.pdf.
The recording of the most recent webinar is available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9m9ddQk78Q&feature=youtu.be
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) – VTA Response
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) submitted two rounds of comments to
the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) regarding implementation of SB 743. The
first set of comments, submitted to OPR in April 2014 and included as Attachment C, requested
the following:
Application of new CEQA guidelines statewide, instead of just within Transit Priority
Areas,
Delegation of authority to set VMT thresholds to agencies at the County/CMA level,
Advanced notification of transit agencies early in the CEQA process, and
Clarification of methods to determine significant impacts in areas that are well served by
transit.
The second set of comments, submitted to OPR in February 2016 and included as Attachment
D, requested the following:
Expeditious development of new CEQA guidelines,
Retention language impacts to the performance and safety of transit, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities,
Retention of tie to Congestion Management Programs (CMPs),
Inclusion of language outlining the role of Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs) in
setting VMT thresholds,
Clarification of the definition of “major transit stops,”
Development of more appropriate fair-share framework for the significance threshold
for transportation projects,
Clarification of the level of analysis required for the addition of turn-lanes at
intersections,
Discussion of required Analysis Scenarios,
Discussion of relationship between roadway speeds and transit performance,
Inclusion of additional countermeasures for pedestrian safety and comfort,
Discussion of target-based VMT reduction requirements in the Mitigation Measures
section,
Review of performance of new CEQA guidelines one to two years after adoption, and
Support for statewide research on VMT.
The current draft guidelines from OPR include a two-year opt-in period for agencies, which is
estimated to begin in January 2017. When the opt-in period ends, all agencies, including cities,
will be required to have implemented the new guidelines and use VMT for determining
significant impacts under CEQA. Cities are permitted to opt in and begin implementing the new
guidelines immediately.
Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS)
Level of service (LOS) refers to a commonly used methodology to describe the experience of
motorists using a transportation facility. There are calculation methodologies for roadway
segments and intersections. The methods have evolved over many years to take into account
City of Palo Alto Page 12
various factors, including vehicle delay, congestion, and increasingly travel time reliability (i.e.,
the predictability of travel time across time of day, day of week, and season). LOS is defined
through the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), a publication of the Transportation Research
Board (TRB). The HCM is updated regularly through research funded by TRB and other
agencies, including the U.S. Department of Transportation and the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
In 2010, the HCM consolidated and updated methodologies for bicycles, pedestrians, and
transit into a Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS), based on research conducted for TRB. This
research sought to develop a single, nationally consistent methodology which would achieve
three objectives.
The full report is available here:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_616.pdf
The NCHRP researchers sought to develop a single, nationally consistent methodology which
would achieve three objectives.
• Enable comparability of meanings for LOS grades across modes
• Establish models for predicting LOS that reflect the interactions across modes
• Establish a credible national basis for multimodal framework and models
Researchers gathered traveler satisfaction data based on imagery of roadways, bikeways,
sidewalks, and transit systems using video. Regression models of input variables were tested
and fit to the data. The recommended models produced scores which were categorized into
ranges and translated to letter grades. When adopted into the HCM some changes were made,
primarily to the pedestrian model.
The bicycle LOS model based on several input variables:
• Driveway conflicts/mile
• Vehicles/hour in the peak period
• Vehicle through lanes
• Speed
• Percent heavy vehicles
• Pavement condition
• Width of outside lane
• On-street parking occupancy
• Street and bicycle lane width; and
• For intersections, the width of streets crossed by the bicycle lane
The pedestrian LOS model uses several of the same input variables as the bicycle LOS model,
and both may be developed concurrently. Pedestrian LOS models compute pedestrian density
to determine the level of service for an urban street, or may focus specifically on sidewalks and
City of Palo Alto Page 13
pedestrian waiting areas at signalized intersection street corners. Other models determine a
level of service for an urban street based on factors other than density. These input variables
include:
• Width of sidewalk and buffer
• Width of outside lane
• Pedestrian flow rate
• Vehicles through lanes
• Shoulder width
• Presence of barrier
• Speed
In addition to the HCM model, there are several other LOS-like efforts. For example, the City of
Charlotte has established a point-based bicycle and pedestrian LOS system for intersections
that accounts for features that support or detract from the user experience, including speeds,
volumes, and the number and type of turning movements and conflicts. The primary purpose
of the method is to evaluate the impact of roadway improvements of bicyclists and pedestrians.
Charlotte’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Level of Service methodologies are provided as Attachment
E.
There are several potential issues with using the HCM methodology to support analysis of
bicycle investment, including:
• Relevant to a limited portion of the street network. Only arterials and collectors were
included in developing the model, but bicycle networks include a wide variety of
street types. In a City like Palo Alto, bicycle boulevards on local streets and Class I
trails provide critical links in a connected network that may not be measureable
within the LOS context, though some simplifying assumptions could be used (e.g.,
consider these types of facilities to LOS A.
• The definitions of level of service are not clearly explained. The TRB work simply defines
LOS A as ‘Best Performance’ and LOS F as ‘Worst Performance’. But the breaks
between the letter grades are not necessarily intuitive. This makes setting a target
for acceptable LOS challenging.
• Limited model fit. The fit of the model describes how well the predicted ratings match
those made by users. Two possible models were developed, one of which correctly
predicted 27 percent of cases; the correctly predicted 46 percent. If a tolerance of 1
letter grade is given, the fit improves to 77 to 85 percent. While this is not an
uncommon level of fit for a statistical model, it does raise concerns with the
usefulness of LOS as a decision-making tool.
Level of Traffic Stress
Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) analysis was developed in 2012 by the Mineta Transportation
Institute (MTI) and documented in MTI Report 11-19: Low-Stress Bicycling and Network
City of Palo Alto Page 14
Connectivity. Unlike LOS, LTS applies to all types of facilities used by bicyclists and is focused on
the bicyclist perspective, instead of pivoting from an auto-centric measure.
The full report is available here:
http://transweb.sjsu.edu/project/1005.html.
LTS is a four-point scale that captures the level of stress that bicyclists experience using various
transportation facilities. It corresponds to the types of cyclists characterized by Portland’s
bicycle coordinator Roger Geller in his Four Types of Cyclists report:
LTS 1, is assigned to roads that are tolerable for most children to ride and to multi-use
paths that are separated from motorized traffic
LTS 2 roads are those that could be comfortably ridden by the mainstream adult
population, often referred to as “interested, but concerned” cyclists.
LTS 3 is the level assigned to roads that would be acceptable to current “enthused and
confident” cyclists
LTS 4 is assigned to segments that are only acceptable to “strong and fearless” cyclists,
who will tolerate riding on roadways with higher motorized traffic volumes and speeds.
The definitions for each level of traffic stress are shown Table 1.
Table 1: Levels of Traffic Stress (LTS) Definitions
LTS 1
Presenting little traffic stress and demanding little attention from cyclists, and
attractive enough for a relaxing bike ride. Suitable for almost all cyclists,
including children trained to safely cross intersections. On links, cyclists are
either physically separated from traffic, or are in an exclusive bicycling zone next
to a slow traffic stream with no more than one lane per direction, or are on a
shared road where they interact with only occasional motor vehicles (as
opposed to a stream of traffic) with a low speed differential. Where cyclists ride
alongside a parking lane, they have ample operating space outside the zone into
which car doors are opened. Intersections are easy to approach and cross.
LTS 2
Presenting little traffic stress and therefore suitable to most adult cyclists but
demanding more attention than might be expected from children. On links,
cyclists are either physically separated from traffic, or are in an exclusive
bicycling zone next to a well-confined traffic stream with adequate clearance
from a parking lane, or are on a shared road where they interact with only
occasional motor vehicles (as opposed to a stream of traffic) with a low speed
differential. Where a bike lane lies between a through lane and a right-turn lane,
it is configured to give cyclists unambiguous priority where cars cross the bike
lane and to keep car speed in the right-turn lane comparable to bicycling
speeds. Crossings are not difficult for most adults.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
LTS 3
More traffic stress than LTS 2, yet markedly less than the stress of integrating
with multilane traffic, and therefore welcome to many people currently riding
bikes in American cities. Offering cyclists either an exclusive riding zone (lane)
next to moderate-speed traffic or shared lanes on streets that are not multilane
and have moderately low speed. Crossings may be longer or across higher-speed
roads than allowed by LTS 2, but are still considered acceptably safe to most
adults.
LTS 4 A level of stress beyond LTS3.
Source: Mineta Transportation Institute Report 11-19.
The primary data for measuring LTS include roadway network data, including:
Number of lanes in each direction
Presence of centerline marking
Presence of a median & width of median
Presence of on-street parking & width of on-street parking (when next to a bike
lane)
Posted speed limit (mph)
Functional roadway class (residential, arterial, freeway)
Segment length (for calculating detours)
Bike lane widths
Bike lane treatment at intersections (pocket bike lanes, abrupt end to bike lane, etc.)
Presence and length of left turn lanes
Some cities have used a subset of these attributes to generate a LTS-light score, with potential
concerns for the accuracy of the analysis. Some factors, like posted speed and number of travel
lanes impact every roadway segment and proxies can significantly alter results, while factors
like length of left turns lanes only impact analysis in small number of circumstances.
The primary use of LTS has been to examine the connectivity of the bicycle network. The MTI
report defines a connected network as one where all links meet or exceed a particular level of
stress. The reasoning for this is that traditional methods typically do not consider issues like
lane drops at intersections that have a significant impact on bicyclist comfort using facilities.
The other advantage of this approach is that it links the proposed network to the user group.
For example, if an objective is to attract ‘interested, but concerned’ bicyclists, a network that
provides LTS level 2 connectivity should be evaluated.
City of Palo Alto Page 16
The Google Bike Network Stress Test
While LTS provides a method more closely related to user experience, one limitation of LTS is
the lack of connection to the use of the system. LTS can identify network gaps, but these gaps
are only relevant if they consider how bicyclists use the network. The Bike Network Stress Test
developed for the Google Bike Vision Plan is a destination-based analysis tool for measuring the
quality of a given bike network. The model uses a simplified form of LTS to ensure ease of use
across jurisdictions.
The full plan is available here:
https://16294-presscdn-0-20-pagely.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/Google-Bike-Vision-
Plan_high_res.pdf
The Bike Network Stress Test is based on academic research that evaluated how bicyclists make
route choices using GPS data.1 This research noted that bicyclists experience stressful roadways
as longer than they are and low stress facilities, like bike paths, as shorter than they are. Based
on a combination of roadway characteristics (lanes, traffic, speed limit, etc.) and bicycle facility
types (lanes, bicycle boulevards, multi-use paths) this method generates an estimate of the
impact on the level of stress (in terms of perceived distance) for the user. Bicycle paths, for
example, reduce expected level of stress (i.e., perceived distance of these facilities is less than
actual). Other conditions increase the level of stress (perceived distance greater than actual).
This approach is an adaptation of the level of stress method described above that has three
components:
Streets are evaluated for their level of stress based on roadway characteristics – in other
words, how much stress does the street add, regardless of bicycle facilities. Streets with
higher speeds, volumes, and lanes generally add more stress
Bicycle facilities are categorized by type – from Class I shared use paths to bicycle
boulevards to bicycle lanes. The combination of the roadway categorization and the
bicycle facility categorization yields a stress score for every segment
Geographic Information System (GIS) routing algorithms are used to determine the most
likely bike route taken from anywhere in a given network to one or more destinations,
taking into account the above research on willingness of bicyclists to travel out of
direction.
In combination, this method can provide a picture of who and how many people can and will
travel by bicycle to reach a particular destination. Most of the work on this method has
focused on commuters, though the academic research on which it is based also developed
factors for other utilitarian trips.
1 Broach, Joseph, Jennifer Dill, and John Glebe. Where do cyclists ride? A route choice model developed with
revealed preference GPS data. Transportation Research Part A 46 (2012) 1730-1740.
City of Palo Alto Page 17
The Bike Network Stress Test offers several measures of bike network quality, including stress
measurements for expected bike routes, measurements of network connectivity, and
projection of bicyclist mode share. Specific analyses include:
Total Stress Analysis – This measure captures the total accumulated stress of each
selected route from all origins to a specific destination.
Average Stress Analysis – This measure normalizes the total stress scores by the
distance traveled, allowing a comparison across a map of the average amount of stress a
bicyclist will encounter along their most likely route.
Incremental Stress Analysis – This measure normalizes the total stress relative to the
minimum amount of possible stress (i.e., if the whole route were a Class I path). This
helps to measure the connectivity of the bike route throughout the length of the chosen
route.
Network Connectivity – This measure displays the bike network available to a bicyclist
based on their tolerance for stressful roadway segments. It can display whether the
available network meets their needs and if the available network offers continuous,
connected routes to their destination.
The method for the Bicycle Network Stress Test was developed specifically in consideration of
the type of urban form of the Peninsula and, through the Google Bike Vision Plan, was applied
to many routes within Palo Alto, with Google’s Mountain View campus as the destination.
Similar analyses could easily be conducted with other destinations.
Alta also recently applied a version of this method to the Cupertino Bike Plan Update, which
included selecting a set of employment, shopping, and recreational destinations to help define
a set of low stress bicycle network investments that have a significant benefit for Cupertino.
Policy Implications
The following Goals, Policies and Programs from the Comprehensive Plan are directly related to
this discussion:
• Program H-2.1.2: Allow increased residential densities and mixed use development only
where adequate urban services and amenities, including, traffic capacity, are
available.
• Policy L-67: Balance traffic circulation needs with the goal of creating walkable
neighborhoods that are designed and oriented towards pedestrians.
• Program T-1: Encourage infill, redevelopment, and reuse of vacant or underutilized
parcels employing minimum density requirements that are appropriate to support
transit, bicycling, and walking.
• Program T-3: Locate higher density development along transit corridors and near multi-
modal transit stations.
• Policy T-2: Consider economic, environmental, and social cost issues in local
transportation decisions.
• Policy T-3: Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective
City of Palo Alto Page 18
programs to reduce auto use at both local and regional levels.
• Policy T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations,
including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping
centers, and multi-modal transit stations.
• Program T-32: Improve pedestrian crossings with bulbouts, small curb radii, street trees
near corners, bollards, and landscaping to create protected areas.
• Policy T-27: Avoid major increases in street capacity unless necessary to remedy severe
traffic congestion or critical neighborhood traffic problems. Where capacity is
increased, balance the needs of motor vehicles with those of pedestrians and
bicyclists.
• Policy T-28: Make effective use of the traffic-carrying ability of Palo Alto’s major street
network without compromising the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists also using
this network.
• Policy T-49: Lead and participate in initiatives to manage regional traffic.
• Policy T-56: Support state and federal legislation to reduce motor vehicle emissions,
noise, and fuel consumption.
The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) for the Comprhensive Plan Update recently considered
potential changes to the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and has
forwarded their draft recommendations to the City Council for review (now scheduled for
September 19). Based on extensive discussions at a transportation subcommitte and the full
CAC, the draft Transportation Element includes policies related to LOS, MMLOS, and VMT, as
well as a wide range of other transportation and parking topics.
Resource Impact
As this is a study session and no action will be taken, resource impacts are limited to the staff
and consultant resources required to prepare for and staff this Council meeting.
Timeline
As this is a study session and no action will be taken, the timeline for any future action items
will be included in staff reports for those items.
Environmental Review
As this is a study session and no action will be taken, environmental review is not required.
Attachments:
Attachment A - PTC Minutes 06-29-2016 (PDF)
Attachment B - VTA CMP Intersections (PDF)
Attachment C - VTA Comments SB 743 04-16-2014 (PDF)
Attachment D - VTA Comments SB 743 02-29-2016 (PDF)
Attachment E - City of Charlotte BLOS+PLOS Approach (PDF)
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 1
1
===============MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26=================
This agenda is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) or section 54956. 2
3
Wednesday, June 29, 2016 Regular Meeting 4
12:00 PM, Council Chambers 5
6
7
Call to Order / Roll Call: 6:05 PM 8
Commissioner Alcheck absent, Commissioner Downing late 9
10
Chair Fine: Order this meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) for June 11
29th and Robin if you would please take roll. 12
13
Robin Ellner, Administrative Associate III: Commissioner Alcheck, Commissioner Downing, Chair 14
Fine, Vice‐Chair Gardias, oh this is an old one, Commissioner Rosenblum, Commissioner Tanaka, 15
Commissioner Waldfogel; five present. And also before we begin the meeting tonight a 16
reminder that the July 13th meeting is canceled. 17
18
Chair Fine: Thank you very much. 19
20
Oral Communications 21
The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 22
None 23
24
Chair Fine: I don't believe there are any additions or deletions? Nope. Director Gitelman if you 25
have a report we’d… We can do Oral Communications first. Yes, thanks. Any cards? None, none. 26
27
Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions 28
The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. 29
None 30
31
City Official Reports 32
33
Assistant Director’s Report 34
Director Gitelman provided the Commission updates on City Council items. 35
36
Hillary Gitelman, Planning Director: Ok, ok. Well thank you. Hillary Gitelman, the Director. I’m 37
standing in this evening for Jon, Jonathan Lait, who is on a well‐deserved vacation. Already on 38
the East Coast presumably laying on a beach somewhere or will be in the morning. I just 39
wanted to report on the City Council's activities of the last couple weeks. They've been busy 40
because they're heading out on their summer break starting today. 41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION
MINUTES
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 2
There was a meeting on June 20th where they considered the Commission's recommendation 1
on the Midtown Connector and they ultimately decided that they were not interested in 2
pursuing that trail along the Matadero Creek and directed staff to consider that alternate 3
alignment that you looked at on Loma Verde. So you'll probably hear more about that in the 4
future. Then just this week the Council had two meetings, one on Monday and one on Tuesday 5
night. On Monday night they really discussed the transport… the idea of a business tax for 6
transportation purposes. I don't know if you've been following that, but it was a really 7
interesting discussion and they ultimately decided not to put something on this year's ballot, 8
but to start laying the groundwork to potentially put something on the ballot in 2017 or 2018. 9
So I'm sure we will all be hearing more about that in the coming year. 10
11
Then just last night the Council discussed the Commission's recommendation on the Maybell 12
tentative map and they followed your recommendation and approved the project last night 13
really with no changes although there was quite a healthy discussion of a number of issues. 14
Then finally the Council had jurisdiction over a change to the final subdivision map that was 15
approved for part of for the Mayfield development project at the end of California Avenue. And 16
so there was a long discussion of that because of hazardous materials that have been found on 17
the site and ultimately they ended up approving this minor amendment to the, to the final map. 18
And that's, that's it. So they don't meet again until August 15th. We're already working on the 19
staff reports for August 15th. So thank you very much. 20
21
Chair Fine: Thank you very much, Director. I’d just like for the record Commissioner Downing 22
has joined us. We have two items tonight a comment letter related to the Draft Environmental 23
Impact Report (DEIR) for two projects in Menlo Park, while the Facebook Campus project and 24
for the Comp Plan Update and a study session tonight on some different measures of traffic and 25
transit. 26
27
Action Items 28
Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. 29
All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker. 30
31
Study Session 32
Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker. 33
34
1. Review of City of Palo Alto Comment Letters Related to the Draft Environmental Impact 35
Reports Prepared for two Separate Projects: The Facebook Campus Expansion Project in 36
the City of Menlo Park and the City of Menlo Park Comprehensive Plan Update 37
38
Chair Fine: Let's begin with Item Number 1 and does staff have a report? 39
40
Hillary Gitelman, Planning Director: I’d like to introduce Meg Monroe on our staff who's going 41
to take us through this first item and has been working to prepare these draft letters. 42
43
Meg Monroe, Management Specialist: Good evening. I'd like to just begin by saying I don't 44
know that you’ve had an occasion to review one of these before so I wanted to remind you that 45
a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) is a disclosure document. The purpose is to identify 46
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 3
and to analyze environmental effects that a project might cause. And our responsibility as a city 1
when somebody prepares one of these is to review it and focus on concerns that Palo Alto 2
might have that for one reason or another might not have been addressed or might not have 3
been adequately mitigated when there are suggestions in the DEIR. We make comments. We 4
ask for either for information or we raise questions for further evaluation for those preparing 5
the DEIR. In this case it would be to the City of Menlo Park and their consultants. 6
7
As staff we've prepared… I drew the short straw maybe. I was the staff lead in Planning on this 8
and I didn't do it by myself. I worked with Joe Teresi in Public Works and his areas of focus are 9
San Francisquito Creek flooding and water quality. I worked with Jarrett Mullen, Transportation 10
Planner. He looked at the traffic and bicycle circulation proposals that were made and Jim 11
Wadleigh who is the maintenance manage, I'm sorry, Manager of Maintenance and Operations 12
at the airport who looked at impacts of the airport's presence would have on the development 13
proposed. As staff we’ve prepared two letters. They’re attached to your staff report, A and B. 14
We don't expect you to read the documents; I thought I'd bring them just so you could see 15
what I did read and to review our comments and add any questions that you might have that 16
we would add to our comments. Before we sort of get into that part it was suggested that we 17
go briefly through a description of what the projects are to help you orient and I have never 18
used this PowerPoint before so… This one? Oh, page down. I see. Ok. Sorry about that. 19
20
There are two, Menlo Park managed to release these two draft environmental documents 21
virtually simultaneously and one encompasses the other so the larger document is the Connect 22
Menlo document which is the document on the General Plan, the Land Use Element update, 23
and the circulation element for the whole city plus the environmental analysis of some rezoning 24
for the Bayfront Area. The plan would increase the current… would include the Facebook 25
Expansion so it's a little hard in reading the two DEIRs to figure out which is what, but the plan 26
is the larger document it and its main besides refocusing I'm going to go down here one more if 27
I can. Yeah. This is the land use map taken out of the DEIR. The grey area at the top is the 28
Bayfront Area which is the area that they are amending the land used designations for and then 29
they're also doing some amendment for the red area along El Camino Real; however, the DEIR 30
addresses the entire document which includes the Conservation and Safety Element and so 31
forth and so the impacts that are shown or discussed are for the entire plan. 32
33
The Facebook Expansion Project… let’s see I’ll do this again. The Facebook Expansion Project is 34
actually a redevelopment of a 58 acre parcel that is on the Bayfront. This is the site location 35
map. You can see the area that's surrounded in black is the site. They would be building a total 36
of 1,200,000 square feet (sf) of new floor area, but it's only a net increase of 121,300 sf. In 37
other words they are virtually replacing what's there, but they are changing a lot of the uses 38
from warehouse to office uses and they're adding at the very end they're adding a hotel which 39
you can see on this slide. It's a little hard to see if you've got your ones at your desk there are 40
two new buildings, 22 I think it’s 21 and 22 and then the hotel at the very end. The two 41
buildings at either extreme ends 20 and 23 are existing and will remain and be there. Traffic 42
impacts will be incorporated into the analysis, but those buildings aren't going to be expanded 43
or changed. 44
45
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 4
So that pretty much covers the projects and sort of a bird's eye view. The comments on the 1
DEIR for Connect Menlo are due on July 15 and the comments on the Facebook Campus 2
expansion are due on July 11th. And our next step would be to get your comments and revise 3
the letters as you see fit. I should note that at your desks you have a letter from Nielsen 4
Buchanan at 155 Bryant Street informing you of his concerns relating to the two DEIRS. I'm 5
assuming that Mr. Nielsen would submit that letter to Menlo Park. And I'd be happy to answer 6
any questions or take any comments you have. 7
8
Chair Fine: Thank you very much. Do we have any speaker cards on this issue? 9
10
Vice‐Chair Gardias: As you have suggested we have a speaker card for Neilson Buchannan. So 11
sir if you could take please five minutes. 12
13
Neilson Buchannan: I'll try not to use five minutes. Neilson Buchannan, 155 Bryant. I sort of 14
have a fantasy of what you might do at the end of this discussion and that you would give 15
yourself a self‐appraisal on how well you prepared comments to another neighboring city. I 16
personally think this is a unique opportunity to have some interface commentary even meet 17
and confer with Menlo Park. The system is staged against any meaningful content and 18
comment given the time frames that that are on. That sort of confounds the whole process as 19
far as I'm concerned. If you go to development tricks 101 you'll learn that first thing you do is to 20
launch two big projects on a very tight time frame. That will make sure everybody is thoroughly 21
confused and can't comment. That be as it may that's the system that we operate under. 22
23
If you want to evaluate yourself I have two polar examples of how you might want to evaluate 24
yourself. If you think this is a relatively unimportant and benign process, that there is no traffic, 25
there's no housing concerns between the two cities or nearby then you could give yourself an A 26
plus. There's no reason to get very involved or do very much, the situation is harmless. On the 27
other hand if you think issues that confront our communities up and down the peninsula and 28
just using traffic and housing as two examples are really important and we're missing 29
opportunities left and right to do something about it. The transportation tax was a prime 30
example of get ready, aim, fire, and wait for the Palo Alto process to play out over the next two 31
years. I would or urge you to figure out which of the two scenarios are there. Is it relatively 32
benign? This is a bureaucratic process just go ahead and dismiss it going on or is this an 33
opportunity that could be a meet and confer comment period with some depth to it? It's a real 34
thankless process at this point on how do you do something. 35
36
I talked to several people in Palo Alto and in Menlo Park that isn't this something that should be 37
done? And people, the ordinary citizen just throw their hands up, that this is part of the 38
process, it's hopeless, there's no reason to become involved. Expectations of the Planning 39
Commission and City Councils are so low that why get involved? I don't believe that is the case. 40
I don't know how to solve this particular problem that I see it as a wonderful opportunity that is 41
going to come and go, but if you chose to there would be a chance to start meeting and 42
conferring with Menlo Park about what really is going on outside the boundaries of the 43
commentary of DEIRs. 44
45
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 5
I recall and I think it was in the discussion of the Transportation Management Association 1
(TMA) that several overtures are made. We need to sit down and talk to the neighboring towns 2
about whether the TMAs could be more compatible and more viable. That's just one tiny 3
example assuming we have a TMA to even talk about. So I close on hoping that you will have a 4
healthy discussion on whether this is important or not and if there's anything you could do 5
better than what's going to happen tonight and at the end of the day give yourself a grade. I 6
think that process starts a better dialogue. Thank you. 7
8
Chair Fine: Thank you very much Mr. Buchannan. No other cards so I'd like to open it up to both 9
comments and questions from Commissioners. I think this is, Commissioner Downing, I think 10
you’re first. 11
12
Commissioner Downing: So I think you have correctly identified that we don't see all that many 13
of these kind of letters so I wanted to ask some background information just kind of before we 14
kick off comments. So the first one is I do want to understand a little bit about Environmental 15
Impact Reports (EIR) and their scope and whether or not or how unusual it is for an EIR that's 16
for a particular city to take into account cities and streets and congestion outside of its 17
jurisdiction. Is that a normal thing for another city to do? 18
19
Ms. Gitelman: Thanks for the question. I think there is an obligation to look at the impacts 20
wherever they might occur. With that said obviously cities focus primarily on their own 21
jurisdiction, but if there are spillover impacts to other communities or facilities that are outside 22
the cities jurisdiction: freeways, on ramps, freeway segments it is the agency's responsibility to 23
identify those impacts. 24
25
Commissioner Downing: Are there any examples of projects that have come up in the last year 26
or two were Palo Alto’s EIRs have studied impacts on either Menlo Park or Mountain View? 27
28
Ms. Gitelman: We have the Comp Plan EIR that we've been working on for a while and we do 29
look at freeway segments and freeway ramps that are outside our jurisdiction. I don't 30
remember exactly what the boundaries of our analysis are, but again it is your obligation to 31
identify the impacts where they would occur irrespective of jurisdictional boundaries and so we 32
have tried to do that. 33
34
Commissioner Downing: Can you think of a project that did that though? 35
36
Ms. Gitelman: Well, we don't do a lot of EIRs. Oh, the Hospital Medical Center was probably the 37
last big EIR and that did look at the impacts on adjacent jurisdictions, yes. 38
39
Commissioner Downing: Ok. And then I guess if a city found that let’s say Menlo Park looks at 40
our letter. Let’s say they decide that they fully mitigated. They believe that their EIR does the 41
mitigation that it ought to do or in fact they go ahead and decide that there were overriding 42
considerations. At that point in time what recourse if any does Palo Alto have against that 43
assessment? 44
45
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 6
Ms. Gitelman: Well I think it would be I wouldn’t want to speculate that we just like wouldn't 1
reach agreement. We're at the phase now where we're in good faith going to offer comments 2
and hope that the comments will be responded to and the Final Environmental Impact Report 3
(FEIR) will be adequate in terms of addressing the impacts. I think you're getting to a point that 4
is an important one and that's partly the reason why we tend to bring these comment letters to 5
the Council and failing the Council to the Commission because tone is important. I mean the 6
expression what goes around comes around, if you make a snarky comment on someone's EIR 7
they're going to make one back to your EIR. So we don't want to enter into an arms race here. 8
We want to be respectful, identify issues that we think need to be surfaced, ask respectful 9
questions, and expect that our colleagues across the border will be do the responsible and 10
professional thing and respond in kind. 11
12
Commissioner Downing: Ok, well let me proceed to ask the lawyerly question. If for whatever 13
reason we are unsatisfied with Menlo Park’s determination, not that we would, but technically 14
do we have standing to sue on that EIR? As a city. 15
16
Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Yes, the City does have standing to sue and there 17
actually have been some lawsuits including lawsuits against Palo Alto where other agencies 18
have sued cities over EIR determinations. 19
20
Commissioner Downing: Ok. So those are my questions for now. I’m going to hold off on 21
comments until others have had a chance to ask their questions as well. 22
23
Chair Fine: Thank you, Commissioner Downing. I don't see any other lights. Commissioner 24
Rosenblum. 25
26
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes, I think that in your letter there are a number of issues that you 27
raise to the city and it’s around hazards and hazardous material and then traffic at some 28
specific intersections to study. My guess is the community is largely concerned about traffic. So 29
to the extent that this is a body that represents the community and their questions that 30
surround the impact on traffic in various places. The Facebook, the Facebook project I would 31
think is the simpler of the two discussed because it's a more discrete project and Facebook runs 32
an active shuttle program and polls their own employees so they have a pretty good idea of 33
where people coming from. To what extent did Facebook cooperate? And as you noted the 34
whole EIR is a thick document and so I might not have seen this; is there submission from 35
Facebook on the point to point transportation plans of the marginal employees that they would 36
house in these, in these facilities? So i.e. what we’d be concerned about in particular is how 37
many of them would have to transit through Palo Alto? So to what extent would that 38
overburden some of our roadways? And they probably already have this data and certainly I 39
know when I worked at Google we had it and we knew where every employee was coming 40
from, had pretty detailed maps on this. 41
42
Ms. Monroe: I didn't see anything in the document about origin destination of employees. I 43
think it's a legitimate question to ask them and nor did they expound upon their Transportation 44
Demand Management (TDM) program beyond saying that they ought to have one. 45
46
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 7
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes. 1
2
Ms. Monroe: And you may have noted our response about that. 3
4
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes. 5
6
Ms. Monroe: That short terms fine, but what if there are 50 businesses there later? 7
8
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah. 9
10
Ms. Monroe: And so that's really what I think the Planning Department would make a condition 11
on the approval. 12
13
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah so that's what I would ask for is a detailed Facebook plan and 14
also the data that Facebook currently has on a number of expected marginal employee counts 15
and then the expected burden on Palo Alto streets and then what TDM measures they expect 16
to have in place which I know that you've asked for. But they again, I assume they actually have 17
planned this. This shouldn't be a burden on them. 18
19
Ms. Monroe: And they do have a program in place so yeah they should have information. 20
21
Commissioner Rosenblum: The Menlo Park plan is in some ways similar, but they don't know 22
what the impacts will be of zoning for additional housing. But I wanted to ask some questions 23
about that. So is it correct they're planning on zoning for additional 5,500 units? Is that 24
(interrupted) 25
26
Ms. Monroe: That's what they indicated. 27
28
Commissioner Rosenblum: Over what period of time? 29
30
Ms. Monroe: To 2040. 31
32
Commissioner Rosenblum: 2040, right? 33
34
Ms. Monroe: Yes. 35
36
Commissioner Rosenblum: So this is in line and so how does that compare to their Association 37
of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) commitment? 38
39
Ms. Monroe: It's a lot higher than their ABAG. 40
41
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes so the first comment I wanted to make is as to the extent that 42
we're doing our job and commenting as a Planning Commission to a neighboring city is huge 43
kudo's. These guys are stepping up to the plate and helping out with our regional problem of 44
housing. So to the extent that we’re taking this job seriously and commenting on what they are 45
planning next door both the idea that they are taking a regional problem by the horns, adding 46
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 8
an attractive employer nearby where they're adding their housing it seems like a rational thing 1
to do. Having said that 5,500 units obviously adds pressure on the infrastructure itself and so 2
the other area I would comment on is I would as part of the Comprehensive Plan they should 3
have an idea of the sources of funding for the TDM. So they have ambitions for TDM, but not 4
where the funding would come from. And I know that this will feel hypocritical coming from 5
Palo Alto, but you’re again as the Planning Commissioner that is what I'd want to look for is 6
adding a significant population and what is their plan to mitigate. 7
8
The specific intersections that you identified to study I think are the obvious ones, but by the 9
same token I think that having a few projects together is useful. Seeing the Facebook transit 10
commute patterns and they should have more detailed data than even the City of Menlo Park I 11
would guess should give an idea of what a dramatic expansion of the City of Menlo Park should 12
do to traffic patterns. I know those are two different things employer versus housing. I fear they 13
don't have the data on where the pattern of commuting comes from people living in Menlo 14
Park, but certainly whatever data they currently have I didn't see it in the current EIR. And so to 15
the extent that you can extrapolate this I think they should submit that to us which is 16
destinations for current working population in Menlo Park because it's such a significant 17
population expansion. 18
19
Ms. Monroe: They're working in the… in the residence. 20
21
Commissioner Rosenblum: Correct. 22
23
Ms. Monroe: Ok. 24
25
Commissioner Rosenblum: And I would agree with Mr. Buchanan in the sense that this is a 26
dramatic population expansion which again as I said, I'm happy that one of our communities is 27
stepping up for this, but there are implications and I don't think that the DEIR addressed where 28
the additional load is going to be distributed. Those are all the basic questions I have for now. I 29
have some additional comments after other Commissioners might have their turn. 30
31
Chair Fine: Thank you, Commissioner Rosenblum. Commissioner Waldfogel. 32
33
Commissioner Waldfogel: Thank you. Let's see a couple comments on this, one I think is an 34
amplification of Commissioner Rosenblum’s question, but when you look at this and look at 35
assumptions about transit use, potential transit use, where does the transit capacity on the 36
peninsula get coordinated between different agencies? So if Menlo Park is assuming that they 37
can use every transit seat that's projected on Caltrain and Sunnyvale and Santa Clara and Palo 38
Alto who coordinates that and who keeps score? I don't know that we can resolve this through 39
this process, but it might be interesting to start a dialogue through this process if that's, if that's 40
possible. 41
42
The second point I want to thank you for raising, for coordinating with the airport team and 43
looking at those issues. I think there are also some state law issues. I think there's some issues 44
about potentially about San Mateo County's compliance with state law on land use plan. So I 45
think that that should be surfaced and maybe just ask them what their intent is around that and 46
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 9
just insure that they're complying with relevant state law and disclosures that are required. So 1
those are really two comments, two principal comments I would raise on this, but otherwise I 2
think that it's a good start on a ladder and it's thank you for reading all those documents so we 3
don't have to. 4
5
Chair Fine: Thank you. Commissioner Tanaka. 6
7
Commissioner Tanaka: I have a quick question. So how much of an increase in population is this 8
for Menlo Park? I guess in terms of household and in terms of office in terms of people. 9
10
Ms. Monroe: I think it about doubles the population by 2040. It increases the employment a 11
little bit more than that. 12
13
Commissioner Tanaka: Do you know how much more? 14
15
Ms. Monroe: Not a whole lot more. You know there’s the daytime population, the nighttime 16
population I think would be about the same. 17
18
Commissioner Rosenblum: It's on 4.11‐17 of the report by the way just in case you're curious 19
It's 53 percent growth rate in population, 52 percent in households, 72 percent in employees. 20
21
Commissioner Tanaka: So it's very significant. 22
23
Ms. Monroe: Yes. 24
25
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, great. Thank you. 26
27
Chair Fine: Vice‐Chair Gardias. 28
29
Vice‐Chair Gardias: Thank you. In addition to those, to those comments that my colleagues just 30
expressed and I'm not sure if their DEIR already includes the methodology of calculation we 31
know that it's going to be changing because we will be having the same discussion in a couple 32
of minutes, right? I'd be curious if they would be in addition to the old California Environmental 33
Quality Act (CEQA) methodology if there would be also an updated document they would be 34
translating this to the new document that would be just showing the vehicle miles traveled. So 35
that's number one. 36
37
And in terms of methodology because having such impactful increase of the population will this 38
will surely impact the adjacent streets and roads in a very significant way and that methodology 39
needs to be updated and clearly presented. I can foresee that for example those housed 40
employees that would be in the vicinity of the main campus may decide because of the simple 41
leisure desire to travel on Friday, Friday evening thus adding to the clogged street and those 42
that would be traveling home this way they will pretty much double traffic on Dumbarton 43
Bridge and that will impact Willow and that will impact Middlefield or University and pretty 44
much the cars will stall in Palo Alto. So they would have to clearly and carefully look at the 45
impact and at adjacent municipalities and major arteries. So that would be my comment in 46
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 10
terms of methodology and of course disclose it to us. I don't, I have not studied document. It 1
might be there but, I think this is a fair comment to ask. 2
3
In terms of the, from a different side in terms of the height could you tell us knowing that their 4
new development will be going to 75 feet is their current campus currently at 75 or it’s going 5
over that limit? 6
7
Ms. Monroe: I think that one building connects to an existing building which is close must be 8
close to that because the roof, roofs connect, but the buildings that are there on the site now 9
are about 35 feet. The ones that will be removed. 10
11
Vice‐Chair Gardias: 35? 12
13
Ms. Monroe: About. 14
15
Vice‐Chair Gardias: And but there is a Hacker Way, right? 1 Hacker Way, the campus that's in 16
the very close proximity, those buildings they are at 75 feet? 17
18
Ms. Monroe: I don't think so, I think they're like 54. 19
20
Vice‐Chair Gardias: Ok, so they are pretty much going significantly over the limit, right? So 21
understanding this my question and concern would be pretty much changing the view profile of 22
the bay because this way we're doing we're pretty much putting a number of the tall buildings 23
on the waterfront and that significantly changes the way that we're going to… pretty much see 24
the bay. Knowing that all over the bay on at least on the on the east side there is action to 25
return the former industrial salt conversion to the nature and then pretty much it's 26
automatically just puts all the development beyond the marshes. 27
28
Ms. Monroe: Right. 29
30
Vice‐Chair Gardias: But here we're just doing something else, we're just putting the tall 31
architecture on the very close to the water. So my concern would be about the impact of the 32
change of the changing landscape at the bay perimeter. 33
34
Ms. Monroe: Ok. 35
36
Vice‐Chair Gardias: How this reconciles with everybody’s expectation of this how Bay would 37
look like many years from now. Thank you. 38
39
Chair Fine: Thank you, Vice‐Chair. I just want to thank staff for going over this and putting 40
together a pretty concise and I think fairly appropriate letter to Menlo Park. I also appreciate 41
that the staff reached out to the Palo Alto Airport. I think that’s an important one. So at least 42
my first question, what other groups were contacted across Palo Alto? Were there any or is 43
(interrupted) 44
45
Ms. Monroe: Just the ones I described. Public Works there, this is a staff reviewed thing. 46
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 11
Chair Fine: Ok. And you just reached out to the airport because you thought (interrupted) 1
2
Ms. Monroe: I talked to, yes the operator of the airport. 3
4
Chair Fine: Ok. So I completely agree with Commissioner Rosenblum that there is, there is a 5
need to send Menlo Park some kudos for taking on a pretty ambitious plan like this given our 6
regional need for it. And I think Palo Alto could probably go a bit further in emphasizing that 7
Menlo Park specify the physical infrastructure improvements that are needed for some of those 8
assumptions. A few of them that come to mind; one is as Vice‐Chair just mentioned access to 9
the bay or views of it, there's the whole Bay Trail there, I think there's partially stuffed plan 10
through the Don Edwards area, but it's not built out yet, I'm not sure how this plan will affect 11
that. There's also an opportunity for us to convey experiences that Menlo Park might be 12
experiencing that we already have. So on that came to mind is retail preservation. I don't know 13
if Menlo Park’s interested in that at the moment, but I'm assuming they probably have similar 14
problems to Palo Alto and it may be worth considering or giving them our experiences. 15
16
I think the area that concerned me the most was kind of this confluence where Menlo Park, 17
Palo Alto, and East Palo Alto all come together. There's a whole lot of roads there that are 18
packed during commute hours. If you go through there nowadays there's a much, much larger 19
bicycle commuter population going through there whether it's going to businesses in Redwood 20
City to Google in Mountain View or to Facebook from any area on the peninsula. I don't think 21
we've been strong enough in emphasizing how important that is areas through like Belle Haven, 22
along 84, along the Bay Trail, Willow, really large bicycling areas and I think we could emphasize 23
that a bit more. I was a little surprised that the City had to comment, oh, well your bike plan is 24
out of date, you're not showing the latest routes. Go check out this manual. So there might be a 25
bit more digging there. 26
27
Two questions not related to this; so one is when is ABAG next update their projections, do we 28
know? 29
30
Ms. Gitelman: They're actually in the process of doing that right now. They're going through 31
kind of a scenario process and I forget I think sometime this fall they're supposed to land on a 32
scenario and then have a set of projections to follow. 33
34
Chair Fine: Ok, and this plan I mean will Menlo Park have to update anything once those are 35
released or they’re getting in before then? Ok. And the second question is do we know what 36
East Palo Alto is commenting about on this? Have they resubmitted their letter? Do we have 37
any idea? 38
39
Ms. Monroe: I don't know. Communities don't normally share their letters they send them to 40
Menlo Park. So I assume that they would have some response. 41
42
Chair Fine: Yes, I assume so. I hope so too. I guess just for me this area is becoming a lot hotter 43
in terms of development pressures and transit pressures and work stuff that there may be 44
some, some advantage to maybe share our letter with East Palo Alto and seeing if they have 45
any comments. I think that also speaks Mr. Buchanan’s point about regional cooperation for 46
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 12
these regional issues. This is a huge use of land. I think the Bay Area and the South Bay here is 1
very privileged to have a company like Facebook located here, but there's big pressures that 2
need to be addressed regionally as well. That's my first pass. Commissioner Downing. 3
4
Commissioner Downing: So my next cut, my next comment I think has to do with tone, but also 5
has to do with content. I think I've said this before, but I think in general when we as a City of 6
Palo Alto when we look at EIRs, people look at the EIRs we tend to look at it in a legally 7
prescribed manner, right? The difference between doing this thing or not doing this thing, but 8
the correct way to actually look at something is not between doing and not doing it but also but 9
the future of what that looks like, right? So what I mean by that is in the letter we make this 10
comment of oh, there's going to be all these people and all this housing and it’s going to have 11
all this impact, but I would sort of caution Palo Alto in making those kind of comments because 12
the real question should be well, what happens if they build out that Facebook campus and 13
don't add any housing, right? Because we're complaining about the impacts of the 5,500 units 14
of housing whereas in reality they're doing us a favor by building that housing. That's 5,500 15
hundred people that aren't driving through Palo Alto to get to their Facebook jobs. And so I just 16
feel like it would be useful if we could kind of look at it from that perspective, right? It mean 17
yes, the Facebook project is one thing, but the housing they're building out and the other things 18
they are doing as part of their plan and part of the infrastructure is another. 19
20
So before we get too committed to complaining about how much housing they're adding or 21
how much population they're adding we should really ask ourselves is it really in our best 22
interest if they don't add that stuff at all. And I don't, I don't actually think it is. The fact that 23
they're adding housing means that there's less housing pressure in Palo Alto. That means that 24
our rents won’t skyrocket as much as they would if they didn't add that housing. So I would like 25
to see that somehow worked in here. The number one concern the people in Palo Alto have is 26
about housing and about housing affordability and this letter really seems to be only full of 27
complaints; whereas in reality they're doing us a big service by building out housing there. 28
That's less pressure on our most vulnerable people. 29
30
Ms. Gitelman: Well maybe I can interject, I mean some of your colleagues have suggested that 31
we start by saying thank you for being aggressive or forward looking in providing the housing, 32
but… please address these impacts related to the strain on infrastructure and other things. If 33
we use that approach would we be responsive to your suggestion? 34
35
Commissioner Downing: Yes, I think so. I mean I think it's one thing, the way the letter is 36
phrased now it's sort of like we're concerned about the impact to the population and the 37
housing. The population and the housing aren’t hurting us. Those are good things for us. Like if 38
we were serious about actually looking at this from a practical perspective then yeah I think 39
addressing ok well what about the infrastructure, what about your roads, What about water, 40
what about your electricity, right? Those are all legitimate things to be concerned about and to 41
worry about and to write them about, but getting upset about them building housing is not one 42
of them. So like I said, you can’t just, it can’t just be a matter of what with this look like without 43
this project and what does it look like with this project, it's well what does it look like without 44
this project 10 years from now? That's the real question. 45
46
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 13
And to let you know we're so focused on impacts that are so you know, I mean I understand 1
we're looking at the EIR, but we're so focused on like the EIR impacts of like oh, traffic and 2
what's this going to look like at this particular intersection or that intersection, but there is a lot 3
to be grateful for as well, right? And even though it's not an EIR impact the affordability of Palo 4
Alto, people's ability to keep living here and not be pushed out by Facebook workers is a really 5
big thing. 6
7
Chair Fine: Thank you. Commissioner Rosenblum. 8
9
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes, so I agree with Commissioner Downing’s comments in general; 10
however, I think our job as Planning Commissioners is to think about the impacts on our City 11
and how to mitigate those even though like I said I'm very admiring that they're taking this bold 12
step. I think a lot of the request again the specific request is to study those, the intersections. 13
And you have identified the obvious intersections. And as I said you may identify additional 14
intersections when you understand the patterns of commute from a more detailed submission 15
from someone like Facebook to see how people are actually coming through our community. 16
17
The area to dig into is their traffic model and that was alluded or not alluded to, you've asked 18
for more detail about their traffic model in your letter and I think that is the place to dig. Now in 19
terms of the process I think is going to take you some time so they've developed a model that 20
spits out what they expect the traffic to be at all major intersections in Menlo Park. And I have a 21
feeling that is disconnected from I don't, I don't know exactly what these models look like. I 22
have a feeling that it's done not in complete connection with how an effective TDM program 23
may be implemented because the TDM section of the same documents is extremely light and 24
only gives a few suggestions for measures that might be taken and some principles of TDM and 25
this is where I was saying that the thing that would make me feel better as a Palo Alto resident 26
knowing that a population is about to double in size, our neighbor, is that they've identified 27
funding sources commensurate with this ambitious plan. And so it's not just the traffic model, 28
but to understand how they plan on paying for the offsets. And that part so they've listened 29
some general TDM principles, but I don't think they've even discussed where the money would 30
come from unless I may be missing that. I'm on the section of TDM measures and principles. 31
32
Ms. Monroe: I'm sorry, did you have a section number? 33
34
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes, I'm going to go back up to it. Give me a moment. 35
36
Ms. Monroe: Sorry. 37
38
Commissioner Rosenblum: TDM guidelines are 14.4.13‐10. 39
40
Ms. Monroe: Ok. 41
42
Commissioner Rosenblum: And unless there's a more detailed section this is one of the lighter 43
sections the plan. It alludes to some work that may be ongoing and parallel so there may be a 44
much more detailed project that's going on. Similarly, they similarly allude to the El Camino 45
Real/Downtown Specific Plan in the following section with similar kind of very high level 46
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 14
principles and so I suspect that there's a much more detailed plan that's behind each of these, 1
but it's not in this plan. And the one that I would be most, actually I'd be let me amend that; 2
both the specific plans and the TDM plan would be important to having confidence that they 3
can accommodate this kind of growth in households and employment. That's the sum of my 4
comments. Thank you. 5
6
Ms. Monroe: Ok, thanks. 7
8
Chair Fine: Do we have any other Commissioners with questions/comments? Vice‐Chair. 9
10
Vice‐Chair Gardias: Just a minor comment, but it might be also important. So there may be 11
impact because they will be bringing some population from the outside. The expansion there 12
may be also an impact on the railroad, on the Caltrain. So I was wondering if they might have 13
already stated that, but if not I would like to understand what’s the critical point at which 14
population trying to reach Menlo Park would overwhelm or would become so significant then 15
pretty much we will have to have another stop in Menlo Park that will be added to the bullet 16
trains. There may be some inflection point that the train would be reaching because if people 17
want to go to Menlo Park as opposed to Palo Alto (interrupted) 18
19
Ms. Monroe: Redwood City (interrupted) 20
21
Vice‐Chair Gardias: They may want to just add another stop which would add to the delays. So 22
that would be my question. Thank you. 23
24
Chair Fine: I think that's all. Commissioner Tanaka. 25
26
Commissioner Tanaka: This is a part of a smaller issue, but in terms of parking there was much 27
analysis done around that. So for instance like recently there's been issues about spillover 28
parking coming over from other cities. Have you thought about that and what do you think the 29
effects will be? 30
31
Ms. Monroe: The parking for the Facebook project met the code requirements and there is the 32
implicit assumption in the plan that the parking for the development of the plan would meet 33
the parking requirements in zoning code. So I don't think and as far as I know unlike situations 34
that we have on the edge of parts of East Palo Alto there has been no parking spillover that I'm 35
aware of from Menlo Park into Palo Alto. 36
37
Commissioner Tanaka: So even if there's a significant increase in units on Menlo Park side you 38
don't see any potential impact on Palo Alto? 39
40
Ms. Monroe: Right. 41
42
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, thank you. 43
44
Chair Fine: Alright, I think that's about it from us. Just one last question, it’s a bit tongue in 45
cheek. Why is their plan for 2040 and ours is only for 2030? 46
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 15
1
Ms. Monroe: I'm sorry, what? 2
3
Chair Fine: Why is their plan for 2040 and ours is only for 2030? When I saw it I’m like gosh, we 4
should (interrupted) 5
6
Ms. Monroe: It turns out that when this plan was proposed it was for 2035 and I believe they 7
extended it 2040 because of the ABAG horizon. So I can't answer the question. 8
9
Ms. Gitelman: We started doing our plan for 2025 and now we're at 2030 so every agency kind 10
of chooses what they, what they want. 11
12
Chair Fine: Maybe we should extend ours so you know all this hard work we're putting in we 13
can avoid it, right? 14
15
Ms. Gitelman: Well thank you Commissioners for your comments. We’ll get these letters fixed 16
up and out the door. Thanks very much. 17
18
Chair Fine: Thank you very much. Do you all want to keep going or take a five minute break? 19
Let's take just five minutes. 20
21
Commission Action: No action taken, Commissioners provided comments only. 22
23
The Commission took a break 24
25
2. Study Session on Motor Vehicle Level of Service (LOS), Multimodal Level of Service 26
(MMLOS), Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and CEQA Changes 27
Related to Transportation Impacts 28
29
Chair Fine: Study session on Level of Service (LOS), Multimodal Level of Service 30
(MMLOS), bicycle level of Stress, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and California 31
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) changes related to transportation impacts. This is a 32
study session for us so we can just listen, learn, ask some questions. Just for a little bit of 33
context the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) is currently discussing the Transportation 34
Element of the Comp Plan and there was discussion last week on whether the City 35
should keep on using LOS or just move straight on to VMT. Seemed like most of the CAC 36
was in favor of using both going forward, but that is a discussion that the CAC is going 37
through in order to open the question up for Council. This is a great opportunity for us 38
to learn about these methodologies and produce some fodder for Council to think about 39
it. Of course a lot of these changes are occurring because of Senate Bill (SB) 743 which is 40
kind of the death knell for automotive LOS. Anyways, staff has a report, please take it 41
away. 42
43
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 16
Joshuah Mello, Chief Transportation Official: Greeting Commissioners, I’m Josh Mello, 1
the City's Chief Transportation Official. I'm joined this evening with a whole contingent 2
of experts on all of these topics. To my right is Sarah Peters from the consulting firm 3
Fehr & Peers, to her right is Hugh who is with Alta Planning + Design. We have Ron 4
Milam who's with Fehr & Peers. I actually had the honor of sitting in a presentation that 5
Ron gave last year at the Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE) national conference 6
in Las Vegas. He's been very involved in the changes to CEQA that we’re going to hear 7
about this evening. Robert Eckols who's also with Fehr & Peers behind him and then we 8
have Ruta Jariwala and Nayan Amin with TJKM. They conduct quite a few traffic studies 9
in Santa Clara County so they're also available. And we also have Rafael Ruiz who's our 10
chief, our Traffic Engineering Lead who does a lot of our traffic signal operations and up 11
until recently worked quite a bit on traffic impact analyses. 12
13
So tonight we're going to give you an overview of motor vehicle LOS. We're also going to 14
talk a little bit about the guidelines that have been developed by the Santa Clara Valley 15
Transportation Authority (VTA) in regard to traffic impact analyses. We're going to cover 16
the changes that are coming to CEQA and the identification of impacts as they relate to 17
our transportation network and then we're going to cap it off with a discussion about 18
MMLOS, bicycle level of stress, and then some of the pros and cons of the different 19
measurements of pedestrian and bicycle LOS that are out there. So Sarah Peters is going 20
to kick it off followed by Hugh. 21
22
Sarah Peters, Fehr & Peers: Hi, thank you. There we go. So first we'll talk about what is a 23
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). Briefly, TIA evaluates the impacts of proposed land 24
use changes and identifies on the transportation system and it identifies measures to 25
mitigate those impacts. Historically TIAs have focused on the auto mode and what that 26
has unintendedly resulted in is a preference of auto throughput over all other modes: 27
walking, bicycling, and also the use of transit. So recently agencies around the Bay Area 28
and around the United States (US) have looked to expand the focus of TIAs to address 29
those other modes. 30
31
Here in Santa Clara County VTA is the congestion management agency. So as part of 32
that, as part of its role it publishes guidelines to ensure that TIAs that are developed at 33
the local level are consistent in how they analyze impacts to major roadways in Santa 34
Clara County. These guidelines were last updated in 2014 and included several new 35
elements. VTA requires a TIA for any project that would generate 100 or more net new 36
trips during any peak hour; however, Palo Alto and several other cities around Santa 37
Clara County typically require that a TIA be conducted for a smaller project maybe 38
generating only 50 trips in a peak hour. And note that TIA requirements from VTA are 39
very different from the ones required by CEQA analysis even before SB 743. So VTA 40
requires that TIAs analyze both current and future conditions when adding project 41
traffic to the CMP network and typically that means that a TIA is going to analyze three 42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 17
scenarios. So existing conditions, that’s existing traffic levels plus your project traffic, 1
background conditions, that’s existing traffic plus traffic from projects that have already 2
been approved, but not yet constructed, and then cumulative conditions and that's 3
those background conditions plus anticipated growth. And often that anticipated 4
growth is estimated for a specific horizon year using a travel demand model. 5
6
VTA also sets thresholds for impacts at within the CMP network. So those impact 7
thresholds are defined in terms of auto LOS, briefly a measure of delay at intersections 8
or congestion on freeway segments. Though auto LOS as you know is graded between 9
LOS A which is free flowing traffic and LOS F which is major delays. For CMP facilities, 10
that's major roadways and freeway segments, LOS E is the standard and an impact 11
occurs when added traffic would cause the LOS to drop from E to F or would 12
substantially exacerbate congestion at a facility that's already operating at LOS F. 13
Historically local jurisdictions have used these guidelines to evaluate impacts to their 14
local intersections, but often have adapted them to local conditions. And note also that 15
these guidelines typically address isolated intersections, but where queuing can occur 16
spill back from a single intersection to other intersections upstream VTA does require 17
additional queueing analysis. 18
19
Here in Palo Alto for local intersections auto LOS is set at D. And Palo Alto has also 20
identified impact thresholds for queuing for transit, pedestrian, and bicycle modes and 21
has also identified a threshold for cut through traffic on neighborhood streets. Nearby 22
jurisdictions can also provide some context for Palo Alto’s threshold. So broadly Palo 23
Alto has pretty consistent thresholds as other local jurisdictions. Note however that 24
Mountain View has some interim thresholds of LOS E within its downtown core and the 25
San Antonio areas and that's going been established to recognize the multi‐modal 26
nature of transportation in those areas. 27
28
The 2014 update of VTAs TIA guidelines also expanded the requirements for evaluating 29
other modes. So it added a transit delay requirement asking the question: does added 30
project traffic create delay for buses operating on local streets. It also added a 31
requirement to evaluate bicycle and pedestrian conditions using a quality of service 32
metric in any situation where a project or mitigation measures for projects impacts 33
would alter a roadway or intersection. And finally the 2014 guidelines update 34
encourages a broader approach to understanding trip generation. So for example at a 35
mixed use site like you see here you would want to use a methodology that really takes 36
into account the crossover between retail uses on the ground floor and residential uses 37
upstairs. The guidelines also added a new approach to understanding how trip 38
reductions might occur as a result of a TDM program or as a result of a TDM 39
requirement at the local level. We’ll hand it over to Ron Milam next to talk about SB 40
743. 41
42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 18
Ron Milam, Fehr & Peers: Thank you very much. First little background about why I'm 1
giving this particular part of the presentation. We were hired by the governor's Office of 2
Planning and Research (OPR) to help them develop a white paper on VMT. How do you 3
calculate it? How do you set thresholds? Since that time we've also been hired by 4
Caltrans, a number of other cities, counties, Los Angeles (L.A.), San Francisco, Pasadena 5
to help them develop their methodology and their thresholds for shifting from LOS to 6
VMT as the new CEQA metric. So it's a little bit of background. 7
8
As it relates to what you can expect SB 743 the title this slide is “An Evolutionary Change 9
to Transportation Impact Analysis.” It’s going to be probably what it feels like and it 10
really did start back in 2006 with Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and this is where the state 11
basically said climate change greenhouse gas reduction are very important state goals 12
and policies and we need to work towards that and starting to change other laws 13
including CEQA to align with the state policy on greenhouse gases. So you see SB 97 up 14
there was the first time the legislature actually gave us a new metric and it was 15
greenhouse gases. They told us within CEQA we have to analyze greenhouse gases. They 16
didn’t tell us how and they didn't tell us what the thresholds were and we're still fighting 17
about that in the courts. 18
19
So fast forward to SB 743, I’m not sure we’re upright and walking yet, but the legislature 20
is definitely more active. Not only did they give us a new metric and it is VMT, Vehicle 21
Miles Traveled. They did let OPR select that particular metric, they had a choice, but 22
they also required OPR develop guidance on the specific methodology and the 23
thresholds. So helping all of us to understand what constitutes an unacceptable or 24
acceptable level of VMT. That's a pretty substantial change compared to traditional 25
practice. When you think about the thresholds every lead agency has the discretion to 26
set their own thresholds unless the environmental topic is governed by a federal or 27
state law, Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, those kinds of things. So you have a lot 28
of discretion at the local level to choose for yourselves what VMT threshold’s 29
appropriate, but OPR is providing in their guidance where they think you should be 30
drawing the line. Let’s go to the next slide. 31
32
It's also important when you think about a new law like this is pay attention to the 33
legislative intent. The lawyers in the room do, the judges do. There are legal challenges. 34
And the legislature was pretty clear here in what they were expecting with this 35
particular change. And Item 2 here is particularly important. You'll notice here that they 36
want to more appropriately balance the needs of congestion management and the word 37
management is specific here. It’s not congestion relief. The state’s not saying we need 38
to relieve congestion. We expect we expected to continue to grow, but we want to 39
manage that and balance it against our other objectives or values. And there's actually 40
three here: infill development, they want to encourage infill development. They want to 41
promote public health through active transportation, that's bicycling and walking. And 42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 19
they want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So we actually have three objectives 1
and when you think about the VMT metric it can be a proxy for all three. It's more useful 2
in the calculation of greenhouse gases from mobile sources. 3
4
There are other metrics that might be more meaningful for active transportation, modes 5
split for example or just the number of bicycle or walking trips. So while OPR is providing 6
us guidance on VMT the laws suggest there's at least three objectives you want to be 7
thinking about. So as you think about new transportation metrics you have the option to 8
follow the OPR guidance, but you can also develop your own method, your own metrics, 9
your own thresholds. Let’s go to the next slide. 10
11
Also I want to point out some things that 743 does not do because there's been a lot of 12
confusion within the transportation planning practice that somehow vehicle LOS has 13
gone away permanently and it really hasn't. Nothing in 743 has changed general plan 14
law, it hasn't changed the Constitution, it hasn't changed Subdivision Map Act or other 15
ways that a city or county can condition projects. So to the extent that vehicle LOS is still 16
important to a community you can continue to use it in all those different aspects of 17
your planning. And it's still a very useful metric when you're analyzing traffic operations 18
if you're using it to size your intersections your roadway segments and we've had a lot 19
of history with that. So a lot of cities and counties that rely on LOS what will likely 20
happen is they won't see it so often showing up in environmental documents, but it will 21
be a fundamental part of their general plan analysis or impact fee programs and we 22
have a number of jurisdictions we're already working with that intend to continue doing 23
both types of analysis. So it’s really important that we recognize it did not go away 24
entirely. It's still around for those communities that want to use it. 25
26
Now we do have some communities that are largely almost built out. They don't need to 27
continue expanding their own road network or they don't want to. And they are willing 28
to shift entirely to a VMT metric because they don't need to use the LOS metric 29
anymore. Let’s go to the next slide. 30
31
So if you don't remember anything else about the presentation remember this slide 32
because this is what 743 really does and what's probably the most important thing to 33
recognize and will be one of the challenges that cities have to deal with counties as well. 34
When you think about vehicle LOS and the way we mitigate for it the picture there of 35
mobility on the top is an intersection being expanded to accommodate a better LOS. 36
That's a pretty common outcome of using LOS as a CEQA metric. And developers have 37
become accustomed to that. They're used to paying to widen an intersection, install a 38
traffic signal or pay an impact fee that goes to widening the road system. 39
40
When you talk about VMT though the way you mitigate VMT for a project is you change 41
the project, you increase its density, you add more people to the site, you change the 42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 20
diversity of uses more mixed use type projects or you overlay a TDM program. This is 1
something that developers are still getting used to when you deal with VMT and other 2
aspects of an environmental impact document we already analyze it in the energy 3
section, the greenhouse gas section, and the air pollution section. In many of those 4
other sections though we can typically mitigate for example, with greenhouse gases 5
through offsets, we can offset the emissions associated with the mobile sources. When 6
you put VMT into the transportation section you have to physically reduce the VMT, 7
change the number of vehicle trips or shorten their length and that means changing the 8
project in some way, shape or form that's going to be different than what the developer 9
proposed. That's going to be a pretty big evolutionary change for a lot of cities and 10
counties and for the developers themselves that aren't used to having to change their 11
project based on what the traffic engineers or the transportation planners 12
recommended. 13
14
A couple of other things that are important here when you think about the other 15
aspects of 743 the you know encouraging the active transportation or infill it does 16
create a new dialogue about should we be analyzing the specific impacts to bikes and 17
peds differently and even safety a lot of communities that have LOS C or D thresholds 18
and don't have queuing at a lot of their intersections or their off ramps haven't really 19
thought as much about safety because they didn't have to deal with long queues in this 20
and the problems those might cause. By limiting LOS in the environmental document 21
now a lot of cities and counties are rethinking their processes to understand do we need 22
to look at safety a little differently. 23
24
As I mentioned earlier OPR is creating guidance. There's been two versions of that 25
guidance. The current version was out in January. This fall they expect to finalize that. 26
It'll go to the Natural Resources Agency for rulemaking. That takes about six months. 27
From that point forward it'll become law and they're probably going to include a two 28
year grace period before you're absolutely required to implement it. Now some 29
jurisdictions like San Francisco have already jumped to implementing it so they went 30
ahead and took OPRs January 20th guidelines and said we're going to use them as is. 31
32
And then the final thing I want to mention is this question of thresholds. That one is 33
going to be very important. Every city and county already has a VMT threshold based on 34
their general plan. When you adopted your general plan you decided how much 35
population, employment growth, and associated transportation infrastructure you felt 36
was necessary. When we run that through our models we end up coming out with VMT. 37
It's a composite metric. It comes out end of the process. So right now you have a budget 38
and one of the questions will be do you set a threshold based on your current general 39
plan because all projects need to be consistent with your general plan or do you follow 40
the guidance from OPR which suggest a 15 percent reduction in VMT per capita 41
compared to your baseline levels. And baseline under CEQA always changes. It’s tied to 42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 21
when a project’s actually proposed. So it's a pretty aggressive threshold that will be very 1
challenging for projects especially in rural or suburban areas, little easier here in the 2
urban areas where you have transit options and those kinds of things. So that's another 3
thing to keep in mind. 4
5
Now this is just been a very broad overview. I also teach an eight hour class on this so I 6
anticipate you might have some questions, but at this point I'll turn it back over to Josh 7
and the gang. Thank you. 8
9
Hugh – Alta Planning: I’m going to get closer, sorry. So switching gears a little bit I'm 10
going to talk to you a little about measuring bicycle and pedestrian comfort and stress 11
so switching from sort of thinking about the impacts to thinking about how do we 12
understand what makes people use active transportation modes and the ways you can 13
encourage that and understand better what drives those decisions really. And I think 14
overall the there's a sort of general trend this is sort of a piece of a larger trend where 15
folks are kind of recognizing the importance of measuring the way the transportation 16
system performs and needing to understand how the active transportation system 17
performs sort of on the same level as the way that the automobile the transportation 18
system focused on automobiles performs. 19
20
So starting with the same kind of LOS there's been a lot of work at the national level and 21
really a lot of states and cities and other agencies have thought about how do we bring 22
up bicycle and pedestrian travel to the same kind of level and transit as well and VTA 23
has some things that you've already seen that they're trying to do and sort of fit in that 24
same framework of LOS where you know A is a really good LOS and F. is terrible. And 25
they use sort of equivalent kinds of methods and approaches and really I think the 26
attempt here which has been driven like I say from a lot of different angles, but the 27
most recent stuff I guess is coming out of the Highway Capacity Manual and the 28
Transportation Research Board who do a lot of this kind of research. And so on the 29
bicycle side they're looking at things like driveways and volumes, speed, percentage of 30
heavy vehicles, and widths of lanes and things like that, parking, cross‐street widths, and 31
other similar kinds of things. And on the pedestrian side they're looking at things like 32
pedestrian density so how much space is there available for pedestrians traveling as well 33
as other kind of similar things as I mentioned on the bicycle side. 34
35
But most of these methods really kind of derive or kind of have been derived from 36
wanting to compare them essentially to the automobile side and really have that and in 37
a way that's a benefit, really have that kind of comparable grading system that you have 38
for automobiles. So if you take a road you can say this is an A for autos and an F 39
bicyclists or it's a B for autos and a C for bicycles or whatever kinds of things you might 40
want to look at there. So that's really it has an advantage, but it also has a little bit of a 41
disadvantage in that you're kind of focused on thinking about this one framework that 42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 22
maybe doesn't really relate to the way bicyclists and pedestrians use the transportation 1
system on a day to day basis. So certainly that comparability is good. Being able to 2
consider on the same level that interaction across modes can be kind of handy when 3
you're thinking about well, what choices do I have to make and ultimately that this is 4
what that comes down to. And then at a national level there's sort of some consistency 5
around this. 6
7
And then some of the cons that we kind of see the models that have been developed 8
have really been developed around arterials and major collectors primarily the analysis 9
that they've done, the data they've collected, they kind of show people these videos and 10
ask them to rate them. They’re all based on these sort of larger more significant streets 11
whereas the bicycle and pedestrian system especially really the local streets, the paths, 12
the other kinds of elements of that system that make it a complete system are pretty 13
important elements in it and it's important to sort of think about your measures of 14
bicycle comfort and pedestrian comfort taking into account the whole system. 15
16
I just wanted to kind of flash up a couple quick examples that we have. These are 17
actually from Jacksonville and they just show you kind of the idea here which is pretty 18
understandable and straightforward. So you take the system, you rate it, you get a 19
rating from A to F, you can kind of see ok well these are where we have parts of the 20
system that maybe don't work so well for bicyclists or pedestrians. And you still have to 21
ask the question: well does that matter, right? Are these parts of the system you want 22
to work well, are there alternatives, are the places you might want to look? And then 23
you'll notice this is very much focused on a high level. This is again back up at that kind 24
of arterial collector kind of level and then a similar thing at the pedestrian level. And of 25
course you can zoom in, you can try and rate stuff in a more detailed way, but this sort 26
of big picture understanding of these are the parts of the system that work well or don't 27
work well. And at some level that's kind of effective, right? Because then you've taken 28
these kinds of methods and you started to understand how you can use them or should 29
understand what your system looks like. So that’s something you think about. 30
31
A couple other quick examples on the left we have an example from Charlotte. They 32
have a different approach to measuring LOS and really what they're trying to do is look 33
at well, if we're doing a roadway project how does that impact bicyclists and 34
pedestrians? So how do we take the features of that project and say these aren’t good 35
and this is an example of kind of slip lanes and if you're putting those in if you have 36
those how can you adjust them in a way that is better for bicyclists and pedestrians? 37
And so they score their projects. They kind of give them points based on that and that 38
example is in your in the packet you got. And then on the right there's an example from 39
San Francisco that really is very similar to LOS. They use a variety of different kind of 40
factors that go beyond I would say what the LOS metrics use. So they look at 41
intersection safety, they look at traffic kind of issues, they also look at street design, 42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 23
they look at land use, and they consider kind of perceived safety types of issues and in 1
the end they have 31 different indicators which is probably more than most people are 2
going to want to look at when they're thinking about this type of analysis. 3
4
So that's kind of the LOS/MMLOS part of this. It's a method it's again it's been a lot of 5
research has gone into it and there's a great understanding and use of that I think and 6
there are quite a few states like Florida and others that have their own LOS manuals 7
that they require that include looking at pedestrians and bicyclists and transit in 8
addition to thinking about automobiles. And that's a great evolution, but then sort of a 9
further evolution on that that's a little bit more recent that started down here at San 10
Jose State is this kind of level of traffic stress concept. And the concept’s not necessarily 11
all that different from LOS, but the real issue here is trying to relate these levels of 12
traffic stress to the types of users. And so you know the Roger Keller has these four 13
types of bicyclists that have been identified from the sort of strong and fearless, they're 14
a small part of the population who will ride on an arterial 45/55 miles an hour doesn't 15
care, all the way down to the people who say of course I will never ride a bicycle ever. 16
And really the key observation he makes I think which is really useful is there's this very 17
large portion of the population that might be willing to ride, but is concerned and is 18
going to want to ride on facilities that are lower stress. And so trying to relate an 19
analysis to these different concepts so from the strong and fearless through the kind of 20
enthused and confident who will ride on many facilities if not the very worst to those 21
who are these interested but concerned and then these are facilities that are for most 22
adults all the way down to facilities that you would let your children ride on without 23
concern. So I’m trying to make that connection is probably the key evolution I think of 24
the level of traffic stress. 25
26
And it’s something that using an example again from San Jose where you kind of rate 27
each of these roads and now you're looking at a kind of broader set of roads and what 28
you're really looking for are where are these gaps. So you can kind of see the green 29
areas are areas where there's connectivity across the different or within the network so 30
you can make a movement at a very low level of stress. And then where you see the 31
darker colors you're seeing where there are issues and there are gaps in between those 32
parts of the network. And that's really what it helps you do, it helps you start to see 33
these kinds of gaps in the network for bicyclists really from that perspective. And there 34
are similar kind of simplified LOS metrics I would say that you can do on the pedestrian 35
side as well that really try to look at what is that kind of connectivity of the system. 36
37
So the other evolution that we've worked on recently that I think is pretty interesting 38
and worth looking at is taking that level of traffic stress concept and thinking not just 39
about ok, where do we have connected low stress networks which is great, but how do 40
people use the transportation system especially from a bicycling perspective. So keeping 41
in mind these same kind of low stress facilities and taking into account research that 42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 24
comes out of Portland State that looks at what people's perceptions are when they're 1
bicycling of the distance that they travel. And so you can see if you're traveling on a very 2
high stress street so that's that red arc there, it's a much longer perceived distance and 3
there's a lot of great research that kind of shows this difference as opposed if you're 4
traveling on a very low stress street where you might actually believe the distance to be 5
less. So over here on the right you can kind of see a protected bike lane, maybe that's a 6
one, that's sort of a mile is a mile; whereas a buffer bike lane actually that I think those 7
should be reversed there, sorry. It is a little less than one, a bike boulevard also a little 8
less than one, and a path a good deal less than one. So you're traveling a mile, but you 9
think you're traveling .84 miles, right? That's kind of the concept there as it's applied. 10
11
And so what we've done and for those of you who've seen the Google Bike Network, the 12
Google Bike Vision Plan is do some analysis that essentially routes people through the 13
network to understand how their level of stress impacts their likelihood of riding 14
essentially. And so we have these very colorful maps and there are a whole bunch of 15
them and there's more work related to this that we've been working on since then that 16
starts to get at how far out can you travel and have a low stress journey. 17
18
And so we've looked at this in a variety of different ways. One simple way is this kind of 19
total stress map. So it shows you obviously as you get further away you have greater 20
stress, right? There's just a function of distance being a big part of stress as a bicyclist 21
because you're having to deal with some situations even if they're relatively low stress, 22
but then you can also look at the average stress. So given a point that you start from is 23
that stress kind of relatively less or more than other similarly distanced points, right? So 24
normalizing it by distance or the other thing that we've done recently that we find very 25
useful is to compare it, normalize it basically by the lowest possible stress. So let's say 26
that route was a path the whole way with no interruptions, right? That way the lowest 27
stress route so how would you make that comparison? And that's pretty helpful for sort 28
of understanding where are there kind of pockets of people especially for a project like 29
this where you are looking at a specific destination or set of destinations where you 30
could identify low stress networks or with some projects you could create low stress 31
networks and that would get a lot more people bicycling because there's a very good 32
kind of research that shows that if you have these lower stress networks you'll get more 33
people out there bicycling. So that's kind of the basic concept there and the variety of 34
different things we also have maps that kind of show the routing algorithms and other 35
kinds of things that we could share with you. And some of that is in your packet as part 36
of that plan. 37
38
And then the last thing I wanted to show quickly which is an example that we've done 39
recently, this was actually adopted by the city of Cupertino last week which we're very 40
happy about. And it was to inform their most recent bicycle plan update and essentially 41
what we did was we looked at for the existing network how do you if you pick a set of 42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 25
destinations and the destinations were some key employment centers which you can 1
probably imagine what those are as well as kind of the civic center area, some of the 2
neighborhood movements, and some of the most important kind of school based 3
movements and you look at a map like this for each one and understand where those 4
pockets of high stress, where the pockets of low stress, where if we put some project in 5
would we be addressing multiple different pockets of high stress and that would allow 6
you to sort of get your biggest bang for your buck in terms of making those 7
improvements. So that's kind of some of the most recent research and efforts that are 8
going on out there as they relate to bicycle and pedestrian comfort. 9
10
Mr. Mello: Great, thank you everyone. We are available for questions/comments. 11
Anyone that I introduced is available so if you have a specific question chances are we 12
have someone who can answer it for you. 13
14
Chair Fine: Great, thank you so much this is a lot of information to go over, but I think 15
it's really helpful for the Commission and the City. Before we go to our own comments 16
and questions we have a public speaker. 17
18
Vice‐Chair Gardias: Thank you. So we have a public speaker with a familiar name, Arthur 19
Keller. 20
21
Arthur Keller: Thank you, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. A couple things to point out, so 22
first of all I'm not speaking on behalf of any official capacity; however, I will point out 23
that at the most recent meeting of the CAC for the Comprehensive Plan the member, 24
the voting members of the CAC did unanimously in the straw poll agree that we should 25
retain a vehicle LOS as part of the process of evaluating projects. So there was a Motion 26
to that effect and then we also in terms of retaining that as a policy and also with 27
respect to a program we wanted the thresholds to be updated. And I'm going to speak a 28
little bit to the issue of thresholds. 29
30
So one interesting thing is when I served on your body I reviewed, my colleagues then 31
reviewed the Stanford Medical Center project to expand that. And one of things that I 32
was fascinated about was that most of the traffic impacts for Stanford Medical Center 33
expansion were in Menlo Park and very few of the impacts of traffic were in Palo Alto 34
which kind of flies in the face of expected reality. And that's because Menlo Park’s LOS 35
thresholds are much more strict than Palo Alto’s LOS thresholds. We consider a four 36
second delay to be acceptable while they consider .8 second delay to be acceptable. We 37
basically talk about thresholds from changing from D to E and to F. Well, as was 38
mentioned in the materials on many intersections they want D and or even C on local 39
intersections. So I think it makes sense to think about adopting the LOS thresholds from 40
Menlo Park to the, when, as we update our thresholds. And I think that this is a long 41
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 26
time in coming because frankly we should have had impacts of Stanford Medical Center 1
expansion mean improvements to our Palo Alto streets and that did not happen. 2
3
I do see understand that the as was mentioned the LOS is not going to be part of CEQA 4
so we will need a separate process for handling that and I think that's worthwhile 5
considering and how to do that. So I realize as study sessions you won't be considering 6
this in terms in particular detail in terms of proposals, but for thinking about how we 7
integrate LOS us into a development analysis project independent of CEQA is a 8
worthwhile consideration. And I do think that that is a question that you may wish to 9
ask of the presenters for the study session. Thank you for the opportunity to address 10
you at this time and I look forward to hearing this discussion and your deliberations. 11
Thank you. 12
13
Vice‐Chair Gardias: Thank you. 14
15
Chair Fine: Thank you, Mr. Keller. I'd like to open it up for questions or comments from 16
anyone up here. Commissioner Rosenblum. 17
18
Commissioner Rosenblum: First just in the spirit of study session and I'm happy to learn 19
more so thank you. Question about VMT models: how mature are they? So I find VMT as 20
a concept to be a little bit unintuitive i.e. LOS is very easy for me to imagine that a 21
project would or would not hit a certain threshold. So I can understand how many 22
vehicles pumped through a certain size road, can see the impact of that. VMT feels less 23
intuitive although I understand the concept of VMT. So I guess the question is how do 24
you validate and test and how consistent are these models now? So has there been a 25
coalescing of different cities around standard models and has there been fairly good 26
research to back up the validity of the model? 27
28
Mr. Milam: The simple answer is that we've had VMT being produced by travel 29
forecasting models ever since the Clean Air Act. We need for air pollution analysis, we 30
need it for greenhouse gas analysis, and it's also the same models that produce the 31
individual intersection volumes for LOS analysis. So the models have been around a long 32
time. What's happening with 743 they're being put under a spotlight asking those kinds 33
of exact questions: how do we know if they're valid, what form of VMT are we looking 34
at, total VMT, VMT generated per capita. For the public often times if you talk about 35
VMT they don't have a point of reference. They know maybe how many miles they 36
travel in their car in a given year. I might travel 12,000 miles in a year. That's a point of 37
reference, but a lot of the ways we express the metric in transportation planning or air 38
quality analysis is a little bit of a foreign concept. 39
40
So the models are valid and in fact if you think about what we have to do at the regional 41
level with our models for air quality conformity there have been a lot of rules and 42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 27
regulations about how we go about creating those models, putting them through testing 1
to verify that they're actually valid for that purpose, but there are some changes. One of 2
the things that the governor's OPR has recommended in their guidelines is that when 3
you analyze VMT for a land use project for example right here in Palo Alto that you do 4
what I would call a full accounting of the VMT, that you don't truncate trips at the edge 5
of your political boundary. That tends to suggest we need to use regional models and 6
track the trips to their end point. You could even go farther in that and say well a 7
regional model has a boundary, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) 8
model or the VTA model here have boundaries, and there are trips that cross over those 9
boundaries into the Valley for example. So the CEQA purists and some of the lawyers 10
will tell you better chase that trip even outside the model boundary if you're using a 11
regional model. Those are be some of the questions that will end up debating, but I 12
think you can be pretty certain that using a local city model that is literally has its limits 13
at your political boundary that would not be appropriate. It would tend to be too 14
limiting in terms of keeping track of the full length of the trip. 15
16
Commissioner Rosenblum: So two quick follow up questions. So first could you just 17
elaborate a little bit more on how the models are validated? So you made a statement 18
these models been around for a long time they have been validated. I’d love just know 19
how they, how you actually validate. So what methodologies have been used? 20
21
And then my second follow up question just to anticipate is and I don’t know if you 22
know the answer to this one, but someone sitting at this table probably does. In Palo 23
Alto when we do VMT studies does do we end at our political boundaries normally? But 24
first question first. 25
26
Mr. Milam: Ok. Yes, so when we evaluate a model and I'm specifically talking about 27
what I’m calling travel forecasting models. We have lots of models in transportation 28
planning and traffic engineering industry and so when you think about LOS that's a 29
traffic operations model. We actually use the travel forecasting model to come up with 30
the traffic volumes that are used as inputs to the traffic operations model. So the way to 31
validate a travel forecasting model there’s a number of different tests we can do. I tend 32
to break them up into two categories, what I'll call static test, those are statistical test to 33
compare the model’s outputs to things we can go measure on the ground. A roadway a 34
traffic count, an intersection traffic count, and there should be a relatively close match. 35
But we also have dynamic validation tests and those are really more important because 36
that's how we use models. We change the inputs and we expect an output change. And 37
so we'll do certain testing. We’ll increase land use or we’ll change a link in the network, 38
we’ll add lanes to it and we expect the model to change in the appropriate direction and 39
magnitude. So those are the two kind of basic tests and whether or not you pass those 40
test depends on what the purpose is and what entity is governing that particular model. 41
So here in California one of the basic set of guidelines we use at the California Regional 42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 28
Transportation Plan Guidelines Chapter 3 has complete model documentation on all the 1
validation tests that are appropriate for regional models and they extend those test to 2
local models like your own city model or doing a model for a local project. 3
4
Now with regards to VMT one of the benchmarks tends to be comparing the VMT 5
results from a model to a database of VMT estimates that comes from the federal and 6
state governments based on traffic counts. It's called the Highway Performance 7
Monitoring System (HPMS), HPMS for short. That's also just another model though. So 8
anytime you're comparing models I get little nervous. So one of things we've started to 9
do is use big data. We can actually use cellphone data, mobile device data for example, 10
to track you. All legally by the way, there's a lot of privacy protection. And use that to 11
verify trip links from particular origins or destinations. And you can get pretty accurate 12
with that. You can get down to a 250 meter grid cell. So if you wanted to figure out 13
Trader Joe's what's their typical trip length? We could figure that out. And VMT is simply 14
a calculation when you talk about individual land use project of trip generation 15
multiplied by the trip lengths. So those are just some of the ways we go about the 16
validation process and I'll leave the question of Palo Alto specific to anybody else in the 17
room that wants it. 18
19
Ms. Gitelman: Thank you for that question. We did in the Comp Plan EIR do an analysis 20
of VMT and our consultant used our model which synced with the regional model. So it 21
was looking at origins and destinations in the region to calculate the VMT attributable to 22
our project. 23
24
Commissioner Rosenblum: So, on a project level when projects come before this body 25
and we have to calculate impact and there's a VMT study then generally would expect 26
the standard to be used is regional? 27
28
Ms. Gitelman: I'm guessing yes, but we haven't crossed that bridge yet. I mean we really 29
haven't started doing this type of analysis on a project basis yet. 30
31
Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok. Yeah, those are my only questions for now. I'll wait to 32
see if other colleagues have questions. 33
34
Chair Fine: Thank you, Commissioner Rosenblum. Vice‐Chair. 35
36
Vice‐Chair Gardias: Thank you. So this session is very, very useful because more we're 37
going to talk probably we're going to get to the enlightenment point. We're going to get 38
to your level of understanding and expertise. So feel free just to because there are so 39
many experts in this room so any comment from your side would be appreciated. So if 40
we may, maybe just rolled in the session to be more interactive that would be great, it 41
would be better for this Commission. 42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 29
I have a couple of questions. So I think that I'm just getting after these comments to the 1
understanding that under CEQA each project needs to consider options. So there is a 2
possibility that under the traffic studies there may be decision under CEQA to select 3
some other option as opposed to the first one that was first one that was put on the 4
table because that VMT impact would be so great for the option number one that 5
preferred option three would jump immediately to the top of the line. So it's I think that 6
this is just I’m getting to the understanding so and I see shaking heads so that looks like 7
yes, right? 8
9
Mr. Mello: If I could jump in and then hand it off to Ron. So currently with a TIA that's 10
focused on just LOS. A project is conceived and planned and designed and then the 11
impacts to the roadway network are looked at and there's mitigation measures that are 12
identified. I think with the SB 743 changes there's going to be more of an iterative 13
process where a project is conceived you start to look at what the VMT generation is 14
going to be, how long the trips are going to be, what the trip generation rate’s going to 15
be, and then there have to be a kind of a back and forth about design changes that can 16
be made to the project. Are there transit expansions that could be done, Transportation 17
Demand Management (TDM) programs, land use decisions that may need to be 18
rethought in order to either reduce trip lengths or reduce the number of trips coming 19
and going and coming from that development. 20
21
Mr. Milam: Yeah and there's a little bit of a nuance with CEQA as it relates to 22
alternatives and also your requirements for mitigation so if a project does have a 23
significant VMT impact what CEQA requires is you are obligated to mitigate to the 24
extent feasible. Now that to the extent feasible is typically at the discretion of the lead 25
agency. You’re the judge of what's feasible in your community. That can be challenged 26
in court and the lawyers could spend lots of time on that, but that's kind of the basic 27
way it works. Also if you have a significant impact and you're developing project 28
alternatives the idea of developing alternatives is to eliminate or minimize those 29
significant impacts. So it's very likely that in crafting new alternatives if you know you 30
have a significant VMT impact you might want one of those alternatives to be maybe a 31
different design or different land use concept that is specifically targeted at reducing 32
VMT because it will reduce the significant impact. 33
34
Vice‐Chair Gardias: Thank you. And another question from a… yes, please. 35
36
Ms. Gitelman: I just wanted to add one more thought on this issue. I just wanted to 37
clarify that alternatives analysis is an important part of CEQA. It really comes into play 38
when you have a significant impact, when you expect you're going to have a significant 39
impact. So we will often do TIAs and have a CEQA analysis conducted for projects that at 40
the end of the day we discover we can mitigate the impacts. So you're not going to get 41
to the level of significance where you would be forced in an EIR context to analyze 42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 30
alternatives. So the kind of the first line of inquiry is around mitigation and then you get 1
to the alternatives question. 2
3
Vice‐Chair Gardias: Of course. I totally understand this, but then just giving the project 4
that we're just looking into Facebook expansion having this residential development in 5
some other area you would potentially find that this would create large impacts from 6
VMT perspective and for this reason you may suggest locating this campus expansion in 7
a different area that would be significant change, right? 8
9
Ms. Gitelman: Yes, certainly with a project of that scale alternatives are an important 10
inquiry. 11
12
Vice‐Chair Gardias: So a question from a different perspective, understanding VMT and 13
how you're tracking this is there a correlation with the desire to start taxing the car trips 14
based on the mileage knowing that there is a declining revenue from the taxation on 15
gasoline? Is there a correlation between this two? 16
17
Mr. Milam: There's a correlation. It’s not direct. The, you have the challenge of the gas 18
tax being a declining revenue source because of improved mileage and how it hasn't 19
been adjusted for inflation and so a VMT or a road user charge has been in 20
consideration. In fact there's a pilot test going on here in California right now. And so it 21
is related in that there is kind of this objective at the state level to reduce VMT. And the 22
idea is if you reduce VMT you achieve lots of different goals. You reduce greenhouse 23
gases, you reduce air pollutants, you reduce the cost of traveling, you potentially reduce 24
the impact of pavement, you potentially reduce the level of congestion that would 25
otherwise occur if there's less people out driving around. 26
27
So it's all related from the high level state policies, but how VMT is actually being used 28
can be very different depending on the purpose. Even something as simple as an EIR I 29
mentioned there's now going to be four sections of the EIR that has to use VMT the 30
energy, greenhouse gases, air quality, and transportation. Right now we actually analyze 31
VMT differently in the greenhouse gas section then we do in the air pollution section 32
depending on the pollutant. If you're worried about carbon monoxide we actually look 33
at that right around intersections and sensitive receptors. We don't look at the regional 34
VMT like we would for greenhouse gases. So depending on what you're doing there's 35
lots of ways to analyze VMT and it may even be expressed in a different form like I said 36
VMT per capita or per service population. Lots of different ways you might use it. 37
38
Vice‐Chair Gardias: Thank you. And the last question relates to those to the use of those 39
two measures. How suspecting that we may recommend retaining and using both for 40
some period of time how one would translate to the other one? 41
42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 31
Mr. Milam: Yeah, now that's a really good question because they measure two different 1
things. Vehicle LOS is measuring traffic operations and it's largely measured from the 2
driver's perspective. You have to remember that, that's the focus doesn't tell you thing 3
about the bicyclists or the pedestrians and what they're perceiving as they travel across 4
the network. And VMT you can think of it as more of an efficiency metric especially if it's 5
expressed as VMT per capita. You can compare different geographic areas and tell 6
something about how much they had they have to travel by vehicle and so it's 7
measuring something very different and it's directly related also to the air pollutants 8
and greenhouse gases, but when you think about having both metrics and putting it in 9
the context of a city you have to think about your community values. 10
11
And if you think about your general plan, the goals and the policies in plan, they’re an 12
expression of your community values. What are you trying to create? What are you 13
trying to protect? What are you trying to avoid? And where does vehicle LOS rank in 14
terms of your values versus VMT reduction? Which one ranks highest? Because if one 15
outranks the other then when you set thresholds it has to be quite clear which one wins 16
if there is competition or a conflict. In fact our general plans have to be internally 17
consistent. So you couldn't pick two different thresholds that actually competed. You 18
need to resolve that at the general plan level so when individual projects come in it's 19
quite clear whether or not they're going to have an impact or not. And what happens in 20
a lot of communities is it comes down to where does the value of driving really fit within 21
the community? 22
23
Some communities are much more spread out. They're very dependent being able to 24
get around in an automobile and the value they place on vehicle LOS will be much 25
higher. Other places would like to have more travel choices. They’re, they tend to be 26
more compact, they tend to be more urban, more dense, you have more travel choices 27
and so they might lean towards VMT reduction being a more important goal. And 28
there's not one size fits all in a state as big as California. And that's one of the challenges 29
that OPR has run into in putting out a threshold guidance recommendation that says 15 30
percent below the existing VMT per capita. That's tough if you don't have those travel 31
choice options because land uses are spread far apart or you don't have the bus service 32
to connect you. 33
34
Vice‐Chair Gardias: Right, and I understand this goal of 15 percent reduction, but 35
observing traffic increase and the congestion in the Bay Area it's a no brainer to us, 36
right? It keeps increasing, going up and up. So that is I just maybe hopeful, but very 37
skeptical about achieving this reduction because giving the population growth, 38
Facebook expansion, and farther development in all the adjacent municipalities I can 39
see that pretty much the traffic will be constantly increasing regardless of this 15 40
percent goal reduction. 41
42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 32
Mr. Milam: Yes (interrupted) 1
2
Mr. Mello: If I could just jump in and address the earlier point? One of the other things 3
that the OPR guidance includes is a requirement to analyze induced demand. And so 4
there's a large body of evidence that shows that the easier it is for folks to drive the 5
longer distances they’ll travel and the more often they'll drive. So there could be a direct 6
or an inverse correlation between making improvements related to improving the LOS 7
and an increase in VMT because the easier you make it for people to travel during the 8
peak hour the more likely they are to use a motor vehicle to make a trip that they may 9
use another mode for. So I don’t know, Ron you want to talk a little bit about the 10
induced demand guidelines? 11
12
Mr. Milam: Yeah, it's a topic that came up not just through OPR, but through California 13
Department of Transportation (Caltrans). So we just finished a white paper for Caltrans 14
they're rewriting all of their transportation analysis guidance right now including their 15
Transportation Impact Study Guidelines for purposes of CEQA compliance. That's 16
something that I'm directly working on. And the induced travel there’s a white paper it’s 17
published now. It’s available through their website and we can share that with you if 18
you want to get into the details, but Josh is right that basically especially in urban 19
congested areas it's very difficult to add any kind of roadway supply or make some type 20
of modification to the network that would lower travel times that wouldn't just induce 21
new traffic that would fill that space back up. And it used to be in looking at older 22
research it would take a few years for the new lanes to fill up a combination of 23
population employment growth plus existing people just making more trips, but if you 24
followed some of the news the 405 High‐Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane in Southern 25
California, Katy Freeway in Texas, I think it’s I‐25 in Denver, some of these projects are 26
now filling up in one or two years because there's that much latent demand that wants 27
to get out there and drive if you if you make it easier to drive. So that is a consideration. 28
29
And OPR makes it pretty clear in their guidance that if you are building a general what 30
they call a general purpose lane on a freeway or a major arterial that those are of the 31
types of projects likely to have a significant impact. But they also acknowledge that 32
transit bike and ped projects are likely not to have significant impacts. So that helps in 33
those places that want to pursue the active transportation projects, but the bar is going 34
to be held a little bit higher on those bigger freeway or roadway projects. 35
36
The other contacts that we've worked with Caltrans on is whether in the Bay Area or 37
Southern California you'll hear typically congestion is a problem. And I'm not going to 38
disagree with that, but I would append it to say congestion is a problem, but it's also a 39
symptom of poor seat utilization caused by the fact we don't price travel. We basically 40
have every morning and evening peak period where we have our roadway system 41
oversubscribed by folks because the cost of travel just isn't high enough to avoid that 42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 33
peak. The only real pricing we have is I’ll call it shadow pricing. It’s the travel time 1
penalty you have to experience if you decide to travel in the peaks. And if you look at 2
our freeway system we don't utilize it very well. That seat utilization issue is a really big 3
deal because we have thousands of empty seats every morning and evening. So if you 4
filled up the seats you wouldn't have the congestion problem or the degradation in 5
travel flow that we experience. So for agencies like Caltrans that own and operate a big 6
say, highway system those are some of the questions they're facing is do we continue to 7
expand the system which is expensive, has environmental impacts, and other issues or 8
do we find a way to take advantage of the system we've already built and just operate it 9
in a wiser way. 10
11
Vice‐Chair Gardias: Right. Thank you very much for your time and I see that my 12
colleagues have questions, but before I just give up my microphone I remember and this 13
is exactly on in regards to the comment that you made, I still remember the comment 14
that back then our Chairman Greg Tanaka made when we were reviewing a 15
Transportation Management Association (TMA) program that was aiming 30 percent 16
reduction. We're here requested to change the objective of this program to incentive 17
from perspective as opposed to the restriction and that was the perception of the 18
Commission that we believe that it's better to incentivize or create incentives to change 19
from the car to other modes of transportation as opposed to restrict folks because that 20
may not be the right way of resolving things. And thank you very much for time. 21
22
Chair Fine: Thank you. Commissioner Waldfogel, I think you were next. 23
24
Commissioner Waldfogel: Thank you. Thank you for the report. This raises a lot of 25
interesting questions and ideas, but what I'd really like to get at is I think there's a sense 26
among residents in the community that their subjective experience with travel whether 27
it's local travel or regional travel is a lot worse than the data reflects. I mean I know that 28
if I want to San Francisco for 7:00 p.m. I leave at 4:30 now instead of 5:30 or getting 29
across town at 5:00 p.m. can be an interesting project. And we all wear different hats, I 30
mean sometimes we're cyclists, sometimes we’re pedestrians, sometimes we’re drivers. 31
It depends on the mission, it depends on the task at hand, depends on the urgency. I 32
think what's missing in this is we need to find a way to explain to the community what 33
are reasonable expectations over the next 10 years? 34
35
I can't really read into this. I understand that under CEQA we’ll pivot to VMT. Clearly 36
we’ll do that. We’ll probably retain LOS in some other frameworks, but I don't think the 37
community has a good sense of what the experience will be if you live in pick your 38
favorite street and you need to commute to work or go to the supermarket or go to San 39
Francisco or any of these missions what are reasonable expectations? So how do we 40
communicate that? Because it's really hard for me to look at this, this is a big stack of 41
documents a lot of really good science and I don't want to get into the situation of 42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 34
saying what do I believe the science or my lying eyes, but I mean what just what's your 1
sense about how we talk about this so that we don't have 10 or 15 years of regret, 2
remorse, disappointment. We don't have people saying oh look, we've approved 77 3
projects and the cumulative impact was supposed to be minimal, but in fact it's if you 4
look at the actual data from 2000 versus 2016 the cumulative impact is ginormous. So 5
how do we actually do this in a way that captures experience? So I don’t know who 6
wants to touch that one. 7
8
Mr. Mello: I’ll start and I think Hillary will probably want to jump in too. I think without a 9
doubt we can say that we experience congestion in Palo Alto especially during the peak 10
hour. I think the rapidity of the increasing congestion is really what is frustrating people. 11
Areas that have been congested for long periods of time, decades, I think people grow 12
more accustomed to congestion and they find alternative means to move around. I 13
think we have folks in the community that remember when it was relatively easy to get 14
around and we didn't have the economic growth and the robust economy that we have 15
today. I mean congestion at the end of the day is really related to economic growth 16
(interrupted) 17
18
Commissioner Waldfogel: But doesn't this say that we have unmitigated impact or is 19
that just something that we should have expected along the way? I mean I think that's 20
where the gap is because I think we're all admitting that the experience is worse now 21
than it used to be. But is that something that should have been mitigated along the way 22
and we need to go back and fix that or do we just say hey, we just should have 23
understood that's what would happen? 24
25
Mr. Mello: I don't think it's a uniquely Palo Alto situation. I think the whole Bay Area 26
right now is struggling with massive amounts of freeway and surface street congestion. 27
More so than people experienced even a decade ago. It's related to the growth in the 28
economy. I think we need to start to measure the expectations a little bit and I don't 29
think outside of some great economic shift that we're going to see immediate 30
congestion relief and we're going to be able to go back to a place where people no 31
longer are concerned about congestion. 32
33
Commissioner Waldfogel: But how do we tell this to people? I mean if the reasonable 34
expectation is that between now and 2040 sort of given levels of road investment, 35
transit investment, economic growth, etcetera that it'll take in 2040 it'll take two hours 36
to get across town or four hours to get to San Francisco. Basically it’ll be faster to walk 37
than to than to drive. I mean if that's where we're headed how do we depict that to 38
people so people can make rational choices? 39
40
Mr. Mello: So I think if that is where we're headed we need to really start to think about 41
what are the impacts to neighborhoods? Are we experiencing regional traffic on local 42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 35
neighborhoods? Is that something we focus on trying to stem that growth. Do we start 1
to really provide travel alternatives for people that are realistic, transit and active 2
transportation and (interrupted) 3
4
Commissioner Waldfogel: Yes, but that’s great, but I mean we're like $2 billion dollars 5
behind regionally on transit investment and we can't fix that on an agency basis, 6
probably more than $2 billion. So I’m just sort of saying what I'm trying to drive at is sort 7
of what do? I mean how do we set expectations so five years from now whoever 8
happens to be sitting on this Commission isn't getting basically isn’t getting a bunch of 9
people with spears demanding redress? 10
11
Ms. Gitelman: Maybe I can chime in. I mean I guess my I've been doing this for a long 12
time now and I have been working professionally in the Bay Area through several 13
economic cycles it's been so long. And I remember for example when I started working 14
in San Francisco we were using an office employment density of about 235 square feet 15
(sf) per employee. I mean it was boom times in San Francisco. And then we went into an 16
economic downturn and it became quite defensible even kind of optimistic to be using 17
an employment office density of about 310 sf per employee. So that was a change in 18
probably I don't know the first five or six years of my professional career in San 19
Francisco and that just shows you how big an economic swing can be. And I think the 20
same is true in traffic. 21
22
I think if I look forward 40 years I'm expecting that between now and the 40 year period 23
we're going to see ups and downs. We're going to see periods where traffic is not as bad 24
as it is now. We're going to see periods where traffic is worse. In some periods we're 25
going to see lengthening the peak so that horrible congestion that drives you nuts in the 26
rush hour is not just going to be the rush hour, but it's going to be the shoulders of the 27
rush hour. But there are going to be other times and other changes in the way we work 28
in the way we think about travel and time of day and all that stuff that will result in 29
other changes. So and that's with or without additional square footage, additional 30
population. I think these changes are so related to the economic cycles that and how we 31
how we work and kind of when we make our trips that it's going to fluctuate over time. 32
33
Commissioner Waldfogel: Yes. Well and I don't battle that. It's this is really just a point 34
that we need to find language, nontechnical language, that we can use to explain to 35
people what are reasonable expectations. And I think that's something that's really been 36
missing from this process. I mean we have this great technical document that describes 37
and we’ve seen numerous traffic studies, intersection studies, and we have other 38
phenomenon going on here like Waze which is moving traffic off arterials onto side 39
streets and we could have a policy debate about whether that's a good idea or a bad 40
idea, but it's a fact. And I just get the sense that there's a disconnect between what the 41
technical traffic community is doing and what the public perceives. And this study 42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 36
session should be an opportunity to close that gap and I welcome just some thoughts on 1
that. 2
3
Mr. Milam: Yes, you hit on a topic that is resonating not just here in California, but 4
around the country. The expectation that we continue to run into in most urban areas is 5
travel time reliability. People are willing to accept ok better economy there's going to be 6
some congestion, but I need to plan my day. I need to plan my schedule. I need to get 7
my kids to school or to soccer practice. I need to get to work or an important meeting 8
and I need to understand what my travel choices are and need to understand the 9
reliability. So that puts it back on the technical folks like myself to think about well how 10
can we do that? And when we think about that it is through better data, through better 11
models which we do have access to, but it's also part of the conversation you have when 12
you do your general plan updates going back to the expectations. What are the 13
expectations for what travel markets you want to serve? Do you want to serve people 14
just moving around Palo Alto? Do you want to be able to serve people that want to go 15
from Palo Alto to San Francisco? 16
17
A lot of the way LOS analysis has worked up to this point is we chase bottlenecks. We 18
look at an intersection, it's congested, we try to fix the intersection. We never stop to 19
ask the question who's traveling through that intersection? Who do we want to 20
prioritize traveling through that intersection? Should we travel by, should we prioritize 21
the bikes getting through the intersection or the cars? So what’s happening in a lot of 22
communities now is they're asking those kinds of expectation questions. Who do we 23
expect to serve and what should they expect in terms of reliability in their in their travel 24
day so they can appropriately schedule. 25
26
Commissioner Waldfogel: So to not beat a dead horse I think if there are technical ways 27
to capture those ideas about reliability and maybe feed those into this process I think 28
that would be incredibly helpful. I don't know whether LOS or VMT or something else. 29
30
Mr. Milam: It tends to be… 31
32
Commissioner Waldfogel: This isn’t the right way, think about it, but (interrupted) 33
34
Mr. Milam: Yes it tends to be travel time related. In fact, Caltrans has something called 35
the Smart Mobility Framework. They’re actually doing a learning network this year. They 36
were going around to their different districts and teaching people about what that 37
particular process looks like, but instead of looking at just vehicle LOS they look at six 38
different principles including equity, the environment, the economy, and trying to look 39
at all those things that are important to communities. And travel time reliability is one 40
of the calculations you can do and you can do that for the city residents, you could do 41
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 37
that for the employees, you could do that for the region. There's a lot of different ways 1
to break that up. 2
3
Commissioner Waldfogel: And that doesn't have to be biased by modality, but anyhow 4
just please consider thinking about those kind of metrics. 5
6
Mr. Mello: Certainly. I neglected to mention at the opening that we're taking all of this 7
feedback and we're going to be going to your City Council in September with the same 8
presentation so we can certainly incorporate any ideas you have as to how to have that 9
discussion or Council as well. 10
11
Ms. Gitelman: There's one kind of tangentially related topic that I wanted to make sure 12
we raise which is we have actually funded in last year's budget update to the nexus 13
study that helps us establish a transportation impact fee. So we have several impact 14
fees that apply to different areas of Palo Alto. We're trying to simplify that a little, but 15
also update the fees. And it's an opportunity because this whole world of methodology 16
and different types of analysis is changing. It's an opportunity for us to think about what 17
we want those fees to address. What are the impacts that we're really trying to address 18
and whether we want to focus our program on traffic calming on the experiential aspect 19
of this that you're raising and I think that's going to be a really interesting line of inquiry 20
if we, as we go forward to start the study. 21
22
Commissioner Waldfogel: Great, thank you. 23
24
Chair Fine: Thank you. Commissioner Tanaka. 25
26
Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you for this update actually in general I think this seems to 27
be headed the right direction. It seems like it's considering more of the factors and while 28
not perfect I think it is definitely better. I do have a few questions which is, my colleague 29
asked about kind of like the models you guys are using. You kind of explained about 30
that, but one thing you didn't talk about that I was interested in is and I like how you 31
guys are actually measuring against reality which I think is a really good policy, but what 32
can you speak about what are the error rates you get? Like how different is the model 33
from actual reality? Can you speak about how accurate are the models and you know… 34
because I rarely see the like the error [rich] report. I see what the models say, but rarely 35
what actually is a reality. 36
37
Mr. Milam: Yes, So I give you a warning. I don't want to scare you, but when we talk 38
about travel forecasting model it’s very difficult to forecast the future if you just watch 39
the news and look at the Fed and their ability to forecast economic growth it's a 40
challenge and we deal with much longer time frames. So the general accuracy has to be 41
viewed from the lens of what do we want the model to do? If the model is helping us to 42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 38
decide do we need to build two lanes, four lanes or six lanes 20 years in the future we 1
can have a quite a bit of level of error. You could be as high as 20 or 30 percent and still 2
not make a lane, a laneage error, but that also has to be thought about in the context of 3
the performance metric. 4
5
If you’re talking about VMT which is a pretty aggregate measure you also want to think 6
to the future and understand well how much of variation could there be in the future? 7
So we've done one particular analysis that looks at the variation in VMT per capita over 8
the next through 2040. The range is about 8,000 to 18,000 VMT per capita. That's how 9
big the range is without the city doing anything with land use or transportation. That’s 10
some of the things that we just heard about in terms of the economic differences, the 11
disruptive forces of technology, and the Millennials and aging population. Lots things 12
are going to happen outside your control that's going to change VMT per capita quite 13
dramatically. 14
15
So when we think about these models and we think about accuracy those are the kinds 16
of things we look at. And when we look at what the statistics are in terms of validation 17
you'll typically see things in the range of plus or minus 10 percent when you're looking 18
at large order facilities like a freeway or an arterial, but it tends to fluctuate with 19
volume. We do not want a 20 percent error on a freeway facility carrying 100,000 20
vehicles a day. If I've got a road carrying a thousand vehicles a day I could be off by 100 21
percent and it's not going to make that much difference because it's going to be a two 22
lane road. So we have to think about it in that kind of context. 23
24
Commissioner Tanaka: I see. Well, I mean to me if you're making a you have a ten or 25
even twenty percent error 10 years from now or 20 years now that's pretty good. I 26
mean just in terms of forecasting. Am I hearing that right or am I getting it wrong? 27
28
Mr. Milam: If you want to think about in terms of years we have one researcher, a 29
gentleman by the name of Robert Bain that used to work for Standard & Poor's. He 30
evaluated toll road projects around the world including transit projects and he did 31
before and after studies. And he isolated the US. We spent some time working with him 32
to look specifically at US projects and he did create a little formula that tells you how 33
much area you can expect in a small area forecast. Small area would be like the City of 34
Palo Alto. And when you got twenty‐five years it's plus or minus 40 percent. If you're 35
only going out ten years yeah, you're probably closer to that 15 to 20 percent range, but 36
remember it's plus or minus. 37
And so when you… this is also important when you think about the impact studies you 38
currently look at when you look at LOS you oftentimes see intersection analysis in like 39
the year 2040 as part of the cumulative analysis. Someone had to actually forecast the 40
left turn volume at that intersection. Frankly, we're not that good. When it comes to an 41
intersection if it's two 4 lane roads that cross each other we'd probably recommend 42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 39
reserve right away to build two lefts, two thrus, and a right. But telling you in the year 1
2040 there's only going to be 150 left turns and so you have to build one lane that's not 2
something… we do it in practice because agencies require it, but it's not something that 3
we're you should think the models are actually that accurate. 4
5
Mr. Mello: If I could jump in? I think it's important to realize the traffic is not a naturally 6
occurring phenomenon. It's all a result of land use decisions that are made and 7
development that's occurring. So the models are protecting predicting traffic based on 8
historic land development patterns and how Americans travel and how Bay Area 9
residents travel. All of those things can be manipulated through land use decisions and 10
planning decisions that communities make. So I don't want to seem like it's some fixed 11
the model is doing its best based on historic patterns of growth. 12
13
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. But anyways it gives me confidence that it's not too far off, at 14
least from what I'm hearing. I guess the second question is and I’m just thinking about 15
my own usage of my car which is actually dropping, right, because I bike a lot now or for 16
instance if I have to go to the airport I would take Uber or UberPool I share the car with 17
other people. Or if I go to the City I might actually do things like Lux where they do valet 18
parking, right? It’s kind of like anywhere in the city. And what I wonder is and just in 19
horizon have things like autonomous cars and I wonder how is that looking at 10‐20 20
years how’s, how are the again what's the current thought process around how is this 21
going to be changing traffic? 22
23
Mr. Milam: That's a very astute question with regards to VMT. So there has been 24
research on it and what we know about if there is autonomous vehicles it will increase 25
VMT. And that would be something outside your land use or transportation controls in a 26
typical city. That's something the market's going to deliver, but it basically reduces the 27
cost of driving. You don't have to pay attention so you can do something else and what 28
all of our research tells us is that leads to people being willing to make more trips or 29
longer distance trips. 30
31
The other thing we have is if they're delivered through transportation network 32
companies the way Uber and Lyft work today we're going to have a phenomena that I 33
call simultaneous trip generation. I did it the other day in Washington, D.C. (D.C.) where 34
I ordered UberEATS at the same time that I ordered an Uber to come pick me up 35
because I was going to take the food with me to a different destination, so I generated 36
two trips that I wasn't in the vehicle and then I got into the vehicle and made a third trip 37
all in a very short period of time. So if you own your own car you're only going to be 38
making those trips with you in the car. TNCs, autonomous vehicles all have the potential 39
to increase the amount of VMT even if they reduce the number of vehicles on the road. 40
So it’s a difference between vehicles on the road versus the number of trips and the 41
total VMT we generate. 42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 40
Mr. Mello: So I don't know if any of you have had the honor Stefan Heck’s presentation 1
it's absolutely amazing. He talks a lot about the transition period and when the 2
ultimately we're going to get to a point where we have autonomous electric shared 3
vehicles, but there's going to be a transition period I think where we may see an 4
increase in trips and an increase in VMT where we have folks that own their own 5
autonomous vehicles. They're not sharing them, they may be driving around while 6
somebody is at a meeting. We're also going to think about what impacts it's going to 7
have on parking eventually and we get to that mode. 8
9
So I think we're at a real watershed moment when we start talking about the future of 10
transportation and a lot of the folks in our field are really kind of uncertain where that's 11
going to take us. There are arguments that it will increase VMT. There are arguments 12
that we’ll quickly adapt a shared autonomous shared model of vehicles where multiple 13
people are using the same vehicle at the same time throughout the day and the vehicle 14
doesn't need to be stored. So we then have to look at whatever our minimum parking 15
requirements may need to be. So I think we’d be remiss if we didn't think about that 16
and when it's going to come. Stefan Heck predicts in 2020 or the years shortly after that. 17
A lot of folks are saying 2030 or a little bit after that, but that's all within the horizon of 18
the planning that we're doing today. 19
20
Commissioner Tanaka: One last question which is so with these changes especially like 21
with the VMT change is this supported by all the software packages that the City is using 22
and I mean are we like do our systems support this, these kind of measures? 23
24
Mr. Mello: I'm sorry what was the question? 25
26
Commissioner Tanaka: Well, so like for instance like the change, well the move towards 27
like the VMT versus LOS does, do the current software packages that we use is this 28
supported? Like how is our software? 29
30
Mr. Mello: So if I can just so we have a City travel demand model that will actually 31
generate VMT for the City as a whole. I think Hillary can talk about how we exported 32
that to the model used for the complex. 33
34
Ms. Gitelman: Yes, no we use that that model for the Comp Plan and they built some 35
connection to the regional model for outside that, the focused area. And so they used 36
that to calculate VMT. I think the larger question is when we get to the point where 37
we're doing these VMT calculations and comparing to a threshold for smaller projects 38
than a citywide plan what does that look like? I mean how are we going in the next, over 39
the next two years transition to an organization like everyone will have to that finds a 40
more cost effective faster way to do that analysis for even smaller projects and what 41
does that look like. 42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 41
Mr. Mello: Yes, I wonder if Ron could talk about whether anyone is looking at just 1
establishing kind of VMT generation rates by land use or outside of running a model for 2
every single project is some kind of formula that could be used for a single family 3
residential or? 4
5
Mr. Milam: There are simplified models that do that now and so the point Hillary’s 6
making is you’re going to have to decide when you come up to your threshold that's one 7
of the first questions you’re going to ask yourself: what's the methodology we're using? 8
Because if you're using the regional model the OPR guidance says whatever model you 9
use to set your threshold is the same model you should use to analyze the project so 10
you get apples to apples. And that can be a pretty daunting task because what OPR 11
seems to be suggesting is hey, regional models are probably best because they capture 12
more of the total travel. They don't truncate the trips at the political boundaries. 13
14
But just to run for example the MTC model we're doing some projects analysis right 15
now. We at 40 hours Robert? Forty hours to do a run versus the simple model we have, 16
which is also a very accurate model that is in compliance with CEQA. In terms of 17
substantial evidence to support the trip generation and the trip lengths we can run that 18
in about 15 minutes. So you’re going to have to make some decisions between the 15 19
minute models and the 40 minute or the 40 hour models and it's going to come down to 20
what are you trying to capture when you look at VMT. What do you want to understand 21
about the potential impacts? 22
23
We did a project recently in Davis, California where they wanted a research and 24
development project to put on the around the edge of the city as an incubator for 25
University of California, Davis (UC Davis). And if we had run just one of the simple 26
models we could told you in 15 minutes what the VMT of that particular project is. It 27
wouldn't have told you anything about what the VMT for the community is and how it 28
changes that. And by putting a bunch of jobs in Davis where they have no new housing 29
actually is a worse situation from a VMT standpoint. We would actually have to run the 30
regional model to demonstrate that. So if you're worried about the total VMT effect on 31
the community then yes using a regional model makes sense. If you just need to isolate 32
what the project’s generating you can do that with these simpler tools. 33
34
Chair Fine: Commissioner Downing. 35
36
Commissioner Downing: I actually wanted to follow up on that. And I was wondering if 37
there is any published guidance with regard those thresholds. Like if you're looking at an 38
apartment complex, 100 units for example. What do you expect to happen to the VMT? 39
What’s, what are sort of reasonable guidelines for areas like Palo Alto and our 40
neighboring cities? Do we have any models for that yet? 41
42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 42
Mr. Milam: Well you do, you have the first recommendation from OPR which for a 1
residential project is a 15 percent reduction below baseline for VMT per capita. So you'd 2
measure the VMT per capita for the existing residents and you would expect that the 3
apartment project to perform at least 15 percent better than that project. But as I said 4
earlier your general plan already has a VMT threshold baked into it if you think about 5
this. Let’s say that a project comes in it's consistent with your general plan and it's 6
consistent with your zoning. So it's part of the VMT you’ve already anticipated. You 7
could even extend that argument to say that while the regional models were based off 8
your general plan to a large degree and so that project and that location was part of the 9
regional modeling for air quality conformity for SB 375 which is our greenhouse gas 10
reduction targets for the for the regional agencies. You could make the argument that 11
that project’s also part of the regional solution to achieve air quality conformity and 12
meet the greenhouse gas reductions. 13
14
The question then becomes do you want to expect that project to perform any better 15
than what you've already baked into the general plan and baked into that regional 16
transportation plan. And the one reason that you might there's more, but there's one 17
important one that most of the modeling done at the regional scale and at your local 18
general plan scale those models don't build TDM into them. So there are additional 19
strategies you could add to a project as mitigation that would lower its VMT compared 20
to what you'd get from just land use and transportation inputs that are typically 21
analyzed in the model. 22
23
Commissioner Downing: So if I can walk you back a little bit. So you talked about for 24
residential for example lowering the VMT by 15 percent per capita. But what do I guess 25
who are you looking at for that? I mean if the project doesn't exist so 100 people aren't 26
there and then tomorrow they are there so how are you doing that calculation? 27
28
Mr. Milam: Yes, so if you want to follow the OPR guidance they’re suggestion you 29
measure the existing VMT per capita for the existing residents in the city. And you can 30
compare to the city VMT per capita or you can compare to the region VMT per capita. 31
They've given you both options and there's different ways of doing that depending on 32
the models you use. You can even use that big data if you wanted to actually compare 33
to other apartment projects in Palo Alto we could go order up some cell phone data and 34
go out and put some traffic counters around the apartment so we could tell you how 35
many trips they generate and how far those trips go. And you could compare then to 36
existing apartment projects if you wanted to. 37
38
Commissioner Downing: Ok, so are you comparing the VMT per capita for the entire city 39
versus the VMT per capita of the people who would live in the project? Is that? 40
41
Mr. Milam: Yes. 42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 43
Commissioner Downing: Ok. I just wanted to make sure I understood it. 1
2
Mr. Mello: And the 15 percent reduction is based on greenhouse gas emission goals in 3
the state plan, correct? 4
5
Mr. Milam: More or less, yes. So if you followed SB 375 what the state did with 375 was 6
to say for the land use and transportation sector greenhouse gas reductions that we 7
expect we delegate that the MPOs because it's really hard for the state to figure out. 8
And the MPOs here the Bay Area for example MTC they've largely adopted about a 15 9
percent reduction. AB 32 recommended about a 15 percent reduction. There is new 10
information out of ARB that’s suggesting that that 15 percent reduction if you go all the 11
way out to 2050 you may even need a little bit more than the 15 percent, but that's kind 12
of where it's coming from. Caltrans has also recommended a 15 percent reduction in 13
VMT per capita as part of the strategic plan that they just prepared and released back in 14
March. 15
16
Commissioner Downing: Ok, so I think I want to poke at the practicalities a little bit. Ok, 17
so let's say we have it we have a project. We’ve done it, we've done the calculation. It 18
doesn't reduce by 15 percent. Let’s say it reduces by 13 percent. What can the project 19
do at that point to fix that? 20
21
Mr. Milam: I’ll let Sarah answer that. Sarah’s done a lot of our TDM work and looking at 22
specific strategies that work like best in the Bay Area. So one of the challenges with TDM 23
is there's lots of different strategies, but they're not always transferable. The work that 24
like Robert and I are doing right now for Stanford those are pretty unique and they 25
won't work just anywhere. So Sarah why don’t you give her an idea? 26
27
Ms. Peters: Yeah, absolutely. So there are a range of TDM strategies of course as Palo 28
Alto Planning Commissioners you're familiar with what goes on at Stanford and some of 29
the larger employers in the area. For residential projects specifically some of the most 30
effective, some of the most effective strategies are pricing parking. So what you can do 31
is you can require that people rent a parking space or a second parking space separately 32
from the rent on their apartment. You can also do a targeted outreach program. So 33
Portland has been very successful with its Smart Trips program which is about, cost 34
about $10.00 per capita to do outreach in targeted neighborhoods getting people to be 35
aware of the different alternatives they have and actually doing some social 36
encouragement and competition around using active transportation like biking and 37
walking and using transit. You can also incentivize the use of transit. So one strategy 38
that's becoming increasingly popular is buying passes for Caltrain or VTA for an entire 39
apartment complex. Caltrain and VTA have been doing that for years with employers 40
and so a lot of large employers including Stanford might provide discounted passes for 41
employees. That's now becoming possible at the residential complex level as well. So in 42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 44
addition to all those strategies that you see happening at employers you can also do 1
stuff residentially. 2
3
And so what all that means is you're basically shifting people's travel from driving to 4
using other modes and that's going to reduce VMT. There's a lot of different ways to 5
quantify that. There are several different models. There's the California Emissions 6
Estimator Model (CalEEMod) model, we have an in‐house model that we helped to 7
develop for that Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and all of those estimates of 8
VMT reduction resulting from TDM strategies are based on peer reviewed research and 9
typically calibrated to local or regional conditions. 10
11
Commissioner Downing: Ok (interrupted) 12
13
Mr. Mello: Well and I think we're also going to have to start talking about design of 14
particular projects. Maybe it may be appropriate to include a corner store or something 15
or a dry cleaner or something that's going to eliminate the need for somebody to use a 16
motor vehicle to make an everyday errand. Walkability to and from the site the 17
surrounding roadway network could definitely have an influence too if it's along a major 18
arterial that's difficult to cross to get to transit you're probably not going to see the kind 19
of transit use that you may need to achieve that 15 percent reduction. 20
21
Commissioner Downing: Ok. And then if I if I could also ask you what that might look like 22
for commercial project. Let's say it's a building one floor retail three floors office. What 23
would VMT guidelines generally look like for our area for that? 24
25
Ms. Peters: In terms of the VMT guidelines or in terms of how you would try to reduce 26
VMT once you establish what reduction you're getting? 27
28
Commissioner Downing: No, what we would consider acceptable thresholds. 29
30
Ms. Peters: Ok, I’m going to let Ron answer that one. 31
32
Mr. Mello: For the City of Palo Alto? We haven’t really gotten to the point where we've 33
thought about thresholds. I think Ron can talk about what other communities may have 34
adopted. 35
36
Commissioner Downing: Yeah. That’s what I’m looking (interrupted) 37
38
Mr. Milam: For mixed use projects OPR is applying the same 15 percent reduction and 39
they've suggested though that you break out that by land use. So you look at the 40
residential separately from the office. We’ve suggested that you might actually want to 41
look at the mixed use project in its entirety because you want to make sure you don't 42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 45
dilute the benefits of putting the mix of uses together. So that's one of things OPR is 1
currently considering a potential change to is at least looking at the mixed use project in 2
its entirety. 3
4
And then in terms of a local threshold one of the other things that you're going to want 5
to think about is to the extent that you've already made decisions about greenhouse 6
gases or air pollution in terms of what kind of threshold you've set for those there's a 7
mobile emissions component of that that's tied to VMT in most cases. And one of things 8
that’s a little bit challenging for some cities that have already adopted like climate action 9
plans and they've put very specific greenhouse gas reduction threshold in there they 10
never thought that there'd be a new law that come along and would use VMT as a 11
threshold. And those agencies are finding wow, we wanted to be really aggressive on 12
greenhouse gases and we could be because there's a lot of things you can do that like I 13
said earlier to offset that. Without having to change the project is someone paying 14
money typically. In the transportation section there's not offsets. It's change the project 15
or add that TDM program. It usually means more costs. So if you do have things like 16
greenhouse gas or air pollution reduction targets already you want to make sure you 17
understand the connection to VMT that's already embedded in those threshold or 18
objectives. 19
20
Ms. Gitelman: Yes, I just had a thought to add on that and this is really not something 21
that I've had the opportunity to think about a lot, but I want to point out that here in 22
Palo Alto all areas are not created equal. I mean we may have an opportunity over the 23
next two years as we start to develop our thresholds and our methodology for analyzing 24
projects using the new metrics to think about areas like Downtown and our more 25
walkable neighborhoods in a different way than we think about development that 26
happens in areas that are not as transit accessible and that don't have the mix of 27
services. Our current Comp Plan, the Comp Plan that was adopted in 1998, really has a 28
strong flavor of walkable neighborhoods. We saw the transition to mixed use zoning 29
districts and all of the mixed use districts that are in our zoning code is a reflection of 30
that kind of policy direction the last Comprehensive Plan. And I think we can start to 31
think about our City in that way as we figure out how to assess VMT and potentially 32
think about different neighborhoods differently. 33
34
Commissioner Downing: Yes, and I think this was kind of the last thing that I wanted to 35
talk about. So the way that you talked about doing the VMT comparisons, taking the per 36
capita of the city and then comparing it to the VMT of the project that’s kind of a very 37
static way of looking at it, right? Because in reality the project itself changes what the 38
rest of the community does. 39
40
So let's say you build an office building, and let's say we make assumptions of most of 41
these people are coming from out of Palo Alto. Ok, so now suddenly the building looks 42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 46
really bad from VMT perspective. But on the other hand if the building is replacing 1
something ugly and rundown on El Camino which I could point to 20, it makes that area 2
suddenly a little bit more walkable, right? It makes it nicer, right? It increases the 3
chances of people walking there, biking there, feeling safer there, right? If they add in 4
some portion of retail that reduces VMT for the rest of the city. And so I'm just 5
wondering how these kind of I mean to me these things kick off feedback loops. And I 6
kind of wonder how you make sure that you're taking those into account. 7
8
Mr. Milam: Yes, you’re bringing up a point that is a big difference between looking at 9
the project myopically versus looking at it in the community setting or the neighborhood 10
setting. Now one of my favorite examples is a Trader Joe's. If you look at a Trader Joe's 11
by itself it's got new trips coming to it. It’s going to generate new VMT. But if I put that 12
Trader Joe's into what I’m going to call a food desert where it's nothing but residential 13
and they have to drive seven miles to the nearest grocery store if I measure the market 14
area for Trader Joe's that neighborhood the VMT per capita for the neighborhood 15
probably went down. So it depends on how you measure it and what kind of story are 16
you telling. 17
18
And in the context of CEQA I would prefer to tell a very complete story as full disclosure 19
that yes, the Trader Joe's if I look at it myopically does generate 10,000 VMT, whatever 20
the number is, but I'm also going to measure that at the community scale and measure 21
what did it do to my community? Did it make it more efficient because VMT per capita is 22
actually going to go down because I didn't have the grocery store in close proximity to 23
where people live. 24
25
Commissioner Downing: Thank you. 26
27
Chair Fine: I'm going to take a round and then pass it back to you all. Thank you 28
everyone for these very detailed reports. I think it's very helpful to us all. It just shows us 29
how much more complex the world is getting and how much more work you are going 30
to have to do. But it is exciting and it is actually nice to see that the state is able to attain 31
some of its greenhouse gas goals and trip reduction goals through this new plan a little 32
bit. That’s nice to see. 33
34
I’m really interested in this idea of kind of layering with VMT and maybe get part of the 35
way there with your transportation planning, maybe get part of the way there with the 36
land use, maybe a bit of it's with TDM and Commissioner Downing was touching on this; 37
I'm wondering are any cities so far reacting in their zoning to this change and if so, how? 38
And how they're actually like implementing it, making amendments there. 39
40
Mr. Milam: Both in the general plan and zoning in fact one of the first jurisdictions to 41
deal with VMT as a threshold was Yolo County of all places. And they did it for a kind of 42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 47
unique reason. They said this is back when the attorney general's office was actually 1
legally challenging cities and counties over not having climate action plans. They were 2
doing their general plan update and they wanted assurances in the general plan and a 3
follow through to even zoning that new growth areas would be designed for low VMT 4
and therefore low greenhouse gases. 5
6
So what they ended up in the general plan was a VMT threshold 44 VMT generated per 7
household per weekday that a new growth area had to be designed to. They also 8
followed that up in the land use section and said you need to have a jobs/housing 9
balance and a jobs/housing match. The wages of the house, the wages of the workers 10
have to match the prices of the houses so we get a connection there. We don't want to 11
see just a jobs/housing balance because we don't have that match. They also set 12
minimum density of eight units per acre. That tends to create a more walkable 13
environment. They also limited the roads to two lanes in the center of the new 14
development and allowed LOS F. You couldn’t have four lane roads for example. 15
16
So we are seeing some more aggressive treatments that are starting the general plan 17
and then trickling down into how they handle the zoning when it's that important of an 18
objective to the community. And this goes back to what I said earlier, where does VMT 19
reduction or greenhouse gas reduction fit within all those different community values? 20
And if it's at the top of the list yeah you're probably going to see it show up in your 21
general plan and in your zoning. 22
23
Chair Fine: That’s been really helpful. Thank you so much; just a few comments for the 24
City. I think Commissioner Rosenblum brought this up pretty well in terms of how do 25
you validate what the reduction is. As the city builds this out we should consider is 15 26
percent good enough for Palo Alto? Or as Hillary as you mentioned do you want to make 27
a neighborhood by neighborhood, right? Maybe Downtown and Cal Ave. it's higher than 28
that. 29
30
The other question is a little bit less about VMT and it's about some of the other parts of 31
this presentation. I was wondering how can Palo Alto validate and potentially 32
incorporate some of the more active mode methodologies? So I was just interested like 33
the stress model that it’s that map of Google and like why are parts of Palo Alto green 34
and other parts not? Are we looking at anything there? 35
36
Mr. Mello: So we have been working with Google on that plan and they're actually 37
they're trying to advance a grant program where they would actually fund closing some 38
of the gaps that are identified in their vision plan. That's the vision plan was kind of the 39
first step. If you remember they actually funded the concept planning for four of our 40
bike boulevards and those were funded by Google because they saw those as specific 41
gaps in the network connecting to the North Bayshore area. 42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 48
1
I've done a little thinking about how we could potentially use the Google modeling in 2
our own, do our own development review process and our own planning process. And 3
there's the potential to do a map similar to what Hugh showed showing the average 4
level of stress for any parcel within the City. So we could feasibly use what's commonly 5
accepted as the bike shed which is a three mile radius around a point. We could 6
potentially look at the bike shed for a specific parcels or nodes Downtown, Cal Ave. and 7
we could look at the average level of stress from within that three mile bike shed. And 8
then we could identify specific gaps whether it be a roadway crossing, an intersection, 9
or a missing trail segment and we could direct our either our resources or resources that 10
we may collect through other means whether it be the traffic impact fee to actually 11
close those gaps and make that parcel accessible from the entire bike shed around the 12
parcel. 13
14
Chair Fine: That's very exciting. I guess just the last thing to the City then is it would be 15
nice especially as this goes to Council kind of show the different options here, right? 16
There's a bit of like the traffic impact fees is a bit of TDM, TDM layering there's 17
neighborhood by neighborhood thresholds, I think showing those different levers is 18
really important. 19
20
I do a few other small questions, but want to pass it off to other folks. So I believe Vice‐21
Chair you were first or… Ok. Commissioner Rosenblum. You always lead us off. 22
23
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes, I just have a quick question. I wanted to address Arthur 24
Keller's question and unfortunately he left. But I want to first verify that the statements’ 25
accurate that we have a 4 second delay as threshold for triggering a transit review and 26
City of Menlo Park has a .8 second. And I assume that's on bike collectors and arterials 27
or something, but first I want to see if that is an accurate statement. 28
29
Ms. Peters: Yes, so the difference is whether the facility is already at a failing grade. So 30
because Menlo Park and Palo Alto are in different counties arterials in Palo Alto are set 31
at LOS E per VTA and then local streets are set it LOS D. So Menlo Park actually has a bit 32
of a more restrictive standard. Local streets are at LOS C and arterials are at LOS D. So 33
then below those points, below those thresholds you get to the point of saying that the 34
intersection is already below what we want. And at that point Palo Alto continues the 35
VTA model of if your intersection is already “failing” from a congestion perspective 36
adding up to four, adding more than four seconds of delay four seconds or more would 37
be a significant impact. It's much more restrictive in Menlo Park. It's .8 seconds of delay. 38
And so really what that amounts to is getting a whole lot more impacts for a very few 39
very limited number of trips. 40
41
Robert Eckols, Fehr & Peers: So can I? 42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 49
Mr. Milam: Robert do you want to add? 1
2
Mr. Eckols: Yes. I’d just like to add the .8 seconds only, is only invoked on Caltrans 3
facilities where you have a local street. So if you're in a non‐Caltrans facility then they 4
just use the four seconds as well, which is what is used in San Mateo County. But this 5
was an eight tenths of a second which is very difficult to calculate in some senses. That 6
eight tenths of a second it was implemented probably 10 years ago and the whole idea 7
was they wanted on state facilities basically El Camino at the time they wanted to have a 8
more sensitive one for that facility. So it is a little unique that way. It's not… 9
10
Commissioner Rosenblum: And my follow up is so he had suggested that Palo Alto adopt 11
a similarly strict standard and outside of whether or not that's a wise thing or possible 12
thing I want to understand the impact of that. I would assume the impact is that any 13
project you have more of a hair trigger, right? That (interrupted) 14
15
Mr. Eckols: Yes. 16
17
Commissioner Rosenblum: So you have a higher burden for any project and so it would 18
be in some ways “slow growth,” more difficult to develop projects. Is that correct? 19
20
Mr. Eckols: Correct, absolutely. 21
22
Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok. 23
24
Mr. Mello: Well it could lead to two outcomes. It could be more difficult to develop 25
projects or you could end up adding capacity roadways more frequently than you would 26
under a lower threshold. 27
28
Commissioner Rosenblum: Or potentially force projects to have more aggressive TDM 29
measures for example. Ok. Thank you, those are my questions. 30
31
Chair Fine: Just one before I ask for the next Commissioner. Can thresholds be 32
challenged? Does it happen often I mean? 33
34
Mr. Milam: I'll give an answer then I'll defer to the attorney, but CEQA allows lead 35
agencies to set their own thresholds for general use. So if you going to use this for all 36
your projects Section 15064.7 says lead agencies should adopt their threshold by a 37
public process ordinance resolution, but they have to be supported by substantial 38
evidence and that is a legal bar within CEQA in terms of when you're setting thresholds. 39
You can't be arbitrary and someone could challenge you if the substantial evidence did 40
not support where you chose to draw the line in terms of what's acceptable versus 41
unacceptable. 42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 50
Off the top of my head one case I can think of where thresholds were challenged was 1
just a couple years ago. A lot of cities and counties have not adopted their own 2
thresholds. They'll use what's called Appendix G out of the CEQA guidelines. It's a 3
sample checklist of potential environmental topics, but they'll turn it into thresholds 4
because of the way the questions in the Appendix G are phrased it sounds like you're 5
above the line or below the line. And the court reaffirmed that those are not thresholds, 6
it is a sample checklist and so they do not have any kind of legal standing as thresholds. 7
So that was one case where they reaffirmed that you local agencies or lead agencies do 8
have the discretion to set your own thresholds if supported by substantial evidence. 9
10
Ms. Gitelman: I'd just like to add a couple things to that. First, I don't think actually that 11
thresholds get challenged a lot, but I have worked in agencies where we decided not to 12
adopt thresholds on a certain subject because we were afraid of legal challenge. I mean 13
so it has the effect of kind of influencing local agency decision making because of that 14
opportunity to challenge local thresholds. 15
16
The other thing I would say and this is really interesting to me I of course I respect 17
Arthur a lot and his suggestion that we reexamine our thresholds is perfectly legitimate. 18
We adopted, last adopted thresholds in Palo Alto I don’t know, 2008 or something. It 19
was during the early years of preparing the Comp Plan and there was a whole series of 20
thresholds adopted that have since had to evolve a little bit because changes in the law 21
and practice in CEQA. But yes, obviously we could take some time to reexamine those 22
standards and adopt new thresholds based on substantial evidence. The question I have 23
is, is that effort worth it at this point or should we be focusing on this change in 24
methodology that the state is forcing on us and on Commissioner Waldfogel’s question 25
which is how do we translate this technical area into something that is more 26
understandable and people can relate to how they experience transportation 27
challenges. So good interesting questions. 28
29
Mr. Mello: And just to build off that a little bit it kind of goes back to the earlier 30
discussion about how do VMT and LOS relate. If people are traveling fewer miles they're 31
probably traveling through fewer intersections and fewer congested roadway segments. 32
So I think you might be getting to the same outcome that we ultimately want to see 33
which is to make mobility easier for folks. If they have to travel fewer miles to reach a 34
destination they may be just as happy as if they're traveling a longer distance through a 35
less congested corridor. 36
37
Chair Fine: Thank you very much. Commissioner Waldfogel. Oh, you ok? Can I give it to 38
the Vice‐Chair. 39
40
Vice‐Chair Gardias: Thank you. So I just want to, just want to add to the discussion 41
because this was I also had a question about Arthur’s proposal and he’s back on the 42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 51
floor. So he may chime when he wishes to. We talk Arthur about your proposal to align 1
ourselves with Menlo Park if you heard the last staff’s comments. And I just wanted to 2
understanding Hillary’s point, right? It's possible that that we can still live with LOS for 3
many years because of its understandability and despite of this change in CEQA. So from 4
this perspective we may consider potential benefits of aligning ourselves with Menlo 5
Park given that Menlo Park retains its metrics for the years to come. So I would first 6
check with Menlo Park whether the plans with LOS before we go any farther. So that's 7
the comment about this. 8
9
I would like to just go back to the topic that Commissioner Downing opened with the 10
excellent inquiry when he, when she talk about local projects because we're going to 11
face many of them and listening to this exchange of comments I realized that probably 12
at a certain point of time you will provide us with some plan and methodology for 13
implementation of this CEQA change for the projects where you’re going to propose the 14
map that’s going to relate to the zoning. We will be able to comment on this map and 15
understand pros and cons. 16
17
Once you're going to do this I would like to also ask about addressing process. How 18
impact of VMT will influence selection of options for a local project and how 19
Commission will be exposed, how our Commission will be exposed to the selection of 20
those different options. I can imagine that staff would be discussing those options with 21
the developer or a builder how to reduce the impact on VMT on a given project. I would 22
like to understand how our Commission would have a say on the selection and agreeing 23
with the potential outcome that would come to our Commission from the discussion 24
between the staff and the developer. The reason is that pretty much we may want to 25
have, we may have a different perspective or maybe we would like or we would like to 26
understand the selection process and weighting down the best scenario. 27
28
Ms. Gitelman: Right, well I think we're all going to get a whole lot more sophisticated 29
about all of this in the next two years. And so I think the first step would be to have a 30
conversation as a community and with the staff with the Commission about how we're 31
going to implement this change in methodology for CEQA analysis, what the thresholds 32
will be. And once we understand that and the methodology for doing these analyses on 33
a project basis we’ll be able to have a conversation about what information analysis the 34
applicant brings to the table and what staff's analytical response will be, what the 35
Commission's role is, but I feel like we have to get a couple steps down the road before 36
we can have a meaningful conversation about that question. 37
38
Vice‐Chair Gardias: Of course. Thank you. 39
40
Chair Fine: Thank you Vice‐Chair. Commissioner Waldfogel. 41
42
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 52
Commissioner Waldfogel: Thank you. Very informative discussion so appreciate all the 1
thoughtful responses. I mean I think there are a lot of great ideas that we've discussed 2
here and I think there is probably some community concern about what is the vision 3
point that is somehow captured in the middle of this. I think the CEQA changes are 4
inevitable, but and I love some of the ideas I love some of the ideas about walkable 5
retail, walking to a store. I’m not sure a dry cleaner is what I want to live next to 6
specifically, but… they're better than they used to be, but there are other there's other 7
retail that I'd be pretty enthusiastic about. 8
9
But the thing is again the community needs to be prepared for this discussion. There's 10
more here than transportation experience. There's this whole kind of complete 11
disruption in how we think about land use, how we think about how we circulate, and 12
what we build. I mean is single family residential R‐1 something that survives this 13
methodology over the long term or does it just not make the cut in the long term 14
because of some of the objectives that are buried in this? And that's not a 2 year 15
question that's like a 30 year question. So I'm not really looking for a specific response 16
on that, but again I just think we have to be as explicit as possible to say what this 17
material implies for what the community looks like. Does it mean we look like Fillmore 18
Street? Does it mean we look like Park Slope? Does it… sort of what's the end goal and 19
where do we get to? And again I just can’t discern it from this particular set of 20
documents, but I believe that they imply some outcomes that I can't that I can't discern. 21
22
The other thing I would just be very I would urge you very strongly as you think about 23
technology diffusion and innovation, I've spent my whole career working in that in 24
diffusion of new technologies sometimes physical objects or, and it turns out that in 25
least in my experience it's always slower than you expect in the near term. So as we 26
think about autonomous connected electric shared vehicles, if you think about those 27
trends which are quite likely to happen they'll be way less of it then we think there will 28
be over the next 10 or 15 years. And then assuming it happens it will be very rapid 29
adoption at some point, at some transition point. And the problem with that is that 30
we're writing plans that go out to 2030 against changes that may not be material until 31
almost the end point of those plans. And I worry about things like Sarah you mentioned 32
things you can do in residential to discourage driving, but in the short term you have 33
huge problems with freeloaders. And so you sort of have to figure out how do you 34
manage that? I'm happy… if you charge for parking spaces 20 years out that may be 35
wonderful, but in years 1 through 7 all those cars are going to end up parked on a street 36
two blocks away. 37
38
So we have to find ways to sort of deal with people's expectations. You know to deal 39
with the transitions to have reasonable assumptions about technology diffusion so that 40
we don't really get ahead of ourselves. So again I just look for… just really encourage 41
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 53
you to think about that and think about how to explain that to the community so that 1
the community doesn't say in five years well, that's not what we expected. 2
3
Chair Fine: Thank you, Commissioner Waldfogel. I don't believe we have any other 4
questions or comments. So I hope this was helpful. I think it was helpful to us and I think 5
we gave you a range of comments from the very wide broad ideas of how do we 6
interpret this, how does the community understand, to some pretty specific questions 7
about VMT. But thank you all for your input and for this report and answering our 8
questions and for your time. Thank you. That closes Item 2. 9
10
Commission Action: No action taken, Commissioners provided comments only. 11
12
Approval of Minutes 13
Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker. 14
3. May 25, 2016 15
16
Chair Fine: Our last item for tonight is approval of minutes from May 25th. I'm not going to be 17
voting on this Motion because I wasn’t at that meeting, but if there is a Motion? 18
19
MOTION 20
21
Vice‐Chair Gardias: So Motion to approve the meeting minutes dated May 25. 22
23
SECOND, VOTE 24
25
Chair Fine: So we have a Motion on the floor to approve the minutes for May 25th. Is there a 26
second? And a second by Commissioner Tanaka. Let’s take a vote. All those in favor? So we 27
have three in favor, three abstaining because they were not there. Does that count as a pass? 28
29
Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Actually you don't have to be present to vote on 30
minutes so if somebody would vote we’d appreciate it. 31
32
Chair Fine: I do too. Ok, unanimously passes. 33
34
MOTION PASSED (6‐0‐1, Commissioner Alcheck absent) 35
36
Commission Action: Minutes of May 25, 2016 approved. 37
38
Committee Reports 39
40
Commissioner Member Questions, Comments or Announcements 41
42
Chair Fine: Thank you all so much. I think that concludes our meeting at 8:50 tonight. Thank you 43
all. 44
45
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 54
Adjournment: 8:50 PM 1
ID CMP System Roadway Cross Street Location Jurisdiction 1991 1992 1993 1994/5 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
101 S. Bascom Avenue Campbell Av. Campbell Campbell E C NM B B D-CCCCCC-C-CC
102 Hamilton Avenue Winchester Blvd. Campbell Campbell E D NM D E E D- D-DDDDE+E+D
103 Hwy 17 (NB) Hamilton Av. Campbell State A A NM C C B C+ C+ C B- B- C C C+ C
104 Hwy 17 (SB) Hamilton Av. Campbell State F F E E EEEEEE-EEEEE
105 Hamilton Avenue Bascom Av. Campbell Campbell D D NM E E E E E- E E D D- E+ E+ D-
202 Hwy 280 NB Ramps Wolfe Rd. Cupertino Cupertino NM B- B B+ B B A B+ B B B
203 Hwy 280 SB Ramps Wolfe Rd. Cupertino Cupertino NM B B+ A A B+ A B+ A A A
204 Stevens Creek Blvd. Wolfe Rd./Miller Av. Cupertino Cupertino DDDCDCD+D+D+CCD+D+D+D+
206 Sara-Sunny Rd/De Anza Blvd. Prospect Rd. Cupertino Cupertino NM NM NM D D C- C C D+DCDCB-C
208 Hwy 85 SB Ramps Sara-Sunny Rd/De Anza Blvd. Cupertino Cupertino NM NM NM D D C+ C C C C- C- C C- C C
209 Hwy 85 NB Ramps Sara-Sunny Rd/De Anza Blvd. Cupertino Cupertino NM NM NM C C C+ C C+ C+ C- B C D B B
210 De Anza Blvd. (Rte. 85) Bollinger Rd. Cupertino Cupertino E DDDCCCCCCB-CCCC
211 De Anza Blvd. (Rte. 85) Stevens Creek Blvd. Cupertino Cupertino E DDDDDDDEDC-DD-DD
212 Hwy 280 SB Ramps De Anza Blvd. Cupertino Cupertino DCCCCCDCCC-BCB-BB-
213 Hwy 280 NB Ramps De Anza Blvd. Cupertino Cupertino F E DCDCD+C-CD+CCC+C+C-
214 De Anza Blvd. (Rte. 85) Homestead Rd. Cupertino Cupertino E DDDDD-DDE+D+C-D+D+D+D+
217 Stevens Creek Blvd. Stelling Rd. Cupertino Cupertino DDDDDDCD+DD+DDDDC-
219 Stevens Creek Blvd. Hwy 85 SB Ramp Cupertino Cupertino C C B C C C B B- C+ C+CCCCC
220 Stevens Creek Blvd. Hwy 85 NB Ramp Cupertino Cupertino B B B C D B- B- C+ B- C C C- C- C B-
301 Monterey Hwy. (Rte. 152) Leavesley Rd. Gilroy State C C NM DDCCCCCCCCCC
601 Saratoga-Los Gatos (Hwy. 9) University Av. Los Gatos State C C NM CCDDCC-DC-CCCC
602 Saratoga-Los Gatos (Hwy. 9) Santa Cruz Av. Los Gatos State D D NM DDDDDE+DDDDD+D+
603 Los Gatos Blvd. Lark Av. Los Gatos Los Gatos C NM NM B C C- D C- D D D+ C- E+ D+ D+
701 Calaveras Blvd. (Rte. 237) Abel St. Milpitas Milpitas E F D E D D D- D- D-DDDDE+E
702 Calaveras Blvd. (Rte. 237) Milpitas Blvd. Milpitas Milpitas F F D D D E+ E+ E D D D+ E+ D E D
1001 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Castro St. Mountain View State DDDDDEE+DDDDCDD+D
1002 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) El Monte Av. Mountain View State C B B B C C D C- D+ C- D+ C C C C-
1003 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Hwy 237/Grant Rd. Mountain View State E DDDDFFD-D-D-DDD-D-E+
1004 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Miramonte Av./Shoreline Blvd. Mountain View State DDDDCEE-DDDDDD-DD
1005 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Rengstorff Av. Mountain View State CDDCCD-C-CCCCC+CC+C
1006 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) San Antonio Rd. Mountain View State E DDDDD-ED-D-DDDDDD
1100 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Alma Av. Palo Alto State B B NM B B B B C D D+ D D D+ D+ D+
1102 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Embarcadero Rd./Galvez Palo Alto State D D NM DDDDDED-DD+DDD+
1104 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Page Mill Rd./Oregon Expwy. Palo Alto State E D NM E D E E E+ E+ E+DDDDD
1106 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Charleston Rd./Arastradero Palo Alto State D D NM D D E+ E+ D-DDDDDDD
1108 San Antonio Rd. Charleston Rd. Palo Alto Palo Alto D D NM DDDDDDDDD+DDD
1110 San Antonio Rd. Middlefield Rd. Palo Alto Palo Alto D D NM E E E E+ E E D- D D+ D E D+
1112 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Palm Dr. (San Mateo Co.) Palo Alto Palo Alto NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM CCCC
1114 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) University Av. (San Mateo Co.) Palo Alto Palo Alto NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM C C+ C C-
1200 Bowers Avenue Scott Blvd. Santa Clara Santa Clara DDDCCD+DE+DDC-CCCC
1201 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Kiely Blvd./Bowers Av. Santa Clara State D D NM DDDDDDDDC-DC-C
1202 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Lafayette St. Santa Clara Santa Clara DDDCDDD+D+DDD+DD+D+D
1203 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Lincoln Av. Santa Clara Santa Clara B B NM B B C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C C+ C+ C
1204 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Monroe St. Santa Clara Santa Clara B C NM B C C D+ C D+ D+ C C- C- C- C
1205 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Scott Blvd. Santa Clara Santa Clara D C NM C C C- C- D+ D D D D+ D D+ D+
1206 Great America Parkway Mission College Blvd. Santa Clara Santa Clara E D D E E E E F E E- D- D- D- D D
1207 Great America Parkway Tasman Dr. Santa Clara Santa Clara B B NM B C C C C- D+ D C C C- C C
1208 Hwy 101 (SB) Bowers Av. Santa Clara State B A NM A A B+ B B B- B B B+ A A A
1209 Hwy 101 (NB) Great America Pkwy Santa Clara State C B NM B C B B B C+ C B- A A A A
1210 Hwy 280 (SB) Stevens Creek Blvd. Santa Clara State E D D E DCCCC-DD+D+E+CC
1211 Stevens Creek Blvd. Lawrence Expwy. (E side) Santa Clara Santa Clara B B NM C B C+ C C D+ D+ D+ C- C C C
1212 Stevens Creek Blvd. Lawrence Expwy. (SB ramp) Santa Clara Santa Clara B A NM B C C C C+ D+ B CCCCC
1213 The Alameda (Rte 82) El Camino Real (Rte 82) Santa Clara State A B NM B B B C C+ B- B C+ B C B B
Table 5 - Intersection LOS, 1991 – 2012
1214 Lawrence Exp. El Camino Real (Rte 82) Santa Clara State NM NM NM NM NM B C- D D+ D C-CCCC
1301 Big Basin Way (Hwy 9) Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd. Saratoga State E D NM C D D D+ D D D C- D D+ D+ D+
1401 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. Fremont Av. Sunnyvale Sunnyvale D D NM DDDDDD-DDNMDDD
1402 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. Remington Dr. Sunnyvale Sunnyvale E C NM DDDDDDDDNMDC-D
1404 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Fair Oaks Av. Sunnyvale State D E D E D E+ D-DDDDDD+DD
1405 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Wolfe Rd. Sunnyvale State E E E E EEEEEDDD-E-DD
1406 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Mary Av. Sunnyvale State D D NM DDDDDDDD+D+DDD
1407 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Mathilda Av. Sunnyvale State D E E D E E+ E F E+ E+ C-DDDD
1412 Mathilda Avenue Java Dr. Sunnyvale Sunnyvale B B NM C C C+ NM C- C C C+ C C- C C
1413 Mathilda Avenue Maude Av. Sunnyvale Sunnyvale D D NM CDDDDDD+CD+D+C-D+
2001 Saratoga-Los Gatos (Hwy. 9) Quito Rd. SC County State A A NM A BBBBBBB+B+B+B+B+
3001 Hwy 85 Bascom (North) San Jose San Jose NM NM NM C BBBBBB-BC+C+C+C+
3002 Hwy 85 Bascom (South) San Jose San Jose NM NM NM C BBBBBBBC+C+CC
3003 Hwy 85 Bernal Rd. San Jose San Jose NM NM NM CCCDD-D+D+CCCCB
3004 Hwy 85 Blossom Hill Rd. (North) San Jose San Jose NM NM NM C C C+ C D D+ C-CCCCC
3005 Hwy 85 Blossom Hill Rd. (South) San Jose San Jose NM NM NM D E F E+ D- D- D- D F D- E+ E+
3006 Hwy 85 Camden (North) San Jose San Jose E NM C D D D+CCCCCCCCC
3007 Hwy 85 Camden (South) San Jose San Jose NM NM NM D D E E+ E D- E+ D- D- E+ E+ D
3008 Hwy 85 Cottle (North) San Jose San Jose NM NM NM B C C+ B B- B B B+ B B A B
3009 Hwy 85 Cottle (South) San Jose San Jose NM NM NM C D C-CCCCCCC-C-D
3010 Hwy 85 Santa Teresa (North) San Jose San Jose NM NM NM CCDDDDNMNMCCCC
3011 Hwy 85 Santa Teresa (South) San Jose San Jose NM NM NM C C C+CCCCBBBC+B-
3012 Hwy 87 Coleman Av. San Jose San Jose C B NM B B B NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM
3013 Hwy 87 Julian (East) San Jose San Jose D D NM D D E D- D D+ D D+ NM D D D
3014 Hwy 87 Julian (West) San Jose San Jose B B NM C C B B B- B B B B B B B
3015 Hwy 87 E. Santa Clara Street (NB Off) San Jose San Jose NM NM NM C C B B B B B B NM B B B
3016 Hwy 101 Santa Clara (East) San Jose State B NM B C C B B B B B B B B B B
3017 Hwy 101 Bernal Rd. San Jose State A A NM A BBBBBBB+B+B+B+B
3018 Hwy 101 Blossom Hill Rd. (East) San Jose State D D NM D D D+ C- D- D D C-CCCC
3019 Hwy 101 Blossom Hill Rd. (West) San Jose State B B NM B B C+ B- C+ C C C+ B B C B
3020 Hwy 101 Brokaw Rd. San Jose San Jose B NM B B C C C- C- C C C C+ C C+ C+
3021 Hwy 101 Oakland Rd. (North) San Jose State B NM B CCCCCCCC+C+CC+C+
3022 Hwy 101 Oakland Rd. (South) San Jose State C NM C C C D+ D+ D+ D+ D C C- C C C
3023 Hwy 101 Santa Clara (West) San Jose State C NM C D C B B B B B B B B B B
3024 Hwy 101 Yerba Buena (East) San Jose State B C NM C B B- B C+ C+ C+ C+ B B C+ C+
3025 Hwy 101 Yerba Buena (West) San Jose State C D NM CCCCCCCCC+CC+C+
3026 Hwy 237 First St. (North) San Jose State F D NM NM C B- C+ B B B B B B- B- B-
3027 Hwy 237 First St. (South) San Jose State F D NM NM C C D+ C C C+ C+ C+ C+ B- C+
3028 Hwy 237 Great America Pkwy (N.) San Jose State F F C NM B CCCCCCBBBB
3029 Hwy 237 Great America Pkwy (South) San Jose State F F C NM ABBBB-C+BBB+AB+
3030 Hwy 237 Zanker Rd. (North) San Jose State F F NM NM B B C+ B B B B+ B+ B+ B B
3031 Hwy 237 Zanker Rd. (South) San Jose State F F NM NM B B C+ B B B B+ B B+ B B
3032 Hwy 280 Bird Av. North San Jose San Jose C C NM C C C C- C C C- C C- C C C
3033 Hwy 280 Bird Av. South San Jose San Jose B B NM B C B C+ C C C C- C- C C C
3034 Hwy 280 11th St. North San Jose San Jose B B NM B BBBBBBBBBBB
3035 Hwy 280 11th St. South San Jose San Jose B B NM A BBBBBBBBBBB
3036 Hwy 280 McLaughlin Av. San Jose San Jose B B NM B B B- B B B B B B B B B
3037 Hwy 280 Moorpark Av. San Jose San Jose B B NM CCCCCCCCCB+BB
3038 Hwy 280 Saratoga Av. North San Jose San Jose B C NM B C C+ E B B- C+ B- C B- B- C+
3039 Hwy 280 Saratoga Av. South San Jose San Jose B B NM C E F F C- D+ D D+ D D D C-
3040 Hwy 280 10th St. North San Jose San Jose B B NM B BBBBBBBBBBB
3041 Hwy 280 10th St. South San Jose San Jose B B NM B B B B- B B B B B B B B-
3042 Hwy 680 Alum Rock (East) San Jose State B B NM B B C B- C C C C+ C C- C C
3043 Hwy 680 Alum Rock (West) San Jose State B B NM B B C+ C+ C C C+ C+CCCC
3044 Hwy 680 King Rd. N San Jose San Jose C C NM C C C C- D+ D+ D+ C- C- C C- C-
3045 Hwy 680 King Rd. S San Jose San Jose A B NM B B C C+ D+ D+ C C-CCCC
3046 Hwy 880 The Alameda N San Jose San Jose A A NM B A B+ B+ B+ B+ B+ A B B B B
3047 Hwy 880 The Alameda S San Jose San Jose A A NM B B B+ B B B B+ A B- B C+ B-
3048 Hwy 880 Bascom Av. N San Jose San Jose B B NM B BBBBBBAAAB+A
3049 Hwy 880 Bascom Av. S San Jose San Jose B C NM B C B+ C A B B B+ A B+ B+ A
3050 Hwy 880 Brokaw Rd. E San Jose San Jose B B NM C C C+ C+ B- B B C C- D+ C C
3051 Hwy 880 Brokaw Rd. W San Jose San Jose D D NM D D C- C- C C C- D D D D+ D
3052 Hwy 880 Coleman Av. N San Jose San Jose B B NM B BBBBBBB+NMAB+B+
3053 Hwy 880 Coleman Av. S San Jose San Jose B B NM B D B B- B B B B NM B- C+ C+
3054 Hwy 880 N. First St. N San Jose San Jose A A NM A A B+ B+ B B B B B B- B C
3055 Hwy 880 N. First St. S San Jose San Jose C B NM B BBBBBBBBBBB
3056 Hwy 880 Stevens Creek Blvd. San Jose San Jose C B NM C C C+ C C+ B- C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ B
3057 The Alameda (Rte 82) Hedding St. San Jose San Jose D C NM CCDDDC-C-CC-C-C-D+
3058 The Alameda (Rte 82) Naglee Av. San Jose San Jose D C NM CCDCDD+D+D+DDDD
3059 The Alameda (Rte 82) Race St. San Jose San Jose C C NM CCDCCCCCC-D+CC-
3060 Monterey Hwy/First St. (SR 82) Alma Av. San Jose San Jose D D NM DDDDDDDD+DDDD
3061 E. San Carlos St. (Rte 82) Almaden Blvd. San Jose San Jose D D NM D D E D D D+ D+ C- C- D D+ D+
3062 Alum Rock Avenue (Rte. 130) Capitol Av. San Jose State D D NM D E D+ D D+ D+ NM NM D+ D C- C-
3063 Alum Rock Avenue (Rte. 130) Jackson Av. San Jose State D E D D E D D D+ D+ D D+ D D- D D
3064 Alum Rock Avenue (Rte. 130) King Rd. San Jose State C C NM D D D+ D+ D+ D+ D+ C- C- D C- C-
3065 Alum Rock Avenue (Rte. 130) White Rd. San Jose State D D NM D D E+ E+DDDDDDDD
3066 Autumn Street Santa Clara St. San Jose San Jose B B NM B B B- B- B- B- B- B C C+ B- C+
3067 S. Bascom Avenue Camden Av. San Jose San Jose D D NM D D E D- D- D D-DDDDD
3068 S. Bascom Avenue Curtner Av. San Jose San Jose C C NM C B C C+ C D+ C C- D+ D D D+
3069 S. Bascom Avenue Samaritan Dr. San Jose San Jose D NM CDDDDD+CC+CCD+C-D+
3070 S. Bascom Avenue Stokes St. San Jose San Jose D D NM D D C-CCCCCCC-CC
3071 S. Bascom Avenue Union Av. San Jose San Jose E D NM D D C D+ C- D D D C- D+ D+ D
3072 Monterey Hwy. E Bernal Rd. San Jose San Jose B B NM A BEBBBB-BBBAB
3073 Monterey Hwy. N Bernal Rd. San Jose San Jose C C NM B C D+ C- C- C-CCCCCC
3074 Monterey Hwy. S Bernal Rd. San Jose San Jose A A NM A AAABAAAAAAA
3075 Santa Teresa Blvd. Bernal Rd. San Jose San Jose E D NM D D D+ D D D D+ C- D+ D D D
3076 Berryessa Rd. Lundy Av. San Jose San Jose E E E DDDDDD-DDDDDD
3077 Bird Avenue (Rte 82) E. San Carlos St. (Rte 82) San Jose San Jose C C NM D D D+ D D+ D D D+ D D+ D+ D
3078 Monterey Hwy. (Rte. 82) N Blossom Hill Rd. San Jose San Jose C NM B B C B B B C+ B B- B- B- B C+
3079 Monterey Hwy. (Rte. 82) S Blossom Hill Rd. San Jose San Jose D D NM C C C C+ C+ C B C C+ C C+ C
3080 Blossom Hill Rd. Santa Teresa Blvd. San Jose San Jose D D NM DDDDDDDD+D+DDD
3081 Blossom Hill Rd. Snell Avenue San Jose San Jose D E DDDDDDDDDDDDD
3082 Monterey Hwy. (Rte. 82) Branham Ln. San Jose San Jose D NM DDCDC-CC-C-C-C-D+D+D+
3083 Brokaw Rd. First St. San Jose San Jose F NM D D E D E+DDDDDD-D-D
3084 Brokaw Rd. Old Oakland Rd. San Jose San Jose D D NM CDDDDDDDNMDDD
3085 Brokaw Rd. Zanker Rd. San Jose San Jose D D NM D D E E+ E+ D NM NM D+ D D D
3086 Hillsdale Av. Camden Av. San Jose San Jose D C NM C C C C- C+ C D+ C+ C+ C C C
3087 Camden Avenue Leigh Av. San Jose San Jose D D NM DDDDDDD-E+DDDD
3088 Camden Avenue Union Av. San Jose San Jose E E E D D D- D- D- E E D E E E E+
3089 Hamilton Avenue Campbell Av. San Jose San Jose D C NM CCCCCB-CCB-BBB
3090 Campbell Avenue Saratoga Av. San Jose San Jose F F DDDDDDDDDD-D-D-D-
3091 Monterey Hwy. (Rte. 82) Capitol Expwy. N San Jose San Jose B NM B B BBBBBBBBB-BB
3092 Monterey Hwy. (Rte. 82) Capitol Expwy. S San Jose San Jose B NM A A ABBBBBBBBBB
3093 Santa Teresa Blvd. Coleman Rd. San Jose San Jose D C NM C C B CCCCCCCCC
3094 Santa Teresa Blvd. Cottle Rd. San Jose San Jose E E DDDDDDD+D+D+DD+D+D+
3095 Monterey Hwy. (Rte. 82) Curtner Av. San Jose San Jose F NM DDDDDDDDDDEE+E
3096 Trimble Rd. De la Cruz Blvd. San Jose San Jose E E E F F D+ E D-DDDDDC-C
3097 S. First Street (Rte 82) Keyes St./Goodyear San Jose San Jose C C NM CCDCC-C-CCCCCC
3098 Trimble Rd. First St. San Jose San Jose F E E E E E E+ D-DDDDDDD
3099 S. First Street (Rte 82) Willow St. San Jose San Jose A A NM A A A A B+ A B+ A A A A A
3100 Guadalupe Parkway Hedding St. San Jose San Jose E E D D D C- NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM
3101 Guadalupe Parkway Taylor San Jose San Jose F F E F F F NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM
3102 Hillsdale Av. Meridian Av. San Jose San Jose E E D D D D- D D- D- D-DDDDD-
3103 Saratoga Avenue Kiely Blvd. San Jose San Jose D D NM DDDDDDDDDEDD
3104 Stevens Creek Blvd. Kiely Blvd. San Jose San Jose E E E E D E D- D- D- D-DDDDD+
3105 Tully Rd. King Rd. San Jose San Jose D D NM D D E+ D D- D- D- D D D- D D
3106 Murphy Avenue Lundy Av. San Jose San Jose D D NM DDDDDDDDDDDD
3107 E. San Carlos St. (Rte 82) Market St. San Jose San Jose D D NM DDDDDD+DC-C-D+C-D+
3108 Tully Rd. McLaughlin Av. San Jose San Jose F D NM D E D E E D- D- D- D D D- D
3109 Monterey Hwy. (Rte. 82) Senter Rd. San Jose San Jose C NM C C B CCCCCCCCCC
3110 Monterey Hwy. (Rte. 82) Skyway Dr. San Jose San Jose B NM B B BBBBB-CCCCCC
3111 Monterey Hwy. (Rte. 82) Tully Rd. San Jose San Jose B NM B B B B- B C+ B B- C+ C C+ C C
3112 Santa Clara Street (Rte 82) Montgomery St. San Jose San Jose B A NM B B A B- C+ B- B- B B- B B A
3113 Saratoga Avenue Moorpark Av. San Jose San Jose D D NM DDDDDDDDDDDD
3114 Tully Rd. Quimby Rd. San Jose San Jose D D NM D D D D+DDDDDDD+D+
3115 Santa Teresa Blvd. Snell Avenue San Jose San Jose E D NM DDDDC-C-C-C-CCC-D+
3116 Stevens Creek Blvd. Saratoga Av. San Jose San Jose E E DDDDDDDDD+DD+D+D+
3117 Tully Rd. Senter Rd. San Jose San Jose D D NM D D NM D- D- D- D D D D- D D
3118 Stevens Creek Blvd. Winchester Blvd. San Jose San Jose E E DDDDDD-DDDDDDD-
3119 Trimble Rd. Zanker Rd. San Jose San Jose D D NM CDDDE+NMNMNMC-C-C-D+
3120 Capitol Exp. Pearl Av. San Jose San Jose D D NM D D D NM D+ D+ D C- D+ C- C- D+
5009 S. Bascom Avenue Fruitvale Av. San Jose SC County B C NM C C D D- D D D+ D+ D+ D+ D D
5012 S. Bascom Avenue Moorpark Av. San Jose SC County C D NM D E E+ D D E E+ D D D D- D
5108 Page Mill/Oregon Exp. Middlefield Rd. Palo Alto SC County E E E E E E E E- E E E E E E+ E+
5120 Page Mill/Oregon Exp. Hanover Palo Alto SC County D D NM D D E E E E+ E+ D D D+ D D
5205 Page Mill/Oregon Exp. Foothill Expwy. Palo Alto SC County FFFFFFFNMFFFFFFE-
5207 Foothill Exp. Arastradero Rd. Palo Alto SC County E E E E EEEEEED-D-DD-D
5213 Foothill Exp. Main St./Burke Rd. Los Altos SC County C C NM C B C- C C C C+ C+ C C+ C+ C+
5214 Foothill Exp. San Antonio Rd. Los Altos SC County B B NM B C C+ B- B B- C+ B B B B B
5215 Foothill Exp. El Monte Av. Los Altos SC County D D NM D E E E F F E E E+ E+ E+ D-
5220 Foothill Exp. Magdalena Av./Springer Rd. Los Altos SC County D E D D E E E E+ E+ E+DDDDD
5223 Foothill Exp. Grant Rd./St. Joseph Av. Los Altos SC County C D NM D D D- D- D- E DDDDDD
5225 Foothill Exp. Homestead Rd. Los Altos SC County C C NM CDDDDDDDD+D+D+C-
5305 Central Exp. Rengstorff Av. Mountain View SC County E E E E E E D- E E E+ D E+ E+ D- D
5308 Central Exp. Castro St./Moffet Blvd. Mountain View SC County D D NM D D D-DDDDDDDDD
5310 Central Exp. Shoreline Blvd. East Mountain View SC County B B NM B B D D D- D- B A A B+ B+ A
5311 Central Exp. Shoreline Blvd. West Mountain View SC County B B NM B BBBBBBAB+B+BB+
5313 Central Exp. Whisman Rd. Mountain View SC County B B NM B BBBBBBBBBC+B-
5315 Central Exp. Hwy 237 Mountain View SC County B B NM B BBBBBBB+AABB+
5320 Central Exp. Mary Av. Sunnyvale SC County E E D D D D- D E+DDDDDDD
5325 Central Exp. Corvin Dr./Oakmead Pkwy Santa Clara SC County C C NM C D D E+ D- D- C- C C C+ C+ C
5329 Central Exp. Bowers Av. Santa Clara SC County D D NM E E FFFFEE+EEED
5332 Central Exp. Scott Blvd. Santa Clara SC County E D NM D E E+ E+ E- E D D+ D D D- D
5334 Central Exp. Lafayette St. Santa Clara SC County D D NM E FFFFFEE+D-EED-
5335 Central Exp. De la Cruz Blvd. Santa Clara SC County E E E E FFFFFFFFFFF
5405 San Tomas Exp. Stevens Creek Blvd. Santa Clara SC County FFFFFFFFFFFFFEE
5406 San Tomas Exp. Moorpark Av. San Jose SC County E D NM D D E+ D- F E+ E+DDDDD-
5408 San Tomas Exp. Scott Blvd. Santa Clara SC County FFFFNMFFE-EEDDD-DD
5414 San Tomas Exp. Monroe St. Santa Clara SC County E D NM D D E E D- E+ E+ D D D+ D+ D+
5416 San Tomas Exp. El Camino Real (Rte 82) Santa Clara SC County FFFFFFFFFFEEEE+E+
5419 San Tomas Exp. Homestead Rd. Santa Clara SC County F E E E E E- F E F E+ E E E E+ E+
5422 San Tomas Exp. Saratoga Av. Santa Clara SC County E E E E FFFFFFE+EE+E+D
5429 San Tomas Exp. Hamilton Av. Campbell SC County E E E E E FFFFFEEE+DD
5430 San Tomas Exp. Campbell Av. Campbell SC County F F E FFFFE-E-EE+E-E-EE
5432 Hwy 17 (SB) San Tomas Expwy./Camden Av. Campbell SC County F D NM E E E- F F E D+ D+ D E E+ E
5433 Hwy 17 (NB) San Tomas Expwy./Camden Av. Campbell SC County C C NM C D E D F E+ D D D E+ D D
5505 Almaden Exp. Koch Ln. San Jose SC County B B NM B B B+ B B+ B B A A A A A
5512 Almaden Exp. Branham Ln. San Jose SC County F E E D D E+ D- E+ D- D-DDDDD
5513 Almaden Exp. Blossom Hill Rd. San Jose SC County F E E E E E E F F F E E- E E E+
5516 Almaden Exp. Coleman Rd. San Jose SC County F F F D E E D- D- E+ E D D- D D D
5520 Almaden Exp. Camden Av. San Jose SC County E D NM D E E+ E D- E E DDDDD
5522 Almaden Exp. Hwy 85 N. ramp San Jose SC County NM NM NM C B C+ C C+ C D- E D E D D
5523 Almaden Exp. Hwy 85 S. ramp San Jose SC County NM NM NM B C C F D- C-DCCCCC
5603 Lawrence Exp. Tasman Dr. Sunnyvale SC County D D NM D NM E+ NM F D- D D D- E+ D- D-
5611 Lawrence Exp. Arques Av. Sunnyvale SC County E D NM E NM D- E+ F F F E D D- E+ E+
5613 Lawrence Exp. Reed Av. Sunnyvale SC County E E E D NM E E- E F F D D D- D+ D
5625 Lawrence Exp. Homestead Rd. Sunnyvale SC County F F F E NM E+ E+ E+ E+ E D D- D D D
5633 Lawrence Exp. Bollinger Rd./Moorpark Av. San Jose SC County D D NM D D D E+ E E E+ E+ E+ E+ D D
5635 Lawrence Exp. Prospect Rd. San Jose SC County E E E D D D- D- D- E+ E+ D D- D D D
5636 Lawrence Exp. Calvert Drive (I-280 on-ramp) San Jose SC County NM NM NM C NM C D+CDDDDD+C-C-
5640 Lawrence Exp. Saratoga Av. San Jose SC County F F F E E E+ F E+ E E+DDDDD
5711 Capitol Exp. Narvaez Avenue San Jose SC County NM NM NM D D D D+ D D+ D+ C-DDDD
5713 Capitol Exp. Hwy 87 on/off ramp San Jose SC County NM NM NM D D D- D E- D- D C- D D- D D
5715 Capitol Exp. Snell Rd. San Jose SC County D D NM DDDDDDDD+D+D+DD
5720 Capitol Exp. Senter Rd. San Jose SC County F F E E EEEEE+E+DD-DDD
5721 Capitol Exp. McLaughlin Av. San Jose SC County D D NM D E E E DDDDDD-DD
5723 Capitol Exp. Silver Creek Rd. San Jose SC County F D NM D E D FFFFFEE+EE+
5724 Capitol Exp. Aborn Rd. San Jose SC County F F F E E D E D E E+ D E E- E E
5725 Capitol Exp. Quimby Rd. San Jose SC County E E E E E D- D E E+ E- D- E- E- E E
5727 Capitol Exp. Tully Rd. San Jose SC County D E D E E D D E+ D D- D D D- D D
5732 Capitol Exp. Story Rd. San Jose SC County F F E E FFFFFFE+EEEE+
5734 Capitol Exp. Excalibur Dr. (Capitol Av.) San Jose SC County F D NM D D F D- F E+ E F E+ E+ E+ D-
5801 Montague Exp. Main St./Old Oakland Rd. Milpitas SC County F F E E E FFFFEFNME+DD-
5802 Montague Exp. Trade Zone Blvd./McCandless Milpitas SC County FFFFFFFFFFFFFFE-
5803 Montague Exp. Capitol Av. Milpitas SC County F E E E FFFFFEEE+E+D-D-
5804 Montague Exp. Milpitas Blvd. Milpitas SC County F E E E FFFFFFD+DD+DD+
5805 Montague Exp. Mission College Blvd. Santa Clara SC County F D NM D D D D+DDDDD+D+DD
5806 Montague Exp. De la Cruz Blvd. Santa Clara SC County C C NM C D C-CCCDDD+DD+D
5807 Montague Exp. First St. San Jose SC County F E E E FFFFFFEFFE+E
5808 Montague Exp. Trimble Rd. San Jose SC County FFFFFFFFFE+DE+E+DD
5809 Montague Exp. McCarthy Blvd./O'Toole Av. Milpitas SC County FFFFFFFFFFEEEEF
5812 Montague Exp. Zanker Rd. San Jose SC County E D NM D E D- D- E E+ E D- E+ E D D-
1 2 3 4 567891011121314151617181920
VTA Questions for OPR on SB 743, including TPA Definition
Updated February 25, 2014
Questions Related to Definition of a Transit Priority Area (TPA) and Infill Opportunity
Zone (IOZ):
1. What is the definition of a planned Major Transit Stop? Does it need to be included in
the latest State TIP or listed in the RTP? Does the stop have to be completed in the time
frame of the State TIP (5 years) or RTP (25 years)?
2. Who has the responsibility of maintaining/updating the map of TPAs? MTC/ABAG?
CMAs? Cities? Any Lead Agency? Does OPR expect to specify this?
3. What constitutes an “intersection” of bus routes, in the definition of a Major Transit
Stop? Just Scenario I, I and II, or all three (as shown in the figure below)?
4. Bus Headways/Service Interval: Can combined headways of 15 minutes or less count, or
does each route have to be 15 minutes or better?
5. Will there be guidance on how frequently the map of TPAs needs to be updated? Will
each transit operator need to update the TPA map with every bus service change? For
example, current route alignments and headways will be used initially to map the
locations of TPAs in an area. But if route alignments or headways change (e.g., if a 15-
minute route goes to 20 or 30-minute headways) some locations may no longer qualify as
TPAs. How will this be handled – keeping in mind the administrative burden/resource
constraints? Alternatively, for the purpose of defining TPA locations, would it be
sufficient to note that a location is currently a TPA, and that the RTP assumes the same
general transit network and service levels (total amount of service) in the future as at
present?
6. IOZ Definition: SB 743 seems to contain conflicting language as to whether high quality
transit corridors are qualified to become “Infill Opportunity Zones.” They are included in
the definition:
65088.1 (e) “Infill opportunity zone” means a specific area designated by a city or county,
pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65088.4, that is within one-half mile of a major transit
stop or high-quality transit corridor included in a regional transportation plan.
VTA Questions for OPR on SB 743, including TPA Definition
Updated February 25, 2014
However, later the legislation seems to say that only TPAs would be allowed to become
Infill Opportunity Zones:
65088.4 (c) The city or county may designate an infill opportunity zone by adopting a
resolution after determining that the infill opportunity zone is consistent with the general
plan and any applicable specific plan, and is a transit priority area within a sustainable
communities strategy or alternative planning strategy adopted by the applicable
metropolitan planning organization.
Broader Questions on SB 743:
7. Could OPR please post all letters received on the December 30th OPR memo?
8. Can OPR please clarify the upcoming steps in the development and review of the
guidelines (including opportunities for public/agency input)?
9. Who is the official interpreter of SB 743?
10. Does Plan Bay Area have to be “accepted” by CARB before the provisions involving
TPAs, IOZs, and/or CEQA exemptions take effect? (factoring in the pending lawsuits
against Plan Bay Area)
11. What happens if a project inside a TPA has an Auto LOS impact outside the boundaries
of the TPA? If it turns out that Auto LOS is still allowed to be used outside TPAs, will a
Lead Agency have to perform the LOS analysis and disclose impacts outside (but not
inside) for CEQA purposes?
12. Has OPR considered any further guidance to harmonize CEQA and CMP transportation
analysis guidelines (beyond the IOZ provisions in the legislation)?
13. Will OPR be providing specific guidance for applying SB 743 for transportation projects
(e.g., transit or roadway capital projects), in addition to for land use/development
projects?
14. If a rail station is located in the median of a freeway (and therefore a portion of the
freeway falls inside a TPA), would a transportation improvement project on that freeway
(e.g., an Express Lane/HOT Lane project) be exempt from Auto LOS analysis in those
areas?
15. Who will establish the thresholds of significance for any new metrics that are
recommended under the SB 743 guidelines? Is it possible there will be different
thresholds (e.g., local, CMA, regional)?
Charlotte Department of Transportation
PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE LEVEL OF SERVICE
METHODOLOGY FOR CROSSINGS
AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Updated February 2007
CONTENTS
Introduction ………………………………………………………………… p 3
Signal Features and Pedestrian Level of Service …………………………... p 3
Signal Features and Bicycle Level of Service ……………………………… p 6
Pedestrian and Bicycle Level of Service Determination …………………… p 9
Summary …………………………………………………………………… p 9
Pedestrian Level of Service Calculation Tables …………………………… p 11
Bicycle Level of Service Calculation Tables ……………………………… p 16
Intersection Example #1 ……………………………….………………….. p 19
Intersection Example #2 ……………………………….………………….. p 22
TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1 Pedestrian LOS: Crossing Distance ……………………………. p 11
Table 2 Pedestrian LOS: Signal Phasing & Timing Features …………... p 12, 13
Table 3 Pedestrian LOS: Corner Radius ………………………………... p 14
Table 4 Pedestrian LOS: Right Turns On Red …………………………. p 15
Table 5 Pedestrian LOS: Crosswalk Treatment ………………………… p 15
Table 6 Pedestrian LOS: Adjustment for One-Way Street Crossings .…. p 15
Table 7 Point Totals and Corresponding Pedestrian Level of Service …. p 15
Table 8 Bicycle LOS: Bicycle Travel Way & Speed of Adjacent Traffic p 16, 17
Table 9 Bicycle LOS: Signal Features – Left Turns & Stop Bar Location p 17
Table 10 Bicycle LOS: Right Turn Traffic Conflict .……..……………... p 18
Table 11 Bicycle LOS: Right Turns On Red ……………………………. p 18
Table 12 Bicycle LOS: Intersection Crossing Distance …………………. p 18
Table 13 Point Totals and Corresponding Bicycle Level of Service ……. p 18
Figure 1 Pedestrian Crossing Conflicts …………………………………. p 5
Figure 2 Corner Channel Island Designs ……………………………….. p 5
Figure 3 Adjustment for One-Way Streets … ………………………….. p 6
Figure 4 Bicycle Crossing Conflicts ……………………………………. p 7
Figure 5 Bike Treatments at Exclusive Right Turn Lanes ..…………….. p 8
Figure 6 Example Intersection #1: Pedestrian LOS Calculation ……….. p 20
Figure 7 Example Intersection #1: Bicycle LOS Calculation ………….. p 21
Figure 8 Example Intersection #2: Pedestrian LOS Calculation ………. p 23
2
INTRODUCTION
The Charlotte Department of Transportation has developed the following methodology to
assess the important design features that affect pedestrians and bicyclists crossing
signalized intersections. Referred to as Level of Service (LOS), this methodology
identifies and evaluates features according to their influence on the comfort and safety of
pedestrians and bicyclists. Among the key features identified and rated are crossing
distance, roadway space allocation (i.e., crosswalks, bike lanes), corner radius dimension
and traffic signal characteristics.
This methodology can be used as a diagnostic tool to assess and improve pedestrian and
bicyclist levels of comfort and safety by modifying design and operational features of
intersections. The results can be compared with those for traffic levels of service of an
intersection and weighed according to user priorities. This methodology is intended to be
used to select design and operational features that can help achieve desired levels of
service for pedestrians and bicyclists.
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION FEATURES AND THEIR RELATIVE
IMPORTANCE TO PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
The primary impediments to comfort and safety for pedestrians crossing at signalized
intersections are crossing distance and conflicts with turning vehicles. Vehicle volumes
and speeds are factors as well, but are tempered by the presence of the traffic signal, its
phasing, and/or physical characteristics of the intersection. For example, tight corner
radii can slow the speeds of right-turning vehicles, and right and left turn conflicts can be
reduced or eliminated by signal phasing, all design factors affecting comfort and safety
between pedestrians and vehicles. So although volumes and speeds are not explicitly
addressed by this methodology, they are implicitly dealt with.
This approach for assessing pedestrian level of service, therefore, identifies those key
elements or features of intersections that enhance or reduce comfort and safety, and then
weighs them relative to one another by a point system. Points are assigned to physical
and operational features of intersections according to how well they achieve these
objectives. These important features are discussed below.
Rated Intersection Features
Crossing Distance (Table 1) – As previously mentioned, crossing distance is the primary
crossing component or obstacle for pedestrians traveling across intersections and
therefore receives the greatest weight in this methodology. The less distance one has to
walk to cross a street, the easier and more comfortable it is perceived to be. A crossing
equivalent to two or three lanes, for example, rates a minimum LOS of B, exclusive of
any other features. By contrast, a crossing of eight lanes or more falls in the LOS F
range, exclusive of other features. For wide street crossings, where there is a greater
probability that pedestrians might fail to make it across the entire roadway during a signal
phase, level of service can be improved noticeably if there is a median wide enough to
3
serve as a refuge. Slip lanes and raised corner islands can also enhance pedestrian
crossings by breaking long continuous distances into shorter, more manageable crossings.
Crossing distance is determined based on the number of motor vehicle travel lanes that
must be crossed to reach the far side of the intersection. Travel lanes are assumed to be
within the range of 10’ to 14’ in width. If a lane(s) is much wider, one might consider the
street crossing as wider than simply the number of delineated travel lanes. For example,
the departure leg of an intersection is 20’ wide and unmarked. In this case, the departure
leg can be considered as two travel lanes to be crossed instead of one.
Signal Phasing & Timing (Table 2) – This is the most intricate of the design parameters
and second most important in terms of points. It is rated according to the type and level
of crossing information provided to the pedestrian and whether the signal phasing
minimizes, eliminates or exacerbates conflicts between pedestrians and turning vehicles
(Figure 1).
The signal phasing feature that rates best for reducing left turn conflicts across the
pedestrian path is the Protected Only phase (when turns occur on a green arrow only),
provided there are signals that inform pedestrians when they can cross without a conflict
with left turning vehicles. Protected turn phases (e.g., green arrow only, green
arrow/green ball) without accompanying pedestrian signals expose pedestrians to greater
risks by adding an extra phase to the signal cycle that may not be perceptible to
pedestrians. This condition, which may entice pedestrians into the street while motorist
are turning on the arrow and not expecting to encounter pedestrians crossing, is viewed
negatively. Also considered an increased risk, and rated accordingly, are lane
arrangements that allow multiple lanes of traffic to turn across pedestrian paths, unless
the signal phasing reduces or eliminates the conflict.
As with left turn conflicts, right turn conflicts are assessed according to lane
configuration and signal phasing. Points can only be achieved in this category if the
pedestrian conflict with turning traffic is eliminated by the signal phasing. Points are
taken away if either the signal phasing creates a conflict similar to that discussed above
for left turn phasing (overlap) or multiple lanes of traffic are allowed to turn concurrent
with pedestrian crossings. Otherwise, no points are awarded or subtracted.
Points can also be attained by the use of pedestrian signals, provided vehicle conflicts are
reduced and/or information is given by the signal that shows pedestrians how much time
is available for them to cross the street (e.g., countdown signals). Additional points can
be obtained within this subcategory by timing pedestrian phases for slower walk speeds,
if countdown pedestrian signals are used. Pedestrian phase times based on slower walk
speeds without countdown signals are not perceptible to pedestrians, and therefore do not
receive extra points.
4
PE
D
Figure 1. Pedestrian Crossing Conflicts
Right
Turn
Conflict
Corner
Radius
Left
Turn
Conflict
Right Turn
on Red Conflict
Corner Radius (Table 3) – Corner radius is rated according to its effect on right-turning
vehicle speeds and any increased walking distance for pedestrians. The smaller the
radius, the slower the turning speeds around it and the less additional distance to be
walked. Radii of 20’ or smaller rate best, while large radii (greater than 40’) are
considered detrimental enough to be assigned negative point values. If slip lanes or
raised corner channel islands suitable in size to serve as pedestrian refuge are provided
(Figure 2), then points are assigned according to the type of traffic control present (i.e.,
yield or signal control) and how this control manages the pedestrian-turning vehicle
conflict. For simplicity, no distinction is made between corner radius and its effect on
vehicle speeds for turns into a single lane or turns into multiple lanes. Also, the effect of
intersection angle on vehicle speeds for a given radius is not directly incorporated.
Corner radius ranks third for points among the rated intersection features.
Figure 2. Corner Channel Island Designs
Wide Angle Reduced Angle
(A) Standard slip lane design (B) Modified slip lane design
Slower speed,
good visiblityHigh speed,
low visibility
head turner
5
Right Turns On Red (Table 4) – Prohibiting right-turns-on-red eliminates a possible
conflict between pedestrians and motorists. The Right-Turns-On-Red and Crosswalk
(below) features each account for about 5% of the possible points.
Crosswalk Treatment (Table 5) - The presence of and design features of crosswalks are
both rated. Crosswalks help raise awareness to motorists of the possibility of pedestrians
crossing the street. Enhanced crosswalks (e.g., textured/colored pavement or ladder style
pavement markings) are more visible than simple transverse markings, and therefore are
rated better.
Adjustment for One-Way Street Crossings (Table 6) – This parameter accounts for the
increased risk to pedestrians caused by their exposure to left and right turning traffic
while crossing the departure leg of a one-way street that intersects a two-way street.
With this scenario, pedestrians are exposed to left and right turning traffic for the entire
crossing distance of the road, instead of just a portion (such as is the case for crossing a
two-way street with traffic stopped on the approach lanes by the signal).
One-way traffic
One-way traffic
Right
Turn
Conflict
Left
Turn
Conflict
P
E
D
(⌧
L
Figure 3. Adjustment for One-Way Streets
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION FEATURES AND THEIR RELATIVE
IMPORTANCE TO BICYCLE LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
The major impediments to the comfort and safety of bicyclists are somewhat different
than those for pedestrians. Traffic signal features and potential conflicts with turning
vehicles are still prominent issues, but crossing distance is less important and is surpassed
by the desire for physical space in the roadway apart from automobile traffic. Because
bicyclists share space with and travel alongside motor vehicles, the speed of traffic is also
a significant factor.
As with the pedestrian level of service methodology, key elements or features of
intersections that enhance or reduce comfort and safety are identified and assigned points
according to how well they meet the objectives. These important features are discussed
below.
6
Rated Intersection Features
Bicycle Travel Way & Speed of Adjacent Traffic (Table 8) – Where bicyclists travel
within the roadway and how fast motor vehicle traffic is moving next to them is the most
important factor in accessing their comfort and safety.
For streets with moderate to high traffic speeds (30 mph or more), travel space beyond
that provided for general traffic is highly desirable. This extra space may be in the form
of separate bicycle lanes, or in the form of wide outside travel lanes (13’ to 14’). Bicycle
lanes rate best and are the preferred treatment. Conditions requiring bicyclists to share
travel lanes with motorists rate poorly.
Bike lanes and wide outside lanes, on the other hand, do not provide as much benefit on
low speed streets (less than 30 mph) because cyclists can better match the speed of
adjacent traffic. Also, low speed streets generally carry low traffic volumes, which many
cyclists prefer.
Signal Features – Left Turn Phasing & Stop Bar Location (Table 9) – Features that
remove potential left turn conflicts from the path of bicyclists and features that place
bicyclists before motorists (in space) are rated as desirable. Signal phasing and stop
location rate as the second most important bicycle feature.
Left
Turn
Conflict
Rt. Turn on Red
Conflict
Right Turn Conflict
Figure 4. Bicycle Crossing Conflicts
BI
K
E
Right Turn Traffic Conflict (Table 10) – This parameter addresses the potential conflict
involving motorists turning right and bicyclists traveling straight ahead on an intersection
approach. The preferred method of resolving this conflict is for bicyclists to ‘take’ the
traffic lane if it is shared with traffic, or if there is a separate right turn lane (Figure 5),
motorists should merge right in advance of the intersection while bicyclists travel
straight-ahead. Points are awarded if there is no right turn conflict with motorists or if
there is a bicycle lane that places bicyclists left of a right turn lane. Otherwise, points are
7
either not awarded at all or they are taken away, depending on whether the bicyclist or
motorist is required to merge.
Figure 5. Bike Treatments at Exclusive Right Turn Lanes
LANE
BIKE
PED Crossing
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
Typical path
of throughbicyclist
Typical path
of throughbicyclist
Typical path
of throughbicyclist
PED Crossing PED Crossing
(A) Straight alignment - (B) Alignment shift - (C) No bike lane -
Cyclists travel straight Cyclists merge left Cyclists share
and turning motorists and turning motorists lane with motorists
yield to cyclists merge right
(BEST CONDITION)
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
PED Crossing PED Crossing
Typical pathof through
bicyclist
(D) Bike lane ends - (E) Bike lane right of
cyclists shift into motor turn lane
vehicle lane (BAD CONDITION)
8
Right Turns On Red (Table 11) - This condition creates another conflict between
bicyclists and motorists. Bicyclists can easily blend into the background when a motorist
is looking to turn right on red because motorists are often looking for larger motor
vehicles (Figure 4).
Crossing Distance (Table 12) – Wide street crossings increase the risk of exposure to
bicyclists from motor vehicle traffic on cross-streets. Signal clearance times (the yellow
and all-red signal phase portions) are timed for motor vehicle speeds and not the slower
speeds of bicyclists; therefore, the wider the intersection, the greater the likelihood that
cyclists will still be crossing when right-of-way changes to the cross-street.
Intersection Features Not Rated in the Pedestrian and Bicycle Methodologies
There are several other features not rated in these methodologies that also affect the
comfort and safety of pedestrians and bicyclists and should be considered in intersection
design. Among these features are sight lines, street lighting, pavement condition,
signing, pedestrian and bike detection, curb extensions, and ADA features such as wheel
chair ramps and accessible signals.
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE LOS DETERMINATION
Level of service for an intersection crossing/approach is determined by adding points
from Tables 1 through 6 (for Pedestrians) and points from Tables 8 through 12 (for
Bicyclists). The accumulation of points is then compared to the points listed in Tables 7
(Pedestrians) and 13 (Bicyclists), which provides the threshold values for levels of
service A through F. An overall intersection level of service for either pedestrian or
bicycle features can also be determined by adding the total points from each crossing and
dividing their sum by the number of intersection crossing legs (e. g., a three leg
intersection’s point totals would be divided by three). The higher the point total, the
better the level of service.
SUMMARY
The level of service methodology is intended to be used to assess the most crucial,
especially safety related, factors affecting pedestrians’ and bicyclists’ crossing signalized
intersections. It attempts to identify and compare those design elements that help make
intersection crossings safer and pedestrians and bicyclists feel more comfortable. The
methodology is not concerned with the quality of the environment away from the
intersection crossing, so those elements that make an area more inviting and attractive to
pedestrians and bicyclists, such as visual stimuli, convenience, security, and noise are not
considered. These other elements and their importance on creating a pedestrian and
bicycle friendly environment are addressed through initiatives such as the Urban Street
Design Guidelines
The focus of this methodology is on those intersection features that reduce traffic
conflicts, minimize crossing distances, slow down traffic speeds and raise user
awareness. The methodology assumes that all rated features are adequately designed and
9
implemented (e.g., signals are timed adequately and pedestrian signals are well placed),
so that equivalent comparisons can be made between features. While important to the
overall sense of safety and comfort, elements of risk (e.g., traffic volumes) are not
directly evaluated in the methodology since design features are the focus and design
features can be used to mitigate the effects of risks. Furthermore, design features such as
cross-section distance, number and type of travel lanes, and signal-phasing schemes
typically reflect varying traffic volumes.
This level of service methodology is expected to be applied in conjunction with the
traditional level of service methodology for motor vehicles. The importance or relative
weight given to each level of service (for motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians) is
expected to vary by intersection, depending on the planned function and context of each
intersection.
The following pages provide additional detail of the pedestrian and bicycle level of
service methodologies, along with example level of service calculations. As a companion
piece to this document, Charlotte DOT has also developed an electronic spreadsheet that
can be used to quickly calculate levels of service. The spreadsheet should be used when
performing level of service calculations.
10
PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION
TABLE 1. PEDESTRIAN LOS: Crossing Distance
Crossing distance is determined based on the total number of motor vehicle travel lanes that must be
crossed to reach the opposite side of the street. The added effect of corner radii on crossing distance is
addressed in parameter number 3 (Corner Radius). When the number of travel lanes crossed includes the
crossing of corner refuge island lane(s), an adjustment to the points in the table below should be made.
This adjustment is described just below the table.
Points
No Median Refuge Median Refuge Median Refuge
Total Travel Lanes Crossed (or less than 4’) (4’ to 6’) (6’ or more)
2 Lanes 80 80 80
3 Lanes 78 78 78
4 Lanes 65 65 68
5 Lanes 50 52 55
6 Lanes 37 40 44
7 Lanes 24 28 33
8 Lanes 8 12 20
9 Lanes -5 0 10
10 Lanes -15 -10 0
Corner Refuge Island Adjustments:
• Crossing of corner refuge island lanes is not weighed as heavily as crossing other travel lanes, and
therefore the points assigned based on crossing distance in the table above should be adjusted. Six
points are assigned for each refuge island lane crossed. Refuge lane points are added to the points
assigned for the total crossing distance from Table 1 above.
Example: A crossing of 5 lanes (one of which is a refuge island lane) is adjusted as follows: 50
points (based on 5 lanes crossed) + 6 points (for refuge island lane) = 56 points.
Example: 5 lane Crossing, with corner refuge island
1 slip lane4 lanes
Corner Refuge Island Adjustment
5 total lanes (50
points) + 1 slip
lane (6 points) =
56 points
11
• Adjustments are also made based on how slip lane traffic is controlled at the intersection. If slip
lane traffic is under signal control then 5 points are added to the crossing total. If traffic is under
Yield control then 3 points are subtracted from the crossing total, and if traffic is uncontrolled (i.e.,
free flow) then 20 points are subtracted.
TABLE 2. PEDESTRIAN LOS: Signal Phasing & Timing Features
Pedestrian Crossing Conflicts
Corner
Radius Right
Turn
Conflict
PE
D
Left
Turn
ConflictRight Turn
on RedConflict
Table 2A
Left Turn Conflicts (Left Turns into Pedestrian Crossing Path)
Points
A1. Lefts on GREEN BALL Only (permissive phase - left turns unprotected)
• From SINGLE lane, no pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing
• From SINGLE lane, with pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing
• From 2 or more lanes, no pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing
• From 2 or more lanes, with pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing
-5
0
-10
-5
A2. Lefts on GREEN ARROW & GREEN BALL (protected/permissive phase)
• From SINGLE lane, no pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing
• From SINGLE lane, with pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing
-5
0
A3. Lefts on GREEN ARROW Only (protected only phase)
• From SINGLE lane, no pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing
• From SINGLE lane, with pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing
• From 2 or more lanes, no pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing
• From 2 or more lanes, with pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing
5
15
0
15
A4. No Left Turn Conflict (e.g., “T” intersections, one-way streets, exclusive
pedestrian phase)
15
12
Table 2B
Right Turn Conflicts (Right Turns into Pedestrian Crossing Path)
Points
B1. Rights on GREEN BALL Only (permissive phase)
• From SHARED Thru-Right lane, no pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing
• From SHARED Thru-Right lane, with pedestrian phase at crossing
• From SINGLE Right lane, no pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing
• From SINGLE Right lane, with pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing
• From 2 or more Right lanes, no pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing
• From 2 or more Right lanes, with pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing
0
0
0
0
-10
-7
B2. Rights on GREEN ARROW & GREEN BALL (overlap phase)
• From RIGHT turn lane(s), no pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing
• From RIGHT turn lane(s), with pedestrian phase (no conflict for duration of
the Green Arrow)
-10
0
B3. Rights on GREEN ARROW Only (protected phase)
• From SINGLE Right lane, no pedestrian phase
• From SINGLE Right lane, with pedestrian phase – turning traffic held for
pedestrian movement, which eliminates turning/crossing conflict
• From 2 or more Right lanes, no pedestrian phase
• From 2 or more Right lanes, with pedestrian phase – turning traffic held for
pedestrian movement, which eliminates turning/crossing conflict
-10
10
-15
10
B4. No Right Turn Conflict (e.g., “T” intersections, one-way streets, exclusive
pedestrian phase)
15
TABLE 2C
Pedestrian Phase Signal Display
C1. No Pedestrian Phase -5
C2. UPRAISED HAND, WALKING PERSON display
0
C3. UPRAISED HAND, WALKING PERSON display – with LEADING
pedestrian phase (pedestrians start crossing seconds before vehicles on
the adjacent street)
4
C4. COUNTDOWN display (crossing time is shown)
With pedestrian crossing time based on following walk speeds:
> 3.5 ft/sec
≤ 3.5 ft/sec
5
8
C5. LEADING COUNTDOWN display (pedestrians start crossing seconds
13
before vehicles on the adjacent street)
With pedestrian crossing time based on following walk speeds:
> 3.5 ft/sec
≤ 3.5 ft/sec
8
12
TABLE 3. PEDESTRIAN LOS: Corner Radius
Standard Radius Points
A. Radius ≤ to 20’
B. Radius > 20’ and ≤ 30’
C. Radius > 30’ and ≤ 40’
D. Radius > 40’ and ≤ 60’ (or Equivalent Compound Curve)
E. Radius > 60’ (or Equivalent Compound Curve)
10
5
0
-10
-15
Wide Angle Reduced Angle
High speed,
low visibility
head turner
Slower speed,
good visiblity
(A) Standard channel island (B) Modified slip lane design
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
A
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
B
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
B
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
A
CHANNEL ISLAND (in lieu of standard radius)
F. Painted Channel Island (no curb)
- Right turns are uncontrolled (free flow)
- Right turns made on Yield or Signal Control
G. Curbed Channel Island (Figure A)
- Right turns are uncontrolled (free flow)
- Right turns on Yield, Green Ball or Green Arrow/Green Ball
(& Pedestrian crossing at location B)
(& Pedestrian crossing at location A)
- Right turns on Green Arrow Only
(& Pedestrian crossing at location B)
(& Pedestrian crossing at location A)
H. Curbed Low Speed Design Slip Lane (Figure B)
- Right turns on Yield, Green Ball or Green Arrow/Green Ball
(& Pedestrian crossing at location B)
(& Pedestrian crossing at location A)
- Right turns on Green Arrow Only
(& Pedestrian crossing at location B)
(& Pedestrian crossing at location A)
-20
-10
-20
-10
0
0
5
0
5
5
10
14
I. No Corner Radius (e.g., “T” intersection)
10
TABLE 4. PEDESTRIAN LOS: Right Turns On Red
Points
Allowed 0
Prohibited (or no conflict because right turns are not permitted/possible) 5
Table 5. PEDESTRIAN LOS: Crosswalk Treatment
No designated crosswalk -5
Painted crosswalk
- Transverse markings (Type A) 0
- LADDER type markings (Type B) 5
Textured/Colored Pavement
5
Type A
Type B
Crosswalk Types
Table 6. PEDESTRIAN LOS: Adjustment for One-Way Street Crossings
Applies only to the departure leg of a one way street with 4 or more lanes
that intersects a two-way street. (Figure 3, page 6)
Conflicting left turns made on:
• Green Ball Only (with or without pedestrian phase)
• Green Arrow/Green Ball (with or without pedestrian phase)
• Green Arrow Only (without pedestrian phase)
• Green Arrow Only (with pedestrian phase)
• Condition does not apply
-10
-10
-5
-2
0
TABLE 7. Point Totals and Corresponding PEDESTRIAN Level of Service
Points LOS
15
93+ A
74 - 92 B
55 - 73 C
37 - 54 D
19 - 36 E
0 - 18 F
BICYCLE LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION
TABLE 8. BICYCLE LOS: Bicycle Travel Way & Speed of Adjacent Traffic
Departure Leg
BI
K
E
Approach Leg
Bike Travels in:
(Approach/Departure Legs) Speed Limit Points
• Shared Auto Lane to
Shared Auto Lane
(lanes ≤ 12’ wide) ≥ 40 mph 5
30 to 35 mph 30
‹ 30 mph 50
• Shared Auto Lane to
Wide Curb Lane
(13’ to 14’ wide) ≥ 40 mph 20
30 to 35 mph 40
‹ 30 mph 55
• Shared Auto Lane to
Bike Lane ≥ 40 mph 35
30 to 35 mph 50
‹ 30 mph 60
• Shared Wide Curb Lane
To Shared Auto Lane ≥ 40 mph 15
30 to 35 mph 35
‹ 30 mph 50
• Shared Wide Curb Lane to
Wide Curb Lane
(13’ to 14’ wide) ≥ 40 mph 30
30 to 35 mph 50
16
‹ 30 mph 60
• Shared Wide Curb Lane to
Bike Lane ≥ 40 mph 45
30 to 35 mph 60
‹ 30 mph 70
TABLE 8 (continued)
Bike Travels in:
(Approach/Departure Legs) Speed Limit Points
• Bike Lane to
Shared Auto Lane
(lanes ≤ 12’ wide) ≥ 40 mph 30
30 to 35 mph 45
‹ 30 mph 55
• Bike Lane to
Wide Curb Lane
(13’ to 14’ wide) ≥ 40 mph 40
30 to 35 mph 55
‹ 30 mph 65
• Bike Lane to
Bike Lane ≥ 40 mph 60
30 to 35 mph 70
‹ 30 mph 80
TABLE 9. BICYCLE LOS: Signal Features – Left Turn Phasing & Stop Bar Location
Vehicular Left Turn Phase – turns opposing cyclists (Figure 4, page 7)
Points
Made on Green Ball Only 0
Made on Green Ball/Green Arrow 5
Made on Green Arrow Only 15
No Left Turn Conflict (e.g., “T” intersection, one-way streets) 15
Stop Bar Location
Shared stop bar - automobiles & bikes stop at common point 0
Advanced stop bar – bikes stop closer to intersection than automobiles 10
17
Left
Turn
Conflict
Rt. Turn on RedConflict
Right Turn Conflict
Bicycle Crossing Conflicts
BI
K
E
TABLE 10. BICYCLE LOS: Right Turn Traffic Conflict
Points
No Right Turn Conflict (e.g., “T” intersection, one-way street)
15
No Separate Right Turn Lane (Bike in Shared Lane)
0
Separate Right Turn Lane (Figure 5, page 8)
Bike lane LEFT of right turn lane (cyclist travels straight ahead and motorist
merges right) – see Figure 5A
10
Curb lane drops as right turn lane, with bike lane left of turn lane (cyclist
merges left, motorist merges right) – see Figure 5B
5
No bike lane (cyclist travels straight ahead and motorist merges right) – see
Figure 5C
0
Curb lane drops as right turn lane, no bike lane at intersection (cyclist
merges left, motorist merges right) – see Figure 5D
0
Bike lane RIGHT of right turn lane – see Figure 5E -20
TABLE 11. BICYCLE LOS: Right Turns On Red
Allowed 0
Prohibited (or no conflict because right turns are not permitted/possible) 5
TABLE 12. BICYCLE LOS: Intersection Crossing Distance
≤ 3 motor vehicle travel lanes 0
4 to 5 motor vehicle travel lanes -5
≥ 6 travel motor vehicle lanes -10
TABLE 13. Point Totals and Corresponding BICYCLE Level of Service
18
Points LOS
93+ A
74 - 92 B
55 - 73 C
37 - 54 D
19 - 36 E
0 - 18 F
Intersection Example # 1
Application of the pedestrian and bicycle level of service methodologies for an example
intersection is presented in Figures 6 and 7. The intersection evaluated is that of a one-way street
(4th Street) and a two-way street (McDowell Street) in downtown Charlotte. The sample
worksheets in figures 6 and 7 provide information on features relevant to the intersection.
BIKE LANE
20'R
20'R
15'R
25'R
19
Figure 6. Example Intersection #1: Pedestrian LOS Calculation
Location: 4th Street & McDowell Street
Crossing of
Northbound
Approach
(McDowell St.)
Crossing of
Southbound
Approach
(McDowell St.)
Crossing of
Eastbound
Approach
(4th St.)
Crossing of
Westbound
Approach
(4th St.)
Pedestrian
Crossing Distance
5 Lanes
(2’ median)
4 Lanes
(10’ median
refuge)
4 Lanes
4 Lanes
Score 50 68 65 65
Signal Features
Left Turn Conflict
(left turns into
pedestrian path)
Lefts on Green
Ball Only, from a
single lane – with
pedestrian phase
No Left Turn
Conflict -
(4th St. one-way)
Lefts on Green
Arrow/Green Ball -
with pedestrian
phasing
No Left Turn
Conflict -
(4th St. one-way)
Score 0 15 0 15
Right Turn Conflict
(right turns into
pedestrian path)
No Right Turn
Conflict
(4th St. one-way)
Right Turns on
Green Ball, from
a shared thru-
right lane - with
pedestrian phase
Right Turns on
Green Ball, from a
shared thru-right
lane - with
pedestrian phase
No Right Turn
Conflict
(4th St. one-way)
Score 15 0 0 15
Pedestrian Signal
Display
Countdown
Display
(4 ft/sec)
Countdown
Display
(4 ft/sec)
Countdown
Display
(4 ft/sec)
Countdown
Display
(4 ft/sec)
Score 5 5 5 5
20
Corner Radius 25' 20’ 20' 15'
Score 5 10 10 10
Right Turns on
Red
No Conflict
(4th St. one-way) Prohibited No Conflict
(4th St. one-way) Allowed
Score 5 5 5 0
Crosswalks
Textured/Colored
Textured/Colored
Textured/Colored
Textured/Colored
Score 5 5 5 5
Adjustment for
One-Way Street
Crossings
Two-Way Street
(Not Applicable)
Two-Way Street
(Not Applicable)
Departure Leg 4
Lanes Wide, with
left and right turn
conflicts
Multilane One-
Way street, no left
and right turn
conflicts
(Not Applicable)
Score -- -- -10 --
Approach Total 85 108 80 115
Approach LOS B A B A
Intersection AVG. 97
INTERSECTION LOS A
Figure 7. Example Intersection #1: Bicycle LOS Calculation
Location: 4th Street & McDowell Street
Northbound
Approach
(McDowell St.)
Southbound
Approach
(McDowell St.)
Eastbound
Approach
(4th St.)
Westbound
Approach
(4th St.)
Bike Travel Way
& Speed of
Adjacent Traffic
Shared 12’ Lane
with Motor
Vehicles
35 mph
Shared 12’ Lane
with Motor Vehicles
35 mph
Does not
Apply
Shared 12’ Lane
Transitions to 4’ Bike
Lane
35 mph
Score 30 30 50
Signal Features
Opposing Vehicular
Left Turn Phase
No Left Turn
Conflict
Green Arrow &
Green Ball
No Left Turn
Conflict
Score 15 5 15
Stop Bar Location
Vehicles & Bikes
Stop at Same Point
Vehicles & Bikes
Stop at Same Point
Vehicles & Bikes
Stop at Same Point
Score 0 0 0
Right Turning
Traffic Conflict
Shared Traffic
Lane/Separate Right
Turn Traffic Lane
No Right Turn
Conflict
Shared Thru-Right
lane - no bike lane
Shared Thru-Right
Lane - no bike lane
on approach
21
Score 15 0 0
Right Turns On
Red
Allowed
No Conflict
Prohibited
Score 0 5 5
Intersection
Crossing Distance
4 Travel Lanes
4 Travel Lanes
5 Travel Lanes
Score -5 -5 -5
Approach Total 55 35 65
Approach LOS C- E+ C
Intersection AVG. 52
Intersection LOS D+
Intersection Example # 2
A second application of the pedestrian level of service methodology is presented in Figure 8.
This example illustrates how the methodology should be applied for slip lane or channel island
designs. The sample worksheet in figure 8 provides information on features relevant to the
intersection.
SHARON ROAD WEST
SOUTH BOULEVARD
40' R
150' R
22
Figure 8. Example Intersection #2: Pedestrian LOS Calculation
Location: South Boulevard & Sharon Road West
Crossing of
Northbound
Approach
(South Blvd..)
Crossing of
Southbound
Approach
(South Blvd.)
Crossing of
Westbound Approach
(Sharon Rd. West)
Pedestrian
Crossing Distance
5 Lanes
(12’ median
refuge)
7 Lanes
6+1 slip lane –
under yield control
(no median refuge)
5 Lanes
4+1 slip lane – under
yield control
(no median refuge)
Score 55 27 53
Signal Features
Left Turn Conflict
(left turns into
pedestrian path)
Lefts on Green
Arrow Only, from
2 lanes – with
pedestrian phase
No Left Turn
Conflict
Lefts on Green
Arrow Only, from 2
lanes – with
pedestrian phase
Score 15 15 15
Right Turn Conflict
(right turns into
pedestrian path)
No Right Turn
Conflict
Cross to Corner
Channel Island
Right Turns on Green
Arrow/Green Ball,
from single right turn
lane
Score 15 7 0
Pedestrian Signal
Display
Countdown
Display
Countdown
Display Countdown Display
(4 ft/sec)
23
(4 ft/sec) (4 ft/sec)
Score 5 5 5
Corner Radius None
(T intersection)
Corner Slip Island
(crossing point A) Compound Curve
(55’ equivalent)
Score 10 5 -10
Right Turns on
Red Allowed No Conflict Slip Lane, right turns
yield controlled
Score 0 5 0
Crosswalks
Ladder Style
Ladder Style
Ladder Style
Score 5 5 5
Adjustment for
One-Way Street
Crossings
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Score -- -- --
Approach Total 105 69 68
Approach LOS A C C
Intersection AVG. 81
INTERSECTION LOS B
24