Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-15 City Council (4)City of Palo Alto C ty Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE JULY 15, 2002 CMR:341:02 SUBJECT:STUDY SESSION ON CALTRANS/EL CAMINO REAL MASTER SCHEMATIC DESIGN PLAN PROJECT This report provides the City Council background information for the July 15 Study Session, and no Council action is required BACKGROUND This project is a Caltrans Demonstration Grant Project sponsored jointly by the City and Caltrans. The study area is the Caltrans right of way on E1 Camino Real in Palo Alto, and the purpose of the project is to explore context-sensitive design solutions for in-town highways, using E1 Camino Real as a prototype. The project began in January 2002 and will be completed in December 2002. The .key project objectives are to increase safety and comfort for all travel modes, improve the appearance and urban design character of the street, and improve the quality of life and the environment on the street and in nearby neighborhoods. The project will produce a Master Schematic Design Plan (Master Plan) for E1 Camino Real. This Master Plan can be used to apply for federal, state and county funding for future construction of improvements that are identified in the Master Plan. The Master Plan will also be used to guide tree planting and other landscape improvements in E1 Camino Real medians, and to guide other interim street improvements. DISCUSSION The proposed draft street designs being presented in this report intend to meet the needs of all interest groups with a stake in the outcome of the project. These interests include bicycle advocates, motorists, tree advocates, businesses on the street, transit riders, pedestrians, and residents of nearby neighborhoods. They also include Caltrans, the CMR:341:02 1 of 8 Valley TransportationAuthority (VTA) and adjacent cities. All of these interests are represented on the project Advisory Group or theTechnical Advisory Committee. While these interests may sometimes appear to be in competition for limited space within the fight of way, their needs are more often interrelated in a mutually supportive way. For example, wider sidewalks and wider medians are essential both for pedestrians and for more and healthier street trees. A tree-shaded street is more comfortable and pleasant for bicyclists, pedestrians, and also for motorists. The proposed draft street designs include space for bicycles. The City’s Draft Bicycle Master Plan identifies E1 Camino Real as a bicycle route, because a significant number of bicyclists of varying skill levels use the street daily, and they need to be safely accommodated. The existing street makes no provision for bicycles. Providing minimum shared travel space for bicycles requires only an additional 4 feet across the entire street cross section, and the preferred marked bike lanes would require 6 feet. It appears that this space can be provided while adequately meeting other objectives. Providing for bicycles along E1 Camino Real should help future improvement projects compete for limited grant funding, as the improvements will make E1 Camino Real a mulfimodal street. The project is being closely coordinated with the objectives of the Trees for E1 Camino Project. A minimum median width of 8 feet, including at left turn lanes, is being proposed in the draft street designs in order to accommodate large canopy trees in the medians. While the current Caltrans standard requires a minimum width of 12 feet, it is a working assumption of the project that this requirement will be reduced to 8 feet or less.. (See Attachment A, Memorandum to Caltrans from Community Design & Architecture dated June 20, 2002, page 7.) To meet the Trees for E1 Camino Project objective, to begin planting street trees on E1 Camino Real during this coming winter, the project will identify areas where prototype tree planting can occur in January, 2003 with more extensive planting to occur in December, 2003. The City will prescreen and pre-purchase trees to assure high quality stock is available. The City is working closely with Caltrans representatives from Caltrans District 4 and Sacramento, and Caltrans staff attend project Advisory Group and Technical Advisory Committee meetings. Assemblyman Joe Simitian has hosted two meetings between Caltrans representatives and staff and elected officials from Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Redwood City, to facilitate and encourage flexibility in the application of Caltrans standards. A third follow up meeting is scheduled in November. The dialogue with Caltrans has resulted in a request for exceptions to specific road design standards being submitted by the City to Caltrans on June 20. (See Attachment A, Memorandum to Caltrans from Community Design & Architecture dated June 20, 2002.) To resolve the issue of the minimum median width required for planting large trees, Caltrans has commissioned a study that will be completed in December 2002. Representatives from Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Redwood City met with the author of the study to review CMR:341:02 2 of 8 Phase I of the work and will review and comment on the final draft. A Memorandum of Understanding between City and Caltrans will be prepared at the end of the project indicating areas where there is mutual agreement regarding exceptions to current Caltrans standards. VTA’s objectives for increasing bus service on E1 Camino Real, including a future bus rapid transit (BRT) line, are being incorporated into the project. Bus Route 22 which includes Palo Alto’ s segment of E1 Camino Real has the highest ridership in the County. Design Approach There has been a dramatic change in context since the existing E1 Camino Real was constructed as a single purpose road in early 1960’s. Any new design should provide space for a wider variety of users and community interests: pedestrians, bicyclists, motor vehicle drivers, large canopy trees, businesses on the street, bus riders and nearby neighborhoods. This can be accomplished in various ways. Space can be reclaimed from motor vehicles by: Narrowing the width of travel lanes, within national standards of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Reducing number of travel lanes from 6 to 4 in selected areas, while meeting local and regional requirements for handling increased traffic in the future and preserving E1 Camino’s role as an arterial in the regional roadway system. Possibly reducing curbside parking in selected locations. Curbside parking can be retained where it is needed by businesses on the street. This reclaimed space can then be used for: Wider sidewalks for ADA compliance, comfort and safety improved health of sidewalk trees, and other activities. ® Wider medians for large canopy trees and pedestrian refuges. ® Bicycle lanes. of pedestrians, The project proposes to design the road so that drivers will travel at speeds of 30 - 35 miles per hour (mph). The road is currently posted 35 mph in the southern segment and 40 mph north of Park Boulevard. However, most of the design features of the existing road support a higher speed of 50 mph or more. These design features include vertical and horizontal alignment, lane widths, clearances, lane transitions and sight lines. The slower 30 - 35 mph speed is being proposed for the following reasons: Road design standards are based on the design speed of the road, and design dimensions are more lenient at lower speeds. This helps meet multiple project objectives in the limited space; for example, shorter lane transition requirements will make it easier to provide both wide medians and curbside parking spaces. CMR:341:02 3 of 8 Road capacity is greatest at 30mph as the slower speed is offset by a shorter required distance between cars. The slower 30 mph speed is safer in urban conditions. Traffic studies conducted as part of this project have found that cars are speeding at 50 mph in some segments of the road even during peak hour, and that four locations on E1 Camino Real with higher than average accident rates occur near these high speed areas. The severity of accidents increases with speed. Accidents involving pedestrians or bicyclists are more likely to be fatal at speeds over 30 mph. (See Attachment B, The Driver’s Focus at Different Speeds, Oregon Main Street Handbook, page 25.) Proposed Combination Four-lane and Six-lane Design Scheme The proposed design for the street that is under consideration would retain six travel lanes (plus left turn lanes) at four regional intersections (Alma, Embarcadero, Page Mill Road and Charleston) and along other sections of the road where required to satisfactorily convey motor vehicles and maintain adequate travel time. Four travel lanes (plus left turn lanes) would be proposed where additional space could best serve the multimodal and aesthetic goals of the project and the additional lanes are not needed for traffic. Different designs have been developed fo~) the northern and southern sections of the road. Along the Stanford frontage, the road design reflects the rural character of the Stanford University campus and other adjacent uses such as Palo Alto .High School and E1 Camino Park. South of Stanford Avenue the road design responds to the more urban environment in this area. The cross sections for the four- and six-lane configurations in the Stanford segment are labeled Stanford 4 and Stanford 6, and the cross sections for segments south of Stanford Avenue are labeled Urban 4 and Urban 6. (See Attachment C, Street Cross Sections 1 - 3) The minimum space needs of the various project objectives can be met in all sections of the street, although in the most constrained conditions trade-offs need to be made giving priority to one element or another in response to adjacent conditions. For example, in the southern section of the street in locations where there are six travel lanes plus left turn lanes, curbside parking can be provided on only one side of the street if all other design elements remain at desired dimensions. Alternatively, limited parking could be provided on both sides of the street in "parking pockets" inset into a 14-foot-wide sidewalk. In this case, the bicycle lane is reduced from 5 feet to 4.5 feet, and the sidewalk adjacent to the parked cars is only 7 feet wide. All of the typical street cross sections meet the following two standards: ® Width of travel lanes and turn lanes meet AASHTO standards. ® Medians are at least 8 feet wide even at turn pockets to allow for large trees. CMR:341:02 4 of 8 Width of sidewalks meet ADA and Title 24 access standards. Unless otherwise noted, all cross sections provide: ®Marked bike lanes 5 feet wide. ®Sidewalks (or walk plus planting strip) at least 10 feet wide. ®Curbside parking on both sides of the street. Following is a brief description of each of the six typical street cross sections. Where design elements vary from the desired dimensions shown above for bike lanes, sidewalks, and curbside parking, the discrepancy is noted in italics. Stanford Frontage -- Reflects rural character of Stanford University (Attachment C-1) Stanford 4 Pedestrian paths, planting strip and medians are generously dimensioned. The planting strips on both sides of the street and the median are treated as swales that can serve as a storm water retention basins. The existing curbside parking along the Stanford frontage has been removed. Stanford 6 This cross section is similar to Stanford 4 except that paths, tree lawns and medianswales are less generously dimensioned. There has been discussion in the Advisory Group about whether the existing curbside parking along the Stanford campus south of Embarcadero Road should be retained or removed. While these cross sections do not show parking, it could be provided by the use of "parking pockets" which would somewhat reduce the space provided for walks, tree lawns and median, while still meeting the desired dimensions shown above. South of Stanford Avenue -- Responds to urban context (Attachment C-2) ® Urban 4 This cross section is highly desirable for existing and planned future pedestrian areas, such as California Avenue, with generously proportioned 16:foot-wide sidewalks and an 18-foot-wide median. Urban 6 (Midblock) This cross section is similar to Urban 4 except that, with more space needed for six lanes of traffic, sidewalks are only 10 feet wide and the median is 11 feet. Note that if parking were not needed on one or both sides of the street, (about 50% of the existing street south of Stanford Avenue does not have parking on both sides of the street), sidewalks and the median could be widened. CMR:341:02 5 of 8 Urban 6 (at left turn lanes) (Attachment C-3) The following two configurations have been prepared for the most constrained condition where curbside parking is desired and there are six lanes of traffic plus left turn lanes: Parking on one side of street. Continuous curbside parking can be provided on one side of the street with no parking on the other side of the street. Parking on both sides in "parking pockets." Limited parking is provided in "parking pockets"" inset into 14-foot- .wide sidewalks. This can be provided on both sides of the street. Bicycle lanes are reduced to 4.5 feet wide and sidewalks adjacent to the parked cars are 7feet wide. Additional Design Elements Enhanced pedestrian crossings. Detailed designs for improved pedestrian crossings are being developed, and locations for special treatment are being coordinated with school routes and other nodes of pedestrian activity. One or more midblock pedestrian crossings may be proposed where there are currently very long distances between signalized crossings. Street furnishings. Designs will be developed for improved street furnishings, including vehicular and pedestrian lighting, seating and trash containers, bollards, bicycle parking, tree grates, bus shelters, and paving materials. Left turn pockets at unsignalized intersections. Unsignalized left turn pockets occur in several locations on the street. If some of these were closed, it would result in additional median areas where large canopy trees could be planted. Since traffic studies that would need to be conducted prior to recommending closure of unsignalized left turns are not included in this project, no closures will be recommended. However, the final plan will show possible benefits to be achieved if closures were considered in the future. Public Outreach The project is supported by a community Advisory Group. (AG) and a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The AG includes representatives from neighborhoods along E1 Camino Real and various interest groups, including Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) and Trees for E1 Camino Project and businesses along the street. The (TAC) includes City staff from relevant departments and representatives from Stanford University, VTA and Caltrans. Both groups have met four times and will continue to meet throughout the project. Community Workshop #1 on April 23, 2002 was attended by about 75 people, and Community Workshop #2 is planned for September CMR:341:02 6 of 8 2002. A project Web site is being prepared. The draft final Master Schematic Design Plan will be reviewed in public hearings by the Architectural Review Board, the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council in October-December, 2002. RESOURCE IMPACT This project is being funded by a $240,000 grant from Caltrans and $48,000 in City matching funds that were transferred by the City Council from CIP Project 10113 on December 17, 2001. There may be ongoing future resource needs associated with this project that are unknown at this time. Staff will actively seek grant~ funding for any recommendations that may come out of the E1 Camino Real study. TIMELINE A draft final Master Schematic Design Plan will be presented at Community Workshop #2 in September, 2002. The final proposed Master Schematic Design Plan will be submitted for public review to the Architectural Review Board, the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council in November and December 2002. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The preparation of the Master Schematic Design Plan for E1 Camino Real is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section No. 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies). ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Memorandum to Caltrans from Community Design & Architecture dated June 20, 2002 The Driver’s Focus at Different Speeds, Oregon Main Street Handbook, page 25 Street Cross Sections 1- 3 1 - Stanford 4 and Stanford 6 2 - Urban 4 and Urban 6 3 - Urban 6 at left turn lanes: Parking on one side of street, or Parking Pockets on both sides of street CMR: 341:02 7 of 8 PREPARED BY:vIRGINIA ~EIT Senior.Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: LISA GROTE Chief Planning Official CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: EMIL~"AR’R’~ ON Assistant City Manager E1 Camino Real Advisory Group (electronic transmission) E1 Camino Real Technical Advisory Committee (electronic transmission) CMR:341:02 8 of 8 Attachment A COMMUNITY DESIGN+ARCHITECTURE Region , City ¯ Neighborhood , Buildi’ng Memorandum June 20, 2002 To: Caltrans for Internal Review From: Phil Erickson and Thomas Kronemeyer, Community Design + Architecture Total of 11 pages including attachments Re: E1 Camino Real Schematic Design Plan -- Context Sensitive Design Features This memo describes the specific design features or "elements" that are being considered as part of the development of the Schematic Design Plan for El Camino Real in Palo Alto; specifically those that may vary from Caltrans’ current standards as defined in the Highway Design Manual and by other current policies of Caltrans. In this memorandum we describe the trade-offs that have been considered in arriving at the proposed designs. The majority of trade-offs are between the design standards for various modes and tree planting standards. As we have illustrated in the "Ideal" street cross section the existing 120 foot right-of-way would need to be widened by 26 feet in order to meet the recommended standards for all of the design elements. We welcome Caltrans participation in the process of evaluating these trade-offs so that E1 Camino Real becomes a street that satisfies the community’s goals and results in a safe and efficient design for all modes of transportation. Identify Exceptions Granted for Simila’r Design Variations It would be helpful if Caltrans could identify examples of cases where they have granted the desired flexibility in the standards through their exceptions process, this would allow the Consultant Team to draw parallels between those cases and the conditions that exist along E1 Camino Real in Palo Alto. Project Objectives The variations from existing highway design standards are being requested in order to achieve the projects goals and objectives, The following defines the objectives of the project and the ultimate redesign of E1 Camino Real. Please note that the objectives are no___!t listed in priority order.. Objective 1: Improve Landscape Quality and Quantity The amount of land area within the r.o.w, for landscaping should be increased, and the number, health, and size of trees and other landscaping should be improved both along the edges of the street and in the median. Objective 2: Create a Street and Streetscape that Complement Community Character The design’ character and function of E1 Camino Real needs to be more directly related to the existifig and desired future character and function of the community algng it. 436 14th Street, Suite 1500 Oakland, California 94612 o 510.839.4568 phone Philip Erickson, AIA, Architect ¯510.839.4570 fax Community Design + Architecture Memoran&~m for lnternal Review Re: El Camino Real Schematic Design Plan .~ Context Sensitive Design Features June 20, 2002 page 2 ofll Objective 3: Improve Aesthetic Quality of Street Design The quality and material of both streetscape elements and the paving of the roadway and sidewalks needs to be improved. The addition of public art and landscape design can also contribute to this objective, Objective 4: Improve Safety for All Modes Improvements E1 Camino Real to be a safer place for all pedestrians (including seniors, school children, and the disabled), bicyclists, transit riders, buses, autos, and trucks. Objective 5: Provide Equity and Balance for All Modes The new design of E1 Camino Real needs to provide for and balance the potential conflicts between all modes of transportation - local and subregional auto, transit, and truck traffic; bicyclists of varied skill levels, and all pedestrians (including seniors, school children, and the disabled. Objective 6: Design Street to Encourage Motorized Traffic to Drive at the Speed Limit Traffic needs to be encouraged to drive the speed limit for safety reasons and to allow aesthetic and multimodal improvements to E1 Camino Real, and this needs to be balanced with traffic and transit needs for mobility along the length of the Corridor. Objective 7: Improve Ability to Cross the Street and at Intersections Intersections need to be improved, and some mid-block crossings may need to be added, to make the E1 Camino Real roadway less of a barrier to pedestrians and bicyclists by making it safer and more convenient for them to cross E1 Camino Real. Objective 8: Minimize Direct and Indirect Impacts on Quality of Life and the Environment Efforts should be made in the design, construction, and function of the new E1 Camino Real to minimize direct and indirect impacts on quality of life along the street and in adjacent neighborhoods and districts. In addition, impacts on the environment should be reduced, particularly as relates to water and air quality and the solar "heat island" effects associated with larger areas of pavement in urban settings. Objective 9: Create Cost Effective Improvements The improvements toE1 Camino Real will be of high quality, to the extent feasible both relative cost to benefit and initial cost compared to life-time cost need to be considered. Objective lO:Define Some Immediate Improvements A set of improvements should be identified that can be implemented as soon as possible to build incrementally to the ultimate vision for the future of E1 Camino Real; particularly in. regards to planting trees and making other landscape improvements in the near term. Community Design + Architecture Memorandum for h~ternal Review Re: El Camino Real Schematic Design Plan ~ Context Sensitive DesigT~ Features June 20, 2002 page 3 of 11 Context Sensitive Design Features Needing "Standards Variation" Each design feature is described below as is the linkage to specific project objectives. Please note that the standard variations are generally listed in order of priority. A.Design Speed & Relationship to Posted Speed Current Condition/Standard Design speed is "infinite" given the straight aligninent of the majority of the street or generally 40 to 50 mph (5 to 10 mph over the posted speed of 35 to 40 mph). Most of the design features support this higher speed, including: vertical and horizontal alignment, lane widths, clearances, lane transitions and sight lines. Desired Future Condition Design the street so that traffic speeds will be reduced to 30 to 35 mph. When designing elements of the street utilize appropriate design speeds, i.e. the design speed should have a relationship to traffic safety as well as the objective of getting traffic to drive at the posted speed limit. [Note: Highway Design Manual defines a range for urban arterial streets with extensive development at 30 to 45 mph, and AASHTO defines a range for urban arterials of 20 to 45 mph]: Related Objectives: Objective 4: Improve Safety for All Modes Objective 5: Provide Equity and Balance for All Modes Objective 6: Design Street to Encourage Motorized Traffic to Drive at the Speed Limit Objective 7: Improve Ability to Cross the Street and at Intersections Objective 8: Minimize Direct and Indirect Impacts on Quality of Life and the Environment Number of Lanes Current Condition/Standard Caltrans has expressed a desire to maintain the current number of through and turn lanes. Desired Future Condition To date the proposed design concepts would maintain the number of turn lanes with the exception of removing the majority of "free" right turn "slips". The alternatives being developed do include reducing the number of through lanes to two in each direction in locations where additional space in the non-motorized vehicle portions of the r.o.w. (i.e.; median, sidewalks, bike lane, etc.) could best serve the multimodal and aesthetic goals of the project while meeting local and regional requirements Community Design + Architecture Memorandum for h~ternal Review Re: El Camino Real Schematic Design Plan ~ Context Sensitive Design Features June 20, 2002 page 4 ofll for handling increased traffic in the future, and preserving E1 Camino’s role as an arterial in the regional roadway system. Related Objectives: Objective 1: Improve Landscape Quality and Quantity Objective Objective Objective Objective Objective Objective 2: Create a Street and Streetscape that Complement Community Character 3: Improve Aesthetic Quality of Street Design 5: Provide Equity and Balance for All Modes 6: Design Street to Encourage Motorized Traffic to Drive at the Speed Limit 7: Improve Ability to Cross the Street and at Intersections 8: Minimize Direct and Indirect Impacts on Quality of Life and the Environment C.Lane Width Current Condition/Standard Current lane widths are typically 12 foot width for the #1 and #2 lanes, a 21 foot width for the #3 lane/parking/shoulder, and 12 feet for single left turn lanes with an 11 foot width for additional turn lanes. Caltrans expressed desired minimum lane widths are 11 foot for through lanes, 10 foot for single left turn lanes, and 11 foot for double left turn lanes. Desired Future Condition In order to redistribute the limited r.o.w, to serve all modes, the desired lane widths for the redesign of E1 Camino .Real are: 10 foot for the #1 lane (plus 1 foot shy distance), 10 foot - 6 inches #2 lane in a six lane section, 11 foot for the #3 in a six lane section or the #2 in a four lane section, and turn lane widths of 10 feet for single left turn lanes with an I1 foot width for additional turn lanes as long as truck and turning movements are accommodated.. The major trade-off here is the desire to maintain a 5 foot bicycle lane and a 10 foot wide sidewalk where the roadway has a total of 6 traffic lanes and parking on both sides of the street. In locations where the roadway has 4 through lanes of traffic or a 6 lane cross section with no parking or parking on only one side, the #I lane could be 10 foot - 6 inches (plus a 1 foot shy distance). [Note: AASHTO minimum for urban arterials of 10 feet for through lanes and turn lanes]. An alternative solution would be to design the #3 lane at a 13 foot width for shared traffic and bicycle use. This is not being recommended by the Consultant Team, because it is not an improvement over the situation today and our expectation that a 13 foot wide lane would not encourage drivers to drive their vehicles at the posted speed limit. Related Objectives: Objective 1: Improve Landscape Quality and Quantity Objective 2: Create a Street and Streetscape that Complement Community Character Community Design + Architecture Memorandum for Internal Review Re: El Camino Real Schematic Design Plan -- Context Sensitive Design Features June 20~ 2002 page 5 :?f 11 Objective 3: Improve Aesthetic Quality of Street Design Objective 5: Provide Equity and Balance for All Modes Objective 6: Design Street to Encourage Motorized Traffic to Drive at the Speed Limit Objective 7: Improve Ability to Cross the Street and at Intersections Objective 9: Create Cost Effective Improvements Objective 10: Define Some Immediate Improvements D.Shoulders for "Breakdown Lanes" Current Condition/Standard Where parking lanes exist they serve as the "breakdown" lane, and where no parking is allowed the #3 lane is typically 20 feet wide providing an 8 foot "breakdown" lane. The only areas without "breakdown" lanes are in areas leading up to and leaving major intersections, such as Embarcadero, Page Mill, and Arastradero where the limited r.o.w, width does not allow for "breakdown" lanes given the total number of lanes for turning and through traffic needed for the intersections. Desired Future Condition .The proposed street redesign will retain the current situation near major intersections and, at other locations, will provide "breakdown" lanes in the form of parking lanes, or 5 foot wide bike lanes where no parking is present. Bulb-outs may intermittently interrupt the parking/breakdown lane. Related Objectives: Objective 1 : Improve Landscape Quality and Quantity Objective 2: Create a Street and Streetscape that Complement Community Character Objective Objective Objective Objective Objective 3:Improve Aesthetic Quality of Street Design 5:Provide Equity and Balance for All Modes 6:Design Street’ to Encourage Motorized Traffic to Drive at the Speed Limit 7:Improve Ability to Cross the Street and at Intersections 9:Create Cost Effective Improvements Sight Distance Setback for Trees Current Condition/Standard Trees in medians shall be kept back at least 50 feet (some interpretation that requirement is 100 feet) from the end of medians in order to maintain a safe sight distance. Trees shall not lower sight distance below required standards of the Highway Design Manual for "decision" sight distance. Trees shall be so located that the motorists’ clear vision of any highway signs or signals will be assured at all times. Community Design + Architecture Memorandum for Internal Review Re: El Camino Real Schematic Design Plan -- Context Sensitive Design Features June 20, 2002 page 6 of 11 Desired Future Condition Left turns at. all signalized intersections are "protected" (safe turns directed by traffic signals with green left-turn arrow), so trees within medians will be planted approximately 50 feet from the end of the median. Trees will be planted and maintained so as not to lower sight distance below required standards of the Highway Design Manual (based upon the 30 or 35mph design speed based upon AASHTO standards or the Highway Design Manual’s Table 201.1). One exception to this condition would be at unsignalized intersections for left hand turns from the minor street where the standard sight clearance would result in the elimination of approximately 5 trees which could otherwise be planted in the median, a setback from the median nose of approximately 180 feet. There are many examples of urban arterial state highways where this exception exists. For example, on San Pablo Avenue in Berkeley (SR 123) generally has trees planted within _ feet of the median nose and International Boulevard in Oakland (SR 185) has some trees planted 12 feet back from the nose. Trees shall be so located and maintained that the motorists’ clear vision of any highway signs or signals will be assured at all times. Related Objectives: Objective 1: Improve Landscape Quality and Quantity Objective 3: Improve Aesthetic Quality of Street Design Objective 6: Design Street to Encourage Motorized Traffic to Drive at the Speed Limit Objective 8: Minimize Direct and Indirect Impacts on Quality of Life and the Environment Objective 9: Create Cost Effective Improvements Objective 10: Define Some Immediate Improvements F.Mid=block Pedestrian Crossings Current Condition/Standard Along several segments of E1 Camino, including the’ section along Palo Alto High School, there are no pedestrian crossings for distances of 2,000 feet or more, forcing pedestrians to walk long distances out of their way to safe crossing points or to cross at undesignated, unprotected locations. Caltrans expressed opposition to adding un-signalized mid-block crosswalks, but indicated that pedestrian signals could be considered at appropriate locations. Desired Future Condition Install signal-protected pedestrian crosswalks, where signals meet standard "warrants", along routes between major pedestrian activity generators, such as Paly (Palo Alto High School), Stanford, Caltrain, and Research Park. To justify signals, consider full array of potential warrants including: existing and projected pedestrian volumes, school routes, and system warrants. Consider additional crosswalks at unsignalized locations only where justified by FHWA guidelines and deemed potentially acceptable to Caltrans based on site-specific criteria. Place crossings at locations where motorists are most likely to expect them, such as intersections. To improve visibility and reinforce design speeds include high-visibility striping and/or paving materials for crosswalks, warning signs, pedestrian activated and coordinated signals or flashing beacons or in-pavement flashing lights,-and bulb-outs to Community Design + Architecture Memorandum for Internal Review Re: El Camino Real Schematic Design Plan -- Context Sensitive’Design Features June 20, 2002 page 7 of l l improve visibility and shorten pedestrian crossing distance. [-Note: we would appreciate guidance from Caltrans as to the preferred method of providing signal protection]. Other measures will be studied and considered on a case-by-case basis, subject to Caltrans approval, including "speed tables" and "pedestrian corrals" in the median. "Speed tables" would be used to create raised crosswalks at some intersection and mid-block crossings with the goal of highlighting these locations to improve pedestrian safety and to complement the goal of getting drivers to drive at the posted speed limit. [Note: the Danish Road Directorate has a standard for a Speed hump application on a 50 kph (31mph) arterial resulting in a length of 31 feet. A typical US speed table has a total length of 22 feet (two 6 foot ramps plus a 10 foot "top"). Heights of speed tables range from 2.5 to 6 inches. Further review of European and US designs would be needed to determine the appropriate height and length of a speed table for E1 Camino Real]. An alternative would be to provide a slightly raised crosswalk (1/2 inch above asphalt) with the main paving material being concrete pavers or other special paving and poured in place concrete paving as side bands with beveled edges providing a transition to asphalt paving. The goal is to provide a noticeable change in paving surface (a "thump") that highlights the crossing for motorists. Pedestrian corrals" would move pedestrians to the safest, most visible locations and orient pedestrians in the direction of opposing traffic prior to crossing the second set of traffic lanes. They can also reduce the main street traffic flow disruption by providing, instead of one long pedestrian "walk" phase, two coordinated shorter crossing phases.) In several locations pedestrian crossings are being considered where the median extends through a "T" intersection, in these cases one-half of the pedestrian crossing is related to the right-in/right-out intersection while the pedestrian crossing on the other side of the median would be considered to be a "mid-block" crossing. Related Objective Objective Objective Objective Objective Objective Objective Objectives: 2: Create a Street and Streetscape that Complement Community Character 4: Improve Safety for All Modes 5:Provide Equity and Balance for All Modes 6:Design Street to Encourage Motorized Traffic to Drive at the Speed Limit 7:Improve Ability to Cross the Street and at Intersections 8:Minimize Direct and Indirect Impacts on Quality of Life and the Environment 9:Create Cost Effective Improvements G.Trees in Medians See E. Sight Distance Setback for Trees for discussion of the distance from nose of median to tree. Current Condition/Standard 6 foot clear distance from face of curb to tree, 13 foot wide median face of curb to face of curb (for segments where speeds are 35 mph or less). Desired Future Condition Designs will accommodate a tree larger than 4 inch caliper at breast height in a 12 foot widen median with no turn lane with one exception being the 6 lane cross section with parking and 5 foot bike Community Design + Architecture Memorandum for lnternal Review Re." El Camino Real Schemqtic Design Plan ~ Context Sensitive Design Features June 20, 2002 page 8 of 11 lanes on both sides in which case the center median would be 11 feet. For narrow medians at left turn pockets, there are some constrained locations where a 6 foot wide median may be necessary. But in most cases an 8 foot wide narrow median can be achieved [Note: 8 foot wide medians with large trees are a standard for Metro Portland, Oregon, see Livable Streets]. The trade-offs that related to median width are: traffic lane widths, bicycle lane widths, and extent of on street parking. Examples of large trees planted in medians with less than 12 foot width include the following: International Blvd. At 99th Street in Oakland (in Caltrans r.o.w.): 4’-2" median next to tum pocket with the first tree 25’ from the nose of the median (older planting), one block south there is a recent planting in a 4’-10" median with the first tree 12’ from the nose of.the median (4 lane cross section with speed limit ranges from 30 to 35 mph); Mecartney Road in Alameda: 10’ wide median with double row of trees (2 lane cross section with 4’-8" clear of curb) (speed limit at 25 mph); E1 Camino Real at Sylvan in Mountain View (in Caltrans r.o.w.): 11 ’-6" median (6 lane cross section with speed limit at 35 mph); Broadway at 41st Street and most of the length from West Grand to Pleasant Valley Rd. in Oakland: 3’-10" median (6 lane cross section with speed limit at 25 mph but general traffic flow at least 30 mph); and, Dublin Blvd. At Hacienda in City of Dublin: 4’-2" median next to turn pocket (6 lane cross section with speed limit at 35 mph). The following examples are also of interest, although the character of traffic volumes and design speeds vary from the desired future for El Camino Real in Palo Alto: Broadway at 25t~ Street in Oakland: 6.’-2" median (4 lane cross section with speed limit at 25 mph); Broadway at 23rd Street and along most of the "auto row" area in Oakland: 8’ median (4 lane cross section with speed limit at 25 mph); and, Mt. Diablo Blvd. At Main Street in Walnut Creek: 6’-2" median (4 lane cross section with speed limit at 25 mph). Related Objectives: Objective 1: Improve Landscape Quality and Quantity Objective 3: Improve Aesthetic Quality of Street Design Objective 8: Minimize Direct and Indirect Impacts on Quality of Life and the Environment H.Lane Transitioning Formula Current Condition/Standard Two thirds width of transition times design spee~l (2/3WV). For example, a 2 foot lane shift at a 30 mph speed would require a length of 40 feet for the transition. Communi.ty Design + Architecture Memorandum for lnternal Review Re: El Catnino Real Schematic Design Plan -- Context Sensitive Design Features June 20, 2002 page 9 of 11 Desired Future Condition Per Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standard, width of transition times design speed squared divided by 60 (WV2/60). For example, a 2 foot lane shift at a 30 mph speed would require a length of 30 feet for the transition. The use of this formula is desired to reinforce the concept that lane transitions will encourage drivers to travel at the speed limit along E1 Camino Rea!. Related Objectives: Objective 1: Improve Landscape Quality and Quantity Objective 3: Improve Aesthetic Quality of Street Design Objective 6: Design Street to Encourage Motorized Traffic to Drive at the Speed Limit Objective 7: Improve Ability to Cross the Street and at Intersections Objective 9: Create Cost Effective Improvements L Minimum Clearance from Edge of Travel Way to Curb Extensions Current Condition/Standard 4 foot minimum width from edge of travel way to face of curb extensions. Desired Future Condition Where the proposed street sections include a bike lane this distance will be a minimum of 4 feet. In those cases where a bike lane is not present this distance will be 1 foot. Ends of extensions will be reflectorized for visibility under all lighting and weather conditions. Related Objectives: Objective 1: Improve Landscape Quality and Quantity Objective 3: Improve Aesthetic Quality of Street Design Objective 5: Provide Equity and Balance for All Modes Objective 6: Design Street to Encourage Motorized Traffic to Drive at the Speed Limit Objective 7: Improve Ability to Cross the Street and at Intersections J.Bicycle Lane Width Current Condition/Standard 4 foot minimum width and where parking is present a combined 12 foot total width for bicycle lane and parking lane (e.g. 5 foot bicycle lane and 7 foot parking lane). Community Design + Architecture Memorandum for Internal Review Re: El Camino Real Schematic Design Plan -- Context Sensitive Design Features June 20, 2002 page 10 ofll Desired Future Condition In most locations a 5 foot wide bicycle lane is achievable. In most cases a 12 foot minimum combined width for parking and bicycle lanes would be provided with the exception of some sections where parking is required on both sides of 6-lane Street; in these cases a 4 foot bicycle lane with a 7 foot parking lane would be provided with the combined width of traffic lane and bicycle lane being 15 feet. [Note: AASHTO 5 foot with curb and gutter or parking lane]. Context Sensitive Design Features Not Needing "Standards Variation" The following list includes design features which have been raised as potential areas of concern by Caltrans for which the Consultant Team believes no "standard variation" will be needed. K.Curb Return Radii Current Condition/Standard Minimum radii is controlled by bus/track turn templates. Desired Future Condition Curb return radii will be designed to accommodate appropriate vehicle turn templates; minimum standard of 40 foot single-unit truck. Bus and semi-truck templates will be used for curb returns where bus or truck routes are present on streets that intersect with E1 Camino Real and for ~treets that are expected to have higher volumes of truck traffic given existing use or zoning/potential future use. The Consultant Team is currently working with Palo Alto staff to identify these locations. In some cases comers could be designed with mountable curbs and streetscape and utility elements would be kept clear of the area required for periodic trucks or emergency vehicles to navigate a turn. L.Angled Parking Buffer Between Parking and Travel Lane Current Condition/Standard Provide "buffer" between diagonal parking and travel lanes. Desired Future Condition No angled parking is planned at this time; could be an option where parallel "local access lanes" are used at the option of adjacent development. Commzmity Design + Architecture Memorandum for Internal Review Re: El Camino Real Schematic Design Plan -- Context Sen.sitive Design Features June 20, 2002 page 11 Of ll M.Shoulder Widths Current Condition/Standard Left Shoulder: 1 foot minimum width with 2 foot preferred. Right Shoulder: 4 foot minimum width without curbs, 5 foot minimum with curbs, and 8 foot with parking. [Note: AASHTO 1 foot minimum width with 2 foot preferred]. Desired Future Condition Left Shoulder: 1 foot. Right Shoulder: 5 foot minimum (bike lane width) where no parking is present, and 8 foot minimum where parking is present. The driver’s focus at different speeds. A low speed allows drivers to be more aware of their surroundings and to have time to react to other highway users. The photos Show howa driver’s-focus changes as thei~ speed i.ncreases. The set- ring is a typica! downtown in a small Or- egon cit~, sh0ps.and o~-street parking li~e. both sides of this 2~lanecouplet.The high-., way is built to ":full stah:da~d’ because of ~ the ample.rig~tL0f~ay.~~;) ~:~ ~. :./. .. " " At the posted s~a ~f 30m~h:, ors have a difficult tim~..seeing bi~cl[s~ and pedestr~a.n~?.aSd #topPing distanceiS..- nearly ~ice tS~t of 20 mp.~.~ To safely ac~Ommoaat6~all:uSer~si,.~hi~ highway neeOS that tell the d~i~er ~h:at:~h~s :i~not the:.~p~6.; highway it ~S:~e~.:b:l~6~S ~0~6::~’.,~.~ :~: }: A good Sta~ ~b:~id-b:e:g’i:de~i~htin~ ~(fi~g with trees t6 h~r~ow ~Re"~O&a~ay~ A:bi:ke-. lane tensions. When a person is struck by a motor vehicle, they have the following chances of death according to Killing Speed and Saving Lives, UI( Departm.ent of Transportati0n: 30 mph ~ 45% At 40 mph the driver’s focus is on the roadway in the distance. At 30 mph the driver begins to see things at the - road edges in the background. At 20 mph the foreground comes into focus. At 15 mph the driver easily sees that this is a place where pedestrians and bicyclists are present. 87/83/2882 12:35 5188394578 CONMUNITVDESIGN ~RCH PAGE 86 07/03/21i102 12:35 5108394571~COMMUNITVDESIGN ~RCH P,~GE 85 87/83/2882 12:35 5188394578 COMMUNITYDESIGN ARCH PAGE 84 87/83/2882 Z3:15 5188394578 The driver’s focus at different speeds. A low speed allows drivers to be more aware of their surroundings and to have time to react to other highway users. The photos show i~ow a driver’s focus changes as their speed increases. The set- ring is a b, pical downtown in a small Or- egon city. Shops and on-street parking line both sides of this 2-lane couplet. Tt~e high- way is built to "full standard" because of the ample right-of-way. At the posted speed of 30 mph, many driv- ers have a difficult time seeing bicyclists and pedestrians, and stopping distance is nearly twice that of 20 mph. To safely accommodate all users, this highway needs substantial design changes that tell the driver that this is not the open highway it was a few blocks before. A good start would be wide planting strips with trees to narrow the roadway. A bike lane could be striped. Intersections could be narrowed even further with curb ex- tensio~s. When a person is struck by a motor vehicle, they have the following chances of dcaU~ according to Killing Speed and Saving Lives, UK Department of Transportation: 40 mph 85% 30mph ~ 45% Attachment At 40 mph the driver’s focus is on the roadway in the distance. At 30 mph the driver begins to see things at the road edges in the background. At 20 mph the foreground comes into focus. At ~5 m~)h the driver easily sees that this is a place where pedestrians and bicyclists are present. Attachment Stanford Frontage Street Cross Sections .\ Stanford 4: Key Characteristics: - 2 Lanes each way -NO Parking ("parking pocket" optional) -5’ Bike Lanes -8’ Multi-use Paths -22’ Medians (mid-block) - ~ 2’ Medians at turn lanes 12.5’ Plant Strip (treatment swales for runoff possible) " PLANT STRIP PATH 120! PATH Area of Potential Use: In proposed 2 lanes-each-way Segments north of Stanford Avenue *ATTURN LANE Stanford 6: Key Characteristics: - 3 Lanes each way -NO Parking ("parking pocket" optional) -5’ Bike Lanes - 6’ Sidewalks - 16’ Medians (mid-block) - 8’ Medians at turn lanes - 7.5 Plant Strips along sides Area of Potentia~ Use: In proposed 3 lanes-each-way Segments north of Stanford Avenue * ATTURN LANE [I ,I ’: 4--’~-’~-’~=-5 ..........,_:, ~ ,:, ~ ~:o,_:,, TRAVEL T~VEL "[MEDIAN -1 T~VEL "I T~VEL -I T~VE~SHOULDER cu~-~6-cu~ ~ ¯ ~ ....... 120’ . ’ R.O.~ Key to Format of Dimension Numbers : Bold Numbers (14’): Width Increase for this Element as compared to Exisiting Condition Italic Numbers ~14’) :Width Decrease for this Element as compared to Exisiting Condtion All Others (I 4’):No Change / Existing Key Characteristics: - 3 Lanes each way - Parking accommodated in curb-side !ane on portions of campus frontage -NO Bike Lanes, bikes travel in space between .parking (where allowed) and cars trav- elling in first lane. -8’ Gravel Path (westide); 5’ Sidewalks (eastside) -14’ to 16’ Medians (mid-block) -4’ Medians at turn lanes El Carnino Real l~laster Schematic Design Plan Consultant Team: Community Design + Architecture Fehr & Peers Associates Reid Ewing LCC, Inc. Joe McBride and Urban Advantage July 9, 2002 Urban Street Cross Sections 16"-~"~.11’1!’6" ~18"~ 11’~6"I1’ $" 7’ ’|"1 TRAVEL TRAVEL BIKE K, INWALKNTRAVELTRAVELHEDIAN ¯34’-6"34L6" CURB-TO-CURB CURI~TO:CURB 16"-6"’ WALK * AT’[:URN LANE Attachment C-2 trban 4: Key Characteristics= - 2 Lanes each way - Parkingon both sides - 5’ Bike Lanes - ~ 6.5’ Sidewalks - 18’ Medians (mid-block) - 8’ Medians at turn lanes Area of Potential Use: In proposed 2 lanes-each-way Segments south of Stanford Avenue -Urban 6: Key Characteristics: - 3 Lanes each way - Parking on both sides - 5’ Bike Lanes - ~ O’ Sidewalks - I~’ Medians (mid-b~ock) - Median width varies at turn lanes depending on parking provision. Area of Potential Use: In proposed 3 lanes-each-way ¯ Segments south of Stanford Avenue *WHERE 3’ OF SIDEWALK EASEMENT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY CAN BEADDED. 14’~16’ MEDIAN 12’ 1" 20’-21’ TRAVEL TRAVEL!PARKING CURB-TO-CURB Key to Format of Dimension Numbers : Bold Numbers (l 4’): Width Increase for this Element as compared to Exisiting Condition l~alic Numbers (I 4’) :Width Decrease for this Element as compared to Exisiting Condtion All Others¯ (14’):No Change I Existing Key Characteristics: - 3 Lanes each way -Parking accommodated in curb-side lane -NO Bike Lanes, bikes travel in space between parking and cars travelling in first lane. -8’ Sidewalks -~ 4’ to 16’ Medians (mid-block) -4’ Medians at turn lanes El Camino Real lVlaster Schematic Design Plan Consultant Team: Community Design + Architecture Fehr & Peers Associates Reid Ewing LCC, Inc. Joe McBride and Urban Advantage J~y 9,2002 Urban 6 Lane Street Cross Sections at Left Turn Lane 44’-6" CURB-TO-CURB I WALK Attachment C-3 Parking on one Side: Key Characteristics: - 3 Lanes each way - Parking on one sides (7’) - 5’ Bike Lanes - ~0’ Sidewalks - 8’ Medians (with large trees) Area of Potential Use: Along turn pockets, in pro- posed 3 lanes-each-way Segments south of Stanford Avenue ? *AT OPTIONAL PARKING POCKET m I T~-~EL 20’8’’ Key to Format of Dimension Numbers : Bold Numbers (|40: Width Increase for this Element as compared to Exisiting Condition Italic Numbers (I 4’) :Width Decrease for this Element as compared to Exisiting Condtion All Others (I 4’): ¯No Change / Existing Optional Park- ing Pockets: Key Characteristics: - 3 Lanes each way - Parking in optional parking pockets (7’) - 4.5’ Bike Lanes -14’ Sidewalks (7’ along park- ing pockets) -8’ Medians (with large trees) Area of Potential Use: Along turn pockets~ in pro- posed 3 lanes-each-way Seg- ments south of Stanford Av- enue Key Characteristics: - 3 Lanes each way -Parking on both sides (accom- modated in 20’ curb-side lane) -NO Bike Lanes (bikes travel in space between parking and cars travelling in first lane). -8’ Sidewalks -4’ Medians (NO trees) El Camino Real Haster Schematic Design Plan Consultant Team: Community Design + Architecture Fehr & Peers Associates Reid Ewing LCC, Inc. Joe McBride and Urban Advantage July 9, 2002