HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-04-09 City Council (14)TO:
FROM:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APRIL 9, 2001 CMR:188:01
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
AND SAFETY STUDY
This is an informational report and no Council action is required.
BACKGROUND
At the request of the Charleston Meadow Neighborhood Association and the Green Meadow
Neighborhood Association, Transportation Division staff was directed by the City Manager
to initiate a traffic management and safety study of the Charleston Road corridor. The study
began in June 1999 with formation of a Project Advisory Group (PAG), comprising the
following Palo Alto residents:
1.Deborah Ju 7.Myllicent Hamilton
2.Thomas Vician 8.Shirley Eaton
3.Jean Olmsted 9.Shirley Nanevicz
4.Marion Hill 10.Richard Geiger
5.Tom Crystal 11.Roger Kohler
6.Louise Herring
These neighborhood association representatives expressed concern about a number of traffic
issues on or impacting Charleston Road, including: .
Speeding.
Traffic congestion on Charleston Road at Alma.Street, E1 Camino Real, Middlefield
Road and other corridor intersections.
Pedestrian safety and the lack of pedestrian crossings..
Cycling safety, particularly for children commuting to schools on or near Charleston
Road.
o Motor vehicle safety.
[]Cut-through traffic from Charleston Road onto adjacent neighborhood streets.
CMR:188:01 Page 1 of 6
Following a ~onsultant selection process, Wilbur Smith & Associates, a!national
transportation planning and engineering fu’m with offices in San Francisco, was selected to
work with City Staff and th~PAG.
The PAG, City staff, and the consultant worked collaboratively to address these issues and
to develop recommendations to meet the following broad objectives:
¯Enhance travel safety for all modes, with special emphasis on cyclists and pedestrians
commuting to and from school.
¯Reduce the impacts of traffic on residential neighborhoods.
¯Enhance multimodal travel choices for the Charleston Road corridor.
The Charleston Road Traffic Management and Safety Study Report of Findings
(Attachment A), was reviewed and approved by the Planning and Transportation
Commission on October 25, 2001.
DISCUSSION
Existing Situation
The Charleston Road Corridor study limits were E1 Camino Real to the west and Fabian
Way to the east. Charleston Road is a four-lane undivided arterial roadway with posted
speeds of 25 mph that serves South Palo Alto. In combination with Arastradero Road,
Charleston Road serves as an east-west connector to three of the region’s major north-south
roadways: Bayshore Freeway (US 101), Foothill Expressway, and 1-280. There is parking
on the north side of the roadway with fulltime bike lanes. On the southside there is a
daytime only bike lane that converts to a parking lane at night (7 p.m-7 a.m.). The street
.cross-section is 60 feet wide. Fronting land uses include single family residential, several
institutional uses (including Hoover Elementary School, the Unitarian. Church, the
Community Association for Rehabilitation, and the Stevenson House senior housing
complex). J.L. Stanford Middle School, Hoover Elementary School, and Challenger School
have driveway access onto Charleston Road.
Average daily traffic (ADT) on Charleston Road ranges from approximately 13,500 just
west of Fabian Way to over 14,000 just west of Middlefield and just west of Alma.
Intersection levels of service (LOS) range from B (Charleston Road at Nelson Drive and
Charleston at Wilkie Way) to D in the morning and E in the evening (Charleston at Alma).
(LOS A represents average stopped delay per vehicle of 5 seconds or less and LOS E
represents average stopped delay from 40 to 60 seconds per vehicle. LOS E is the Santa
Clara County Congestion Management Program minimum standard for intersection
operation. LOS D is the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan’LOS threshold.)
CMR:188:01 Page 2 of 6
Charleston Road 85th percentile speeds (the speed at which 85 percent of traffic is traveling
at or below and 15 percent is traveling above) range from 34 mph just west of Fabian Way
to 39 mph just west of Middlefield. The width of Charleston, in combination with relatively
unimpeded vehicle flow on long stretches between intersections, probably induce these 85th
percentile speeds ranging from 9 mph to 14 mph above the posted speed limit.
Peak period bicycle volume counts on the Charleston Road corridor range from 119 from 7
a.m. to 9 a.m. between Nelson Drive and Carlson Circle (in the vicinity of both Hoover
Elementary and JLS Middle School) to 33 just east of Middiefield Road. There is evidence
of a significant amount of wrong-way riding and riding on sidewalks. During the morning
peak period, for example, 80 of the 119 bicycles counted between Nelson Drive and Carlson
Circle were either riding the wrong way on a bike laneor riding on the sidewalk.
The study documented cut-through traffic between Alma Street and Charleston Road .via
Lindero Drive and Carlson Circle, via Ely Place and Mumford Place, and at other locations
in neighborhoods flanking Charleston Road east of Alma Street. Anecdotal evidence was
collected on cut-through traffic from Charleston Road to Louis Road.
The study also documents 139 accidents on Charleston Road between and including the
intersections of Fabian Way and E1 Camino Real. Over one-third of these (49) were rear-
end collisions that tend to occur on roadways with relatively high vehicle speeds and
without turn pockets to remove turning vehicles from through lanes. There were 17
documented vehicle collisions with cyclists or pedestrians. It should be noted that these data
include only those accidents resulting in injury, thus exclude collisions involving property
damage only or near misses.
There are long stretches on Charleston Road without a pedestrian crossing, including about
a 1,100-foot gap in crossing opportunity between Wilkie Way and Alma Street. Bicycle
lanes on Charleston terminate on Alma Street. As indicated previously, even in the presence
of bicycle -lanes, a large number of cyclists use sidewalks instead. Relatively high vehicle
speeds on Charleston are likely to deter some cyclists from using existing bicycle lanesl
The study recommendations based on thes~ f’mdings were as follows:
Traffic Management and Safety Plan: Phase I
A. Policies
Develop criteria to differentiate arterials and collectors that are school commute
corridors from other arterials and collectors, as well as a ~amework for reducing
motor vehicle traffic impacts on such corridors. These criteria should emphasize
appropriate traffic speeds and volumes (both existing and projected based on regional
CMR:188:01 Page 3 of 6
growth and land development occurring on or near the corridor) for a school
commute corridor.
o
Once school commute criteria are established, consider the suitability of Charleston
Road as a school commute corridor.
Establish a comprehensive, periodic data collection and evaluation program on
school commute corridors, including information on vehicle speeds and volumes,
accidents, and bicycle and pedestrian volumes. Data should be collected frequently
enough for seasonal variations in transportation behavior to be documented. The
existing Fairview School Accident Reporting System should be considered for
integration with these data sets. School and PTA involvement in supplementary data
collection should be encouraged.
Increase enforcement of traffic laws on Charleston/Arastradero and East Meadow
corridors. Use of radar enforcement on weekdays when children are present is
~ enforceable when a street is posted with the school area speed limit of 25 mph, as is
the case for Charleston Road.
B. Projects and Programs
Evaluate the extent and impact of vehicle speeds and cut-through traffic on Louis
Road from vehicles turning into Louis from Charleston Road, and develop
appropriate mitigation measures for these impacts.
Develop and implement, in conjunction with the Pal. Alto School District and the
PTA, a school commute trip reduction program for the Charleston/Arastradero Road
corridor and the East Meadow corridor, which parallels Charleston Road. The City’s
Commute Coordinator would be involved with this effort.
Develop enhanced adult supervision of children commuting to school along the
Charleston/Arastradero and East Meadow corridors through increasedinvolvement of
parent volunteers as well as City crossing guards. A particularly worthy idea for
school-PTA consideration is the ,walking school bus" approach, which teams adults
and children in safe walking groups to and from school.
Devote resources from the City’s new Traffic Safety Education campaign toward the
Charleston/Arastradero and East Meadow corridors.
Traffic Management and Safety Plan - Phase II
Evaluate roadway design alternatives to provide enhanced pedestrian crossing and motor
vehicle safety on Charleston Road between Nelson Drive and Carlson Circle. This work
CMR:188:01 Page 4 of 6
would be undertaken during Fiscal Year 2001-2002 and would take place in consultation
with affected stakeholders, including residents, neighborhood associations, parent-teacher
associations, schools, cyclists, and commuters. Staff would return to the Planning and
Transportation Commission and Council with results and recommendations from this work.
Implementation of Recommendations
Due to workload and resource constraints, staff has decided to implement only a portion of
the short-term recommendations contained in the Safety Study Report. In response to these
findings and recommendations, staff will be implementing the following with respect to the
Charleston Road Corridor:
1.Develop criteria to differentiate arterials and collectors that are school commute
corridors from other arterials and collectors and to propose a framework for reducing
motor vehicle traffic impacts on such corridors.
2.Once school commute criteria are established, staff will evaluate the suitability of
Charleston Road as a school commute corridor.
3. Establish comprehensive, periodic data collection and evaluation on school commute
corridors, including information on vehicle speeds and volumes, a~ccidents, and bicycle
and pedestrian volumes.
4. Evaluate the extent and impact of vehicle speeds and cut-through traffic on Louis Road
from vehicles turning into Louis from Charleston Road and develop appropriate
mitigation measures for these impacts.
5. Develop and implement, in conjunction with the Palo Alto School District and PTA, a
school commute trip reduction plans for the Charleston Road and parallel East Meadow
corridors.
6. Develop and implement, in conjunction with the Palo Alto School District and PTA, a
plan for enhancing - through volunteer effort as well as paid personnel - the supervision-
of children commuting to school along the Embarcadero and East Meadow corridors.
7. Conduct traffic safety education outreach efforts focused on Charleston Road drivers,
pedestrians, and cyclists.
8. Evaluate roadway design alternatives to provide enhanced pedestrian crossing and motor
vehicle safety on Charleston Road between Nelson Drive and Carlson Circle.
This work will begin in the first half of fiscal year 2001-2002. Staff will prepare
recommendations for review by the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council
in the latter half of fiscal year 2001-2002.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Phase I activities are all achievable with current resources. Phase II work would require
either re-prioritization of Transportation Division activities during fiscal year 2001-2002 or
additional staff resources.
CMR:188:01 Page 5 of 6
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Transportation Element of the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan contains
numerous policies related to traffic safety and traffic intrusion, including the following:
Policy T-30: "Reduce the impacts of through-traffic on residential areas by designating
certain streets as residential arterials."
Policy T-39: "To the extent allowed by law, continue to make safety the first priority of
citywide transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile safety over
vehicle level-of-service at intersections."
Policy T-40: "Continue to prioritize the safety and comfort of school children in street
modification projects that affect school travel routes."
ATTACHMENTS:
A: October 25, 2000 Staff Report to the Planning and Transportation Commission
B: Charleston Road Corridor Traffic Management and Safety Study
PREPARED BY: Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official
Director of Planning and
0_ C°mmuoity Environment
"~I~MIL~--HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
Planning and Transportation Commission
Charleston Road Advisory Committee
City-School Traffic Safety Committee
CMR: 188:01 Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENT A
TRANSPOR TA TION DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT:Planning
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
October 25, 2000
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
AND SAFETY STUDY
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recollmlends that the Plamaing and Transportation Commission recommend that the
City Council: ’
1..Adopt, in concept, the Charleston Road Traffic Management and Safety Plan Phase I
and Phase II; and
Direct Staff to implement Phase I of the Charleston Road Traffic Management and
Safety Plan.
Should Phase II be approved in concept by Council, staff will prepare requests for
funding a detailed conceptual plan and cost estimates for Charleston Road redesign,
including roundabonts and lane rednctions, as well as for neighborhood traffic calming
plans called for ill Phase II. These traffic-calming requests will be made as part of the
City’s new Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. Both the Charleston Road redesign
and neighborhood traffic calming plans would be submitted to the Plarm. ing and
Transportation Commission for review and to the Council for approval.
BACKGROUND
At the request of the Charleston Meadow Neighborhood Association and the Green
Meadow Neighborhood Association, Transportation Division staff was authorized by the
City Manager to initiate a traffic management and safety study of file Charleston Road
H:\emrsXP-TC\Charleston Study 1.doe Page i
corridor. The study began in June 1999 with formation of a Projec.t Advisory
(PAG), comprising the following Palo Alto residents:
Group
1.Deborah Ju 7.Myllicent Hamilton
2.Thomas Vician.8.Shirley Eaton
3.Jean Olmsted 9.Shirley Nanevicz
4.MariQn Hill 10.Richard Geiger
5.Tom Crystal 11.Roger Kohler
6.Louise Herring
These neighborhood association representatives expressed concern about a number of
traffic issues on or impacting Charleston Road, including:
Speeding.
Traffic congestion at Ahna, E1 Cmuino Real, Middlefield and
intersections.
n Pedestrian safety and the paucity of pedestrian crossings.
ca Cycling safety.
ca Motor vehicle safety.
ta Cut-through traffic fxom Charleston onto adjacent neighborhood streets.
other corridor
Following a consultant selection process, Wilbur Smith & Associates, a national
transportation planning and engineering finn with offices in San Francisco, was selected
to work with City staff and the PAG.
The PAG, City staff, and consultant worked collaboratively to address these issues and to
develop recommendations to meet the following broad objectives:
¯Enhance travel safety for all modes, with special emphasis on dyclists and pedestrians
commuting to and from school.
¯Reduce the impacts of traffic on residential neighborhoods.
¯Enhance multimodal travel choices for the Charleston Road corridor.
The work of staff, the PAG, and consultant is now complete. A Draft Report of Findings
and Recommendations is appended as Attachment 1. The PAG has endorsed the
complete set.of recommendations presented hi detail in the Draft Report and summarized
in a later section of this staffreport. ..
DISCUSSION
The Charleston Road Corridor study limits, as identified on Figure 1, were E1 Camino
Rea! to the west and Fabian Way to the east. Charleston Road is a four-lane undivided
art. erial roadway with posted speeds of 25 mph that serves South Palo Alto. In
H:\emrs~P-TC\Charleston Study 1.doe Page 2
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC STUDY
Intersection Turning Movement Counts
Bicycle Counts
Average Daily Traffic Volume Counts
Speed Survey
~I~WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
JCC, Gunn
High School
Falrmeadow Elementary School
Challenger School
Hoovei" Elementary School
Figure ]
LOCATIONS OF DATA COLLECTION
343010\LQc of Data Calledlon-7/5/2OOu
Expressway, and 1-280. There is parking on the northside of the roadway with fulhime
bike lanes. On the southside there is a daytime only bike lane that converfs to a parking
lane at night (7 p.m-7 a.m.): The street cross-section is 60 feet wide. Fronting land uses
include single family residential, several institutional uses (including Hoover Elementary
School, the Unitarian Church, the Colmnunity Association for Rehabilitation, and
Stevenson House senior housing complex). J.L. Stanford Middle School, Hoover
Elementary School, and Challenger School have driveway access onto Charleston Road.
Average daily traffic (ADT) on Charleston Road ranges from approxinlately 13,500 just
west of Fabian Way to over 14,000 just west of Middlefield and just west of Ahlaa.
Intersection levels of service (LOS) range.from B (Charleston at Nelson and Charleston
at Willde Way) to D in the AM and E in the PM (Charleston at Ahlla). lit should be noted
that LOS A represents average stopped delay per vehicle of 5 seconds or less and that
¯ LOS E repres6nts average.stopped delay from 40 up to 60 seconds per vehicle. LOS E is
the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program lrfinimurn standard forintersection operation. LOS D is the Palo Alto Comprehensive. Plan LOS threshold.]
Charleston. Road 85th percentile speeds (the speed at which 85 percent of traffic is
traveling at or below and 15 percent is traveling above) range from 34 mph just west of
Fabian Way to 39 mph just west of Middlefield. The.wide cross-section of Charleston, in
combination with relatively unimpeded vehicle flow on long stretches between
intersections, probably induce these 85th percentile speeds ranging from 9 mph to 14 mph
above the posted speed limit. ¯
Peak period bicycle #olume counts on the Charleston Road corridor range from 119 from
7 a.m. to 9 a.m. between Nelson and Carlson (in the vicinity of both Hoover Elementary
and JLS Middle School) to 33 just east of Middlefield. There is evidence of a significant
amotmt of wrong-way riding and riding on sidewalks. During the morning peak period,
for example, 80 of the 119 bicycles counted between Nelson and Carlson were either
riding the wrong way on a bike lane or riding on the sidewalk.
The study documented cut-thr0ugh traffic between Alma and Charleston via Lindero and
Carlson Circle, via Ely Place and Mumford Place, and at other locations in
neighborhoods flanking Charleston Road east ofAlma. Anecdotal evidence Was collected
on cut-through traffic from Charleston to Louis Road.
The study also docturtents 139 accidents on Charleston Road between and including the
intersections of Fabian Way and E1 Camino Real. Over one-third of these (49) were rear-
end collisions that tend to. occur on roadways with relatively high vehicle speeds and
without turn pockets to remove turning vehicles from through lanes. There were 17
documented vehicle collisions with cyclists or pedestrians. It should be noted that these
data include only. those accidents resulting in injury, thus exclude collisions involving
property damage only or near misses.
H:\emrsW-TC\Chadeston Study 1 .doe Page 3
There are long stretches on Charleston Road without a pedestrian cr0ssing,in.cluding
about a 1,100-foot gap in crossing opportunity between Wilkie Way and Alma. Bicycle
lanes on Charleston tenninate on Alma. As indicated previously, even in the presence of
bicycle lanes, a large number of cyclists use sidewalks instead. Relatively high vehicle
speeds on Charleston are likely to deter some cyclists from using existing bicycle lanes.
Recommendations of the Traffic Management Plan
The Traffic Management and Safety Plan contains recormnendations to address
problematic travel conditions on Charleston Road. The recorranendations fall into
several categories: policies, pr.ojects and programs, roadway design .and operation, and
residential traffic ~alming. The Plan is presented in two phases. The first phase can get
underway immediately. The Second phase will require additional time for development
(including design and construction where applicable) al~d, in some cases, securing funds
for capital investments. Taken together, the two phases comprise a comprehensive
approach to Charleston Road transportation lnanagement, .including engineering,
enforcement, education, and travel demand management measures.
The following elements comprise Phases I and II of the proposed Charleston Road
Traffic Management and Safety Plan:
Traffic Management and Safety Plan - Phase I
A. Policies-
Develop criteria to differentiate arterials and collectors that are school comlnute- -
corridors from other arterials and collectors, as well as a framework for reducing
motor vehicle traffic impacts on such corridors. These criteria should emphasize
appropriate traffic speeds and vohunes (both existing and projected based on regional
growth and land development occurring on or near the corridor) for a school cormnute
corridor.
o
Once school commute criteria are established, consider the suitability of Charleston
Road as a School Conmmte Corridon
Establish a comprehensive, periodic data collection and evaluation program on School
Commute corridors, including infomaation on vehicle speeds and volumes,-accidents,
and bicycle and pedestrian volumes. This should be undertaken in conjunction with
development of an Annnal Report on Transportation Conditions and Trends in Palo
Alto, which Council has akeady mandated be developed by the Transportation
Division. Data should be collected frequently enough for seasonal variations in
transportation behavior to be docunaented. The existing Fairview School Accident
H:\cmrskP-TC\Charleston Study 1.doe Page 4
o
.5.
Reporting System should be considered for in(egration with these data sets. School
and PTA involvement in supplementary data collection should be encouraged.
Encourage use of Page Mill and San Antonio/El Monte Road between Foothill
Expressway and I-280, rather than. Arastradero Road, through use of-directional
signage. [In Phase II, more active measures are proposed.]
Increase enforcement of traffic laws on Charleston/Arastradero and East Meadow
corridors. Us,e of radar enforcement on weekdays when children are present is
enforceable when a street is posted with the school area speed lhuit of 25 mph, as is
the case for Charleston Road.
B. Projects and Programs-
Evaluate the extent and .impact of vehicle speeds and cut-through traffic on Louis
Road from vehicles turning into Louis from Charleston Road, mad devei.op appropriate
mitigation measures for these impacts.
Develop and huplement, in conjunction with the Palo Alto School District and the
.PTA, a school colmrtute trip reduction program for the Charleston/Arastradero Road
corridor and the East Meadow corridor, which parallels Charleston Road. The City’s
Commute Coordinator will be in~colved with this effort.
3.Develop enhanced adult supervision of children commuting to school along the
Charleston/Arastradero and East Meadow corridors through increased involvement of
parent volunteers as well as City crossing guards. A particularly worthy idea for
school-PTA consideration is the "walking school bus". approach, which teams adults
and children in safe walking groups to and from school.
4.Devote resources from the City’s new Traffic Safety Education campaign toward the
Charleston/Arastradero and East Meadow corridors.
Traffic Management and Safety Plan - Phase II ’
A. Roadway Design and Operations -
Restripe Charleston Road to have one through lane in each direction between, but not
including, Middlefield and E1 Camino Real and between, but not including,
Middlefield and Fabian Way. Provide left turns at the following intersections: Ahna,
Wilkie Way, Carlson Road, Nelson Road, Louis Road and Fabian Way. A level of
service analysis showed that this would have no negative impacts on ~ehicular level
of service at these six intersections (existing and fi~ture LOS are depicted in Table 1
H:\emrskP-TC\Charleston Study 1.doe Page 5
of Attachment 1). Charleston .Road at E1 Camino Real and at Middlefield Road
would need to retain two approach lanes in order to maintain acceptable levels of
service. This redesign would also have a traffic cahning effect by changing the look
of Charleston Road from a wide arterial/expressway feel to more of a neighborhood
collector street in anticipation of it being designated a school corridor.
Benefits of Recolrariendation II.A. 1:
~ No adverse effect on vehicular level of service; .
~Improved pedestrian safety due to center median (raised or striped) facilitating
pedestrian crossings between signalized intersections;
x Provides bike lane in between the through lane and right turn lane at Ahria Street;
x Provides exclusive left-turn lanes at Wilkie, Carlson, and Nelson; Left-turn phasing
can either be protected or permitted.
Advantages of protected left-rum phasing: the pedestrian phase is a separate phase from the lefl tum phase, reducing or
eliminating the possibility of lett-tuming vehicles seeing a gap in opposing traffic and speeding up to make it through the gap,
only to find a pedestrian in the crosswalk. Disadvantages of protected left-turn phasing are that the overall phase length is
longer, causing more delay for the pedestrians waiting for the pedestrian WALK phase.
H:\emrskP-TC\Charleston Study 1.doe Page 6
Intersection
Willde Way
Ah~aa Street
Carlson Circle
Nelson Drive
Table 1
CHARLESTON ROAD
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE "
WITH LANE MODIFICATIONS
Existing Lane
Configuration
13.5 (B)
39.8 (D)
16.8 (.c)
11.2(B)
PM
14.403)
41.3 (E)
12.6(B)
9.803)
Modified Lane
Configuration
AM PM
9.1 (B)
31.4 (D)
10.103)
8.6(B)
7.703)
3 1.8 (D)
4.6(A)
6.9(B)
Description Of
Lane Modifications
To Charleston
Road
One through lane,
one left turn lane
One through, one
left turn lane, one
right mm lane plus
bike lanes; change in
phasing from split
phase to protected
left-turn phase
One through lane,
one left turn lane
One through lane,
one left turn lane
xx.x (Y) = Delay in seconds (Level of Service)
Source." Highway Capacity Manual, 1994. Updated Version
Note: The intersection of Charleston!Louis Road is not signalized, and movements are
restricted due to the median; it is not anticipated that the lane modifications would
significantly impact the LOS at this intersection.
Wilbttr Smith Associates, February 15, 2000
If Recol~nendation II.A. 1 were implemented; the following improvements would also be
possible to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and slow traffic down to the posted
speed limit:
2.Provide a raised median refilge at locations where pedestrian crossings are to be
channeled such as west of Park Boulevard and at Sutherland Drive.
3.Provide a raised median at signalized intersections at Nelson Drive and Carlson
Circle.
4.Bulb-outs for pedestrians could be added at spot locations.
5.Separate right-turning traffic from bike lanes at Alma street by providing a separate
right-ram lane and placing the bike lane to the left of the right-ram lane.
H:\emrs~-TC\Charleston Study 1 .doe Page 7
Other measures affecting roadway operations include:
Re-evaluate striping at Fabian/Charleston to encourage use of Fabian Way to access
San Antonio. Increase signage to direct cars to Fabian Way.
Consider planting trees to improve the aesthetics of the street and slow traffic.
These could be either in a median or in a widened planter strip.
Evaluate the possibility of replacing signals at Wilkie, Carlson, and Nelson with
roundabouts. If replaced, consider pedestrian signals if necessary, to provide an
adequate gap in the traffic for pedes.trians to safely and conveniently cross
Charleston Road.
9.Restripe or otherwise rectify the problem caused by_the re, s-alignment Of Park Blvd.
at Charleston Road so that the northbound cars turning from Park Boulevard onto
Charleston Road are not blocked by the queue of cars at Alma. Northbound cars
currently block the bike lane to budge into the stopped queue of traffic.
10.Provide eight-foot wide bike lanes, which may reduce the incidents of.sidewalk bike
riding by children.
Provide bike lanes on Charleston Road east of Middlefield Road.
Convert part-thne bike lane to be a fulltime bike lane on the northside of Charleston
Road between Wright Place and the bike path to JLS Middle School. The bike lane
is currently daytime only (7 a.m, to 7 p.m. bike lane). There would be no hnpacts to
adjacent property owners since no homes front onto thisside of Charleston Road.
13.Evaluate the effectiveness of the 4-way stop at East Charleston Road at
Grove/Sutherland.
B. Residential Traffic Calming -
Issues:
UI Cut-through traffic on Lindero/Wright/Carlson Circle and Greemueadow/Nelson to
avoid congestion at Charleston Road and Alma.
Speeding and cut-through traffic on other local streets, to avoid the eastbound backup
at Alma. For exmnple, Willde Way is used to access Whitclem Drive and Edlee
Avenue. These two streets are wide and straight with rolled curbs and parallel
parking. The parking is sparse, yielding a wide-open vista which makes it very
conducive to speeding.
1. Develop a traffic cahuing plan for Lindero/Wright/Carlson Circle. ’
2. Develop a traffic cahning plan for Ely/Mm~fford Place.
H:\errtrs~P-TC\Charleston Study 1 .doe Page 8
3. Develop a traffic calming plan for Green Meadow Way and Nelson Drive.
4. Develop a traffic calming plan for Louis Road.
There are several traffic .cahning strategies that could help alleviate the problems of
speeding and cut-through traffic. The specific strategies used should be chosen in
conjunction with affected neighbors. The most promising traffic Eahrting strategies are:
¯Stripe shoulder or parking lane to narrow roadway;
¯R.etain lack of center line;
¯Install traffic circles at all intersections and/or speed htmaps or tables midblock;
¯Consider one-lane choke points or rturtble.strips;
¯If speeding is still a problem, install a peak hour barrier on a thaaer, that would .
close the street rnidblock only during a few hours a day, for example 7:00 a.m. to
8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Phasing and Implementation
The recoxrnuended projects vary in the timeframe in which they can be impl6mented and
also in the entities that need to be involved. Table 2 presents the primary entity or
entities that would need to be responsible for implementation of each of the
recommendations, including the Planning Division, the Transportation Division, the City
Council, the school district and the Police Deparlanent. The recormr~endationS have also
been assigned to three phases..Projects in Phase I can be implemented with existing
resources within the next 12 months. Projects in Phase II require City Council action for
additional budget allocation and could be implemented within one to three years. Projects
in Phase III would also require City Council action for additional funds (capital
improvement program, grants, interagency agreements, cost sharing) and would probably
take several more years to implement.
Existing city and state programs also dovetail with the recommendations of this report.
These are described below:
The City of Palo Alto has begtm a citywide Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program.
The City is also currently working on the Downtown North Traffic Calming Study.
Funding is available for $100,000 worth of traffic calming improvements for local m~d
collector streets.
The City has also begum a Residential Arterial Traffic Calming Program, the first phase
of which was an Embarcadero Road study. It may be possible to fitrther develop the
H:\emrskP-TC\Charleston Study 1.doe Page 9
long-term solutions under the next phase of this study, if Charleston Road is studied
ttuder this program.
The State of California has developed a grant program for Safe Routes to School, and all
of the improvements in this docmnent have benefits for school commuting, especially the
recomrnendations for Charleston Road.
Recommendation
POLICIES
School Corridor Designation
Data Development and Sharing
Encouragement of Page Mill/
San Antonio Road
Land-Use Decisions
Speed Limit Enforcement
PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS
EvalUate Louis Road
School Commute TDM Plans
Routes to School Supelwision
Table 2
Summary of Recommendations
Agencies
City Council
Transportation Division, PAUSD
Transportation Division
Planning Department
Transpox~ation Division, PAPD
Transportation Division
Transportation Division,
PAPD, PAUSD, PTA
PAUSD*
Motorist Awareness Transpox~ation Division,
ROADWAY" DESIGN AND OPERATIONS
Reconfigure Charleston Rd.
Raised Pedestrian Refuges
Bike Lanes
Roundabouts and bulb-outs
TRAFFIC CALMING
Traffic Calm Residential Streets
*PAPD = Pale Alto Police Department
**PAUSD = Pale Alto Unified School District
Transportation Division
Transportation Division
Transportation Division
Transportation Division
Transportation Division,
Affected Neighborhood
PAPD**
Phase
1
1
1
Ongoing
Ongoing
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2,3
ALTERNATIVES TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternatives to the proposed Charleston Road Traffic Management and Safety Plan
include the following:
Defer any action until completion of a planned residential arterial traffic calming
study for the Charleston/Arastradero corridor. No funding or timetable, however, has
been established for this study.
H:\emrsW-TC\Charleston Study 1.doe Page 10
2.Authorize and implement Phase I recommendations, evaluate results, then return to
both the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council with staff
recommendations for further action, if any.
Recommend that City Council authorize and staff il.nplement both phases of the
Traffic Management and Safety Plan without a second round of Commission and
Council hearings on a detailed Conceptual Plan for the re-configuration of Charleston
Road. It is h~aportant to note that staff does not yet have a sufficiently detailed
program for the re-configuration from which to present reliable cost estimates to
Council. Additional detail on location, size, and other aspects of proposed
improvements will also create a better information base for the public, Commission,
and Council to evaluate the benefits and impacts of the re-configuration.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Transportation Element of the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan contains
nunlerous goals, policies, and programs related to traffic safety, traffic calming, trip
reduction programs; and encouragement .of bicycling and walking as travel modes.
Goal T-l: "Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles"
Policy T-3: "Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective
programs to reduce auto use at both the local and regional levels."
Program T-8: "Create a long-term education program to change the travel habits of
residents., visitors and workers by informing them about transportation alternatives,
incentives and hrtpacts. Work with the Palo Alto Unified School District and with
private interests, such as the Chamber of Commerce, to develop and hnplement this
program."
Goal T-3: "Facilities, Services, and .Programs that Encourage and Promote
Walking and Bicycling"
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."
Policy T-40: "Continue to prioritize the safety and comfort of school children in street
modification projects that affect school travel ~outes."
Goal T-5: A Transportation System with Minimal Impacts on ~Residential
Neighborhoods."
H:\emrskP-TC\Charleston Study 1.doe Page 11
Policy T-30: "Reduce the impacts of through-traffic on residential areas by
d6signating certain streets as residential arterials."
Policy T-34: "Inaplenaent traffic cahning measures to slow traffic on local and collector
residential streets and prioritize these measures ov.er congestion management. Include
traffic circles and other traffic cahning devices among these measures."
Program T-4.1: "The following roadways are designated as residential arterials. Treat
these streets with landscaping, medians, and other visual hnprovements to distinguish
them as residential streets, in order to reduce traffic speeds Charleston/Arastradero
(between Miranda and Fabian Way)."
Goal T-6: "A High Level of Safety for Motorists~ Pedestrians and Bicyclists on Palo
Alto Streets."
Policy T-39: "To the extent allowed by law, continue to make safety the first priority
of citywide .transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile
safety over vehicle level-of-service at intersections."
Program T-47: "Utilize engineering,
traffic safety on City roadways.,
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
.An Environmental Assessment will
calming project
enforcement, and educational tools to hnprove
be prepared prior to implementation of a traffic
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
1. Charleston Road Corridor Traffic Management and Safety Study: Draft Report
COURTESY COPIES:
City Council
Charleston Road .Corridor Study Advisory Committee
Prepared by: Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official
Reviewed by: G. Edward Gawf, Director of Planning and Cormrmnity Envirom~aent.
Division Head Approval:
H:\cmrsLP-TC\Charleston Stud~, 1.doe Page 12
ATTACHMENT B
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
2
3
Existing Conditions
Charleston Road Setting .........................................................................................1-1
Data Collection ..................................................................................................~ ....1-1
Average Daily Traffic Counts .................................................................................1-1
Rain Impacts on Daily Traffic Volume ...................................................................1-3
Rain Impacts on Peak Period Traffic ......................................................................1-4
Intersection Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts 1-6
Speed Surveys .........................................................................................................1-7
Bicycle Counts ........................................................................................................1-8
License Plate Surveys .............................................................................................1-9
Accidents .............................................................. .........................i .........................1-10
Observations and Issues Identification
Setting ...................................i .................................................................................2-1
Roadway Geometry .................................................................................................2-2
Speed Limits and Speeding ....................................................................., ...............2-2
Traffic Congestion .................................~ ...........: ..........i ......: ......................... .........2-2
Pedestrian. and Bicycle Circulation .........................................................................2-3
Residential Streets in the Charleston Corridor .................................... ....................’ 2-3
Findings and Recommendations
Policy Strategies ..................................................................i ...................................3-1
Behavioral Strategies ..............................................................................................3-2
Traffic Engineering Strategies ................................................................................3-3
Roadway Design and Geometry Strategi6s .........: ...................................................3-3
Residential Traffic Calming Strategies ........................................................ ............3-5
Phasing and Implementation Issues ...............................................................: ........3-6
Appendix- Intersection Levels of Service Calculation 5beets
343010
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC.MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY STUDY
Page i
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table
TABLES
1 Summary of Average Daily Traffic Volumes in the Study Area ......: .............................1-2
2 Traffic Count Comparison - Average Daily Traffic ........................................i ..............1~3
3 Traffic Count Comparison - AM Peak Hour ..................................................................1-4
4 Traffic Count Comparison - PM Peak Hour ..................................................................1-5
5 Traffic Count Comparison - AM Peak, 15-Minute Period .............................................1-5
6 Level-of-Service Criteria For Signalized Intersections ...................................................1-6
7 Charleston Road Speed Surveys ......................................................................................1-7
8 Bike Counts Charleston Road .........................................................................................1-8
9 License Plate Survey Results ..........................................................................................1-9
10 Charleston Road Accidents by Intersection, Traffic Control Device and
Non-Motorized Party, 1.996-1998 ........................................................~ ...................1-10
11 Summary of Charleston Road Accidents By Intersection by
Type of Collision, 1996 - 1998 ..............................................................................1-11
12 Charleston Road Accidents by Direction Traffic Proceeding ..................................~ ....1-11
13 Charleston Road Intersection Level of Service With Lane Modifications ...................3-4
14 Summary of Recommendations .........................................................: ..........................3-7
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Follows
1 Locations of Data Collection ..........................................................................................1-1
2 License Plate Survey Locations ......................................................................................1-1
3 Average Daily Traffic Volume - Charleston West of Alma ...........................................1-2
4 Average Daily Traffic Volume - Charleston West of Middlefield .................................1-2
5 Average Daily Traffic Volumes - Nelson at Charleston ................................................1-2
6 Intersection Levels of Service AM Peak Hour ................................................................1-6
7 Intersection Levels of Service PM Peak Hour ................................................................1-6
8 Summary of Roadway Design Recommendations ...........................................................3-3
343010
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY STUDY
Page ii
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
Chapter 1
EXISTING CONDITIONS
CHARLESTON ROAD SETTING
Charleston Road is a four lane undivided road with a posted speed of 25 mph. There is parking
on the northside of the roadway with a fulltime bike lane; on the southside there is a daytime
only bike lane that converts to a parking lane at night (7 PM -7AM). Fronting land uses include
single family residential (both fronting and backing onto Charleston Road) and several
institutional uses: Hoover Elementary School, the Unitarian Church, the Community
Association for Rehabilitation and a small apartment complex. In addition, two pathways
provide bike and pedestrian access to the interior uses of JLS Middle School and Mitchell Park.
At the comer of Charleston Road but fronting on Middlefield Road is Challenger School. On
Charleston Road between Middlefield Road and Fabian Way, the frontage is predominantly
single family residential. On the west end of the study area at E1 Camino Real is Rickey’s Hyatt
House and other commercial uses.
DATA COLLECTION
An intensive data collection effort was conducted in order to thoroughly ’assess the existing
traffic safety conditions in the Charleston Corridor Study area. This data collection program
consisted of:
¯Turning Movement Counts - AM and PM peak periods, seven intersections;
¯Average Daily Traffic Counts - ten locations;
¯Speed Surveys -three locations;
¯Bicycle Counts - four locations;
¯License Plate Surveys - three entrance locations and five exit locations;
¯In addition, the City provided WSA with accident data for the last three years.
The locations where data was collected are depicted in Figures 1 and 2.
AVERAGE DALLY TRAFFIC COUNTS
The average daily traffic volume (ADT) in the study area were obtained in order to get a base
knowledge of traffic conditions as well as to get a sense of the relative traffic volumes of the
various streets in the study area. Machine counters were put out at ten locations on September
22, 23 and 28, 1999 and the three day count data was averaged to obtain the ADT. The ADT is
essentially a snapshot of the area’s daily trips on a few days during the year, since it is
impractical to leave out machine hoses for 365 days a year. These dates in September were
selected because it was after school was in session, when traffic volumes are typically heavier
343010
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENTAND SAFETY STUDY
Page 1 - 1
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC STUDY
Rd
Intersection Turning Movement Counts
Bicycle Counts
Average Daily Traffic Volume Counts
Speed Survey
JCC, Gunn
High School
JJlJJJ
V~WILBU’R SMITH ASSOCIATES
Fairmeadow Elementary School
Challenger School
Hoover Elementary School
Figure 1
LOCATIONS OF DATA COLLECTION
343010\Loc of Dala Colledion-7/5/2000
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC STUDY
Sutherland Dr
Middlefield Rd
South Ct
To Fern to
San Antonio
Mumford PI
Alma St
Location of Survey
Direction of Travel Surveyed
# Cars - cut-through 7am - 9am
~4~,~lill||
~WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
Figure 2
LICENSE PLATE SURVEY LOCATIONS
343010\Licens.e plQte surveys-3/24/2000
EXISTING CONDITIONS
than during the summer. None of these dates were on the Jewish Holy Days. The weather was
fair to sunny on the days the data was collected.
The ADT’S at these ten locations are summarized below in Table 1.
Table 1
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES IN THE STUDY AREA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Street
Charleston Road
Charleston Road
Charleston Road
Wilkie Way
Alma Street
Carlson Circle
Nelson Drive
Middlefield Road
Fabian Way
Montrose Avenue
Location
just west of Alma
just west of Middlefield Road
just west of Fabian Way
just north of Charleston
just north of Charleston
just north of Charleston
just south of Charleston
just north of Charleston
just north of Charleston
just south of Charleston
ADT*
14,228
14,304
13,580
1,303
28,253
1,172
2,012
20,616
12,945
338
Source: Higgins and Associates, September 1999
Speeds were also collected on a non-rainy day. This is usually a worst case condition compared
to rainy days, as drivers on average tend to drive more slowly on a rainy day; Fair weather days
in general are also better days to collect bicycle and pedestrian counts, as more people tend to
walk or bicycle on non-rainy days.
The hourly variation of these ADT counts was plotted for three locations to determine trends
throughout the day. The counts in 15 minute increments were plotted for Charleston Road west
of Alma and west of Middlefield and for Nelson Road. These plots are depicted in Figures 3
through 5. At allthree locations, there are distinct peaks in at least one direction that last for 15
to 30 minutes. If a person is stuck in traffic during one of the peaks, his/her perception of the
traffic congestion on Charleston Road will be much different than someone who travels through
30 or even 15 minutes later. As shown in Figure 3 for Charleston Road west of Alma, the
eastbound and westbound directions both have high traffic volumes in the AM peak; the highest
peak of traffic is the 15 minute period between 7:30 AM and 7:45 AM for westbound traffic
when there are 167 vehicles. This is forty percent higher than the preceding 15-minute peak and
eleven percent higher than the average 15-minute volume during the peak hour. There are
several peak 15-rninute periods during the PM peak, but the predominant traffic flow is in the
westbound direction. West of Middlefield on Charleston Road, there is an intense peak at
7:45 AM and at ¯8:00 AM in the westbound direction when there are ¯243 and 236 vehicles.
These are about 75 percent higher than the 15 minutes peak preceding and following these
periods. In the afternoon, there is a much more extended peak period again in the westbound
343010
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY STUDY
Page 1 - 2
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
laid o0:g
laid O0:l
laid o0:g
NV 00:0
NV 00:6
NV 00:~
NV 00:~
IhlV00:9
I~iV 00:9
IAIV 00:~
~V 00:~
g IAIV 00: I.
’~ ~V 00:~ I,
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O. 0
aLunloA
0 0 0oIf)o
euJnlOA
0 0
I~d 00: I, 1.
~
I~d 00:0 I,~
I~d 00:6 .~
IAid 00:~
~
IAid O0:Z ,,-
~d 00:9
Ihld O0:Cj
Ihld 00:~
~d 00:£
laid 00:~
~d 00: !,
laid
lhlV 00: I, 1. ~
I~VO0:OI, ~
I~V 00:6
I~IV O0:Z
lair 00:9
I~V O0:g
~V 00:~
IhlV 00:~
V~V 00:1,
m nn
~ Z
_~_
0 0 0 0 0 0
auJnlOA
00:0 I.
00:6
00:#
00:6
00:9
00:~
00:9
00:~
00:~
00:~
O0:g
00: ~
8
EXISTING CONDITIONS
direction between 5:00 PM and 7:00 PM - the average volume during this time period is about
170 vehicles every 15 minutes. On Nelson Road, there is a distinct peak at 7:45 in the
northbound direction when there are 64 vehicles during the 15 minute period, compared to 29
and 45 for the periods before and after.
Rain Impacts on Daily Traffic Volume
The effect of rain on the ADT of a streetis not usually considered significant by traffic engLrteers
because some effects of the weather may negate others. (For example, while more children may
be driven to school, some discretionary trips may not be made at all. Even so, driving behavior
on rainy days can be variable and non-rainy days are generally preferred.) Nevertheless, this
study attempted to determine ifrain could indeed be a factor, since there are so many schools in
the study area and the worst case for localized school traffic at school driveways occurs on rainy
days.
In response to concerns that the traffic counts conducted in September 1999 did not reflect rainy
day conditions, the City of Palo Alto conducted additional traffic counts in April 2000. Two of
these days were rainy days. These counts are presented below and are compared to the previous
counts conducted in September as well as to a non-rainy day conducted in April 2000. Table 2
compares the average daily traffic volume for the non-rainy counts taken last September and for
two rainy days on one non-rainy day taken in April 2000. The highest volume for each direction
is bolded. As shown below, the highest volume occurred on a rainy day for four locations and on
a clear day for four locations.
Location
Wilkie Way n/o Charleston Rd
Northbound 734
Southbound 719
Table 2
TRAFFIC COUNT COMPARISON
Average Daily Traffic
Thursday Monday Tuesday
4/13/00 4/17/00 4/18/00
rainy clear rainy ¯
619 630
652 674
Sept. 1999
Clear
608
695
Charleston
Westbound
Eastbound
Charleston
Westbound
Eastbound
Middlefield
Northbound
Southbound
Note: For the
and 28, 1999.
Rd west of Middlefield
8,660
7,455
Rd west of Alma
6,891
10,977
north of Charleston
9,318
10,004
8,056
8,422
5,993
9,030
7,003
8,919
count of September 1999, the counts were the
8,372
8,354
5,941
9,333
6,612
9,254
7,798
6,652
7,174
7,059
10,092
10,524
average ADT for September 22, 23,
343010
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY STUDY
Page 1 - 3
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Rain Impacts on Peak Period Traffic
As described above, the Cityprovided count data for two rainy days in April. Table 3 compares
AM peak hour volumes for the hour during which school starts 7:30 to 8:30. Table 4 compares
the PM peak hour and Table 5 compares the peak 15 minute period during the AM peak. As
shown in Table 3, during the AM peak hour, the higher traffic volume usually occurred on a
clear day. However, other variations such as day of the week and season of the year could also
affect the results. Therefore it is difficult to say how much influence the weather had on these
counts.
Location
Wilkie Way n/o Charleston Rd
Northbound 78
Southbound 53
Charleston Rd west of Middlefield
Table 3
TRAFFIC COUNT COMPARISON
AM Peak Hour (7:30 - 8:30 am)
Thursday Monday Tuesday
4/13/00 4/17/00 4/18/00
rainy clear
68
75
Westbound
Eastbound
Charleston Rd west of Alma
Westbound
Eastbound
Middlefield north of Charleston
Northbound 349
Southbound 606
534 551
465 785
484 374
648 640
379
rainy
51
581
592
438
591
284
Sept. 1999
Clear
726
597 570
69
84
748
530
597
451
1,145
343010
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY STUDY
Page I - 4
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
EXISTING CONDITIONS
As shown in Table 4, during the PM peak hour, more often than not the rainy day had the higher
traffic volume.
Table 4
TRAFFIC COUNT COMPARISON
PM Peak Hour
Thursday Monday
4/13/00 4/17/00
Location rainy clear
Wilkie Way n/o Charleston Rd
Time: 16:30-17:30
Northbound 77 66
Southbound 94 ¯ 73
Charleston Rd west of Middlefield
Time: 17:45-18:45
Westbound
Eastbound
Charleston Rd west of Alma
Time: 16:30-17:30
Westbound
Eastbound
Middlefield north of Charleston
Time: 17:45-18:45 ..
Northbound 956
Southbound 993
Tuesday
4/18/00
rainy
Sept. 1999
Clear
54 76
81 50
936 782 820 704
497 608 655 499
467 358 329 525
849 635 661 318
639 642 962
852 865 851
Finally, the peak 15 minute period was reviewed for the morning peak hour. At the four
locations analyzed, the peak 15 count occurred on a rainy day, but was within 5 to 10 percent of
the clear day count (except for Wilkie Way).
Table 5
TRAFFIC COUNT COMPARISON
A~ Peak - 15-Minute Period
-~Thursday Monday Tuesday
4/13/00 4/17/00 4/18/00
Location rainy clear rainy
Wilkie Way n/o Charleston Rd. 7:30-7:45
Northbound 37 29 35
Charleston Rd west of Middlefield 8:15-8:30
Westbound 244 232 231
Charleston Rd west of Alma 9:30-9:45
Eastbound 254 232 223
Middlefield north of Charleston 8:45-9:00
Southbound 282 268 246
Sept. 1999
Clear
20
139
134
212
343010
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY STUDY
Page 1 - 5
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
EXISTING CONDITIONS
INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
Turning movement counts were conducted at the seven signalized intersections along Charleston
Road: E1 Camino Real, Wilkie Way, Alma Street, Carlson Circle, Nelson Drive, Middlefield
Road, and Fabian.Way. The traffic was counted from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and from 4:00 PM
to 6:00 PM on September 14 through 16, 1999. Motor vehicles as well as pedestrians and
bicycles were counted. Signal timing data was obtained from the city and other consultants. (On
the capacity analysis summary sheets, the bicycles were included with the pedestrian counts,
since the software does not have the capability to consider bikes ,separately from the pedestrians).
The existing level of service (LOS) was determined using the methodology ~om the Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM). This methodology determines the average delay per vehicle in
seconds at each intersection during the peak hours. The delay is related to LOS as depicted in
Table 6. The level of service rates each intersection on a scale from A to F. LOS A means free
flow, while LOS E means approaching saturation. Usually all vehicles can be accommodated
within the same signal cycle for LOS C and better. Delays are within the good to tolerable
range. LOS D means that the cycle is getting saturated, and by LOS F, there are more cars than
can fit through the intersection and delays become "unacceptable." Another physical
manifestation of congestion is queue lengths; the LOS analysis predicts queue lengths as well as
vehicle delay based on the traJ~fic volumes and signal timing.
Table 6
LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
LEVEL OF SERVICE
A
B
C
D
F
STOPPED DELAY PER VEHICLE
< 5.0 sec.
> 5.0 and > 15.0 see.
> 15.0 and < 25.0 see.
> 25.0 and __. 40.0 see.
> 40.0 and < 60.0 see.
> 60.0 sec.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 1994 Updated Version
Delay
The delay and resulting LOS at each of the study intersections is presented in-Figures 6 and 7.
(The detailed calculation sheets are presented in the Appendix). As might be predicted by the
ADT’s, the worst delay is experienced at Charleston Road at Alma which has a LOS E during
the PM peak hour and LOS D during the AM peak hour. It should be noted that the AM peak
hour delay at Alma is 39.8 seconds, 0.3 seconds fi:om being a LOS E. The recent LOS
calculations performed by the City as part of their annual monitoring program determined that
the Charleston/Alma intersection was LOS E. Charleston Road at Middlefield has a LOS D
during the PM peak hour and LOS C during the AM peak hour while Charleston Road at E1
Camino Real has LOS D during both the AM peak hour and the PM peak hour.
348010
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY STUDY
Page 1 - 6
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
0
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The EIR for the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan notes that the standard tolerable LOS for the City
is LOS D. However, the City informally relies on the local Congestion Management Agency’s
standard of LOS E since LOS D seems unrealistic at many existing intersections.
As discussed previously in the section on ADT’s, there are 15 minute peak periods within the
peak one hour period; these intersection Levels of Service reflect an average amount of peaking
within the peak hour but not necessarily the actual peaking characteristics. In other words, de
facto Levels of Service during the peak 15 minutes within the peak hour may exceed these
hourly average Levels of Service particularly during the morning peak hour.
Queue
The maximum queue lengths at the signalized intersections estimated by the HCM methodology.
The longest queues on Charleston Road occurred at Alma; this is also verified by residents who
drive on Charleston Road daily. The worst queues occur in the eastbound direction during the
AM peak and westbound direction during the PM peak when the queue lengths are 25 and 27
cars, respectively. But the opposite directions also experience queues of about 20 cars.
SPEED SURVEYS
Speeds were recorded at the six Charleston Road data collection locations. The results are
summarized below in Table 7. The 85tu percentile speed (the speed at which 85 percent of traffic
is travelling at or below) ranges between 34 mph and 39 mph. Typically eastbound direction
was travelling faster than the westbound direction. Another interesting statistic was the number
and percent of vehicles.travelling above 45 mph. The eastbound direction has two to ten times as.
many cars travelling above 45 mph as the westbound direction. The worst location was west of
Fabian Way where 218 vehicles, almost three percent of the traffic, was travelling above 45 mph.
Table 7
CHARLESTON ROAD SPEED SURVEYS
Location Direction
just west of Alma Eastbound
Street
just west of Alma Westbound
Street
just west of Eastbound
Middlefield Road
just west of Westbound
Middlefield Road
just west of Fabian Eastbound
Way
just west of Fabian Westbound
Way
85th
Percentile
(mph)
37
36
39
38
34
Average
Speed
(mph)
31
31
35
33
31
20
Above
45 mph
#(%)127
(1.8o )
’40
(0.56%)
148
(2.2%)
87
(1.1%)
9.18
(2.93%)
16
(0.22%)
BICYCLE COUNTS
343010
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY STUDY
Page 1 - 7
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
EXISTING CONDITIONS
BICYCLE COUNTS
The bicycle volumes on Charleston Road were counted at four locations between 7 AM and
9 AM and again between 4 PM and 6 PM. The counts were conducted on a fair non-rainy day,
so these should be a good representation of the number of bicyclists in the study area on a typical
non-rainy day.
Location of Bicycle Count
West of Alma and east of Wilkie
West of Mumford and east of Wright
West of Nelson and east of Carlson
East of Middlefield
Date counted
AM - Thursday September 16, 1999
PM - Wednesday September 15, 1999
AM - Thursday September 16, 1999
PM - Wednesday September 15, 1999
AM]PM -Wednesday September 15, 1999
AM/PM -Wednesday September 15, 1999
The location where the bicyclists were riding, i.e. on the roadway versus on the sidewalks was
noted as was the direction the bicyclists were travelling. Consequently, the number of wrong-
way bicyclists was counted, and whether it was on the sidewalk or roadway. These counts are
summarized in Table 8.
Table 8
BIKE COUNTS CHARLESTON ROAD
1 Charleston Rd - West of Alma and East of Wilkie Way: Bike Lanes
Bike Lane
eb
wb wrongway
am 0 2
pm 1 2
Northside
Sidewalk
eb Total
wb wronlb, way
25 2 29
24 0 27
Bike Lane
wb
wron~way eb
2 40
2 24
Southside
Sidewalk
wb
wrongwa7 eb
2 3
3 1
2 Charleston Rd - West of Mumford and east of Wright: Bike Lanes
pm 1 1 20 0 22 3 27
3 Charleston Rd - West of Nelson and east of Carlson: Bike Lanes
Total
Both
Directions
pin 3 1 19 2
4 Charleston Rd - East of Middlefield
pm 7 2 4 0
am count period: 7 AM - 9 AM
pin count period: 4 PM - 6 PM
wb = westbound; eb = eastbound
Total
47 76
30 57
6 6 40 76
4 3 37 59
25 1 22 16 49 74
30 [ 0 5 0 7 12 42
13I 0 8 8 4 20 33
There is a fair amount of wrong way riding; it is worst on the south side of Charleston Road
(bikes heading westbound) at location 3, west of Nelson and east of Carlson opposite the back
school entrance. There is also a large amount of sidewalk riding, particularly on the north side of
Charleston Road at all four locations and on the. south side opposite the school. Interestingly,
sidewalk riding occurs on the sections of Charleston Road both with and without bike lanes.
343010
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY STUDY
Page 1 - 8
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
EXISTING CONDITIONS
LICENSE PLATE SURVEYS
A license plate survey was conducted between 7 AM and 9 AM on Wednesday September 29,
1999. The license plates were entered into a database and sorted to determine the numbers of
matches. A match indicates that a motorist is cutting through the neighborhood. (However, it
does not tell us whether a car cutting through is a resident of the neighborhood. Although this is
possible, it is considered unlikely due to the hours of the day the study was conducted).
The results of the license plate survey are summarized in Table 9. The most cut-through traffic
was found to be cutting through Lindero and Carlson Circle. Twenty-six cars were counted
turning left from Alma into Lindero that came out at either Carlson Circle (21 cars) or Wright
Place (five cars). Some cut-through activity was found to be occurring on Ely Place and Green
Meadow Way but not as much. Eleven cars were counted cutting through on Ely Place and six
cars cut-through on Green Meadow Way. However, another factor to consider along with cut-
through traffic is not the volume but the speed. Cars cutting through the neighborhood tend to
travel faster and exceed the speed limit more than residents, however this was not documented
for this study.
Entrance
Location
Lindero
Drive
Ely Place
Green-
meadow
Way
Turning
movement
Left from
Alma
Street
Right from
Alma
Street
Right from
Alma
Street
Table 9
LICENSE PLATE SURVEY RESULTS
Total
cars
16
Exit
location
Wright P1.
Carlson
Circle
Mumford
Place
Carlson
Circle
Nelson Dr.31
Turning
movement
Left on
Charleston
Road
Left on
Charleston
Road
Snbtotal
Right on
Charleston
Road
Right on
Charleston
Road
Subtotal
Right on
Charleston
Road
No,
matched
21
26
7
4
11
6
%
12.82%
53.85%
66.67%
43.75%
25.00%
68.75%
19.35%
343010
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGIEMENT AND SAFETY STUDY
Page 1 - 9
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
EXISTING CONDITIONS
ACCIDENTS
The City of Palo Alto provided-WSA with the SWITRS reports for the years 1996, 1997 and
1998. In this three year period, there were 139 reported accidents on Charleston Road between
and including the intersections of E1 Camino Real and Fabian Way. There are also many
unreported accidents (as well as near-misses). Only reported accidents resulting in injury are
required to be reported to SWITRS, thus the tables may not include collisions that had property
damage only. This table presents the absolute number of accidents. Accident rates which reflect
variances in traffic volumes or bicycle volumes’ between intersections have not been determined.
The reported accidents are summarized below. The total number of accidents by intersection
referenced in the police report is given. The number of accidents within 200 feet of the
intersection is also. presented; only accidents within 200 feet are considered to be within the
influence of the intersection.
Intersection
E1 Camino Real
Wilkie Way
Park Blvd
Alma Street
Wright Place
Mumford Place
Carlson Circle
Louis Rd./Montrose
Ave.
Nelson Drive
Middlefield Rd.
Fabian Way
TOTAL
Table 10
CHARLESTON ROAD ACCIDENTS
BY INTERSECTION TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE
AND NON-MOTORIZED PARTY
Number
of
Accidents
44
7
12
2
1
7
5
28
17
139
1996-1998
Accidents
Within 200 TrafficFeet of controlIntersection
30 traffic signal
11 traffic signal
7 2-way STOP
12 traffic signal
2 2-way STOP
1 2-way STOP
6
5
5
19
15 traffic
113
traffic signal
2-way STOP
traffic signal
traffic signal
signal
Number involved with
non-motorized party
5 - bicycle
0
1 - bicycle
0
1 - bicycle
0
2 - bicycle
0
2 - bicycle
1 - pedestrian
4 - bicycle
1 -pedestrian
0
17
343010
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY STUDY
Page 1 - 10
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Table 11
SUMMARY OF CHARLESTON ROAD ACCIDENTS
BY INTERSECTION BY TYPE OF COLLISION
1996-1998
Intersection Total
E1 Camino Real 44
Wilkie way 11
Park Blvd 7
Alma Street 12
Wright Place 2
Mumford Place 1
Carlson Circle 7
Louis Rd./Montrose Ave.5
Nelson Drive 5
Middlefield Rd.28
Fabian Way 17
TOTAL 139
Rear-End
26
0
4
6
0
0
1
1
0
8
3
49
Broadside
3
1
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
3
11
Bike/Ped
5
0
1
0
1
0
2
.0
3
5
0
17
Left-Turn
4
9
0
1
1
0
2
0
1
7
5
30
Other
6
1
0
5
0
1
2
3
1
7
6
29
Table 12
CHARLESTON ROAD ACCIDENTS BY DIRECTION TRAFFIC PROCEEDING
E1 Carabao Real
Wilkie Way
Park Blvd
Alma Street
Wright Place
Mumford Place
Carlson Circle
Louis
Rd./2VIontrose
Avenue
Nelson Drive
Middlefield Rd.
Fabian Way
Northbound
14
1
2
3
0
0
1
0
2
9
7
Direction Traffic Proceeding*
Southbound
11
1
1
1
1
0
3
1
0
13
7
Eastbound
4
6
3
4
2
0
4
3
2
6
5
Westbound
8
8
4
6
1
1
3
0
3
10
8
*Eastbound-westbound approaches are Charleston Road
Northbound-southbound approaches are the cross-streets
343010
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
Page 1 - 11
Chapter 2
OBSERVATIONS AND ISSUES IDENTIFICATION
SETTING
Charleston Road serves as a regional connector between 1-280 and Highway 101. However, it is
also the primary route to many schools for motor vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles. Charleston
Road is currently classified as a residential arterial which acknowledges the single family home
frontage, but the special nature caused by the dozen or schools served by this corridor should
also be explicitly acknowledged.
The schools which front directly or .have driveway access onto Charleston Road]Arastradero
Road are, from west to east:
¯Gunn High School at Foothill Expressway to the west;
¯Jewish Day School (grades K through 8);
¯Jewish Community Center QCC), which has preschools;
¯J.L. Stanford Middle School between Alma and Middlefie!d;
¯Hoover Elementary School, magnet school between Alma and Middlefield;
¯Challenger School, a private school at Charleston and Middlefield.
Several other schools, while not located on Charleston Road, still depend on Charleston Road as
the major access route for both motor vehicle access and pedestrian and bicycle access. These
include two public schools that, while not located directly on Charleston Road, have school
attendance boundaries such that the students who attend them must cross Charleston Road.
These are:
Juana Briones Elementary School which serves the Charleston Meadows neighborhood;
Fairmeadow Elementary which serves the Greenmeadow neighborhood;
The Cubberly campus, which has a branch campus of Foothill College, a daycare program,
a preschool, an alternative high school, a private elementary school, (The International
School) and a special education program);
The Heads Up Learning Institute on the Elks Club site.
There are also several institutional uses on the Charleston Corridor:
¯ The Stevenson House, a senior citizen residential facility; and
¯ The Community Association for Rehabilitation
343010
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY STUDY
Page 2 - 1
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
OBSERVATIONS AND ISSUES IDENTIFICATION
ROADWAY GEOMETRY
The existing four-lane cross section allows no median refuge for pedestrians crossing
between traffic signals~ The width of Charleston Road is 60 feet. It is about 1100 feet
between Willde and Alma with n0 pedestrian crossing. Residents would like a pedestrian
crossing at Park Boulevard. A bus stop at Sutherland Drive/Grove Avenue also generates
demand for pedestrians to cross.
The existing four-lane cross-section without left-turn pockets contributes to the accident
history along Charleston Road, particularly rear-ends and left-turn accidents at signalized
intersections.
Existing heavy fight turn volumes encroach in the bike lanes. Although they are required
to do so according to the "¢ehicle code, this proper positioning of right-turning motorist is
confusing for school-age bicyclists who then opt to ride on the sidewalks.
SPEED LIMITS AND SPEEDING
¯The posted speed limit is 25 mph due to the many schools and residential frontage.
¯85th percentile speeds obtained for this study range from 34 mph to 39 mph.
¯Radar enforcement of the speed limit is difficult due to the fact that the 85thpercentile
speeds are 30 mph and over.
¯Anecdotal evidence is that the speeding problem is worse east of Middlefield. Louis Road
inparticular suffers from speeding and associated accidents due to the curvature in
Charleston Road.
TRAFFIC CONGESTION
School drop-offs and pick-ups contribute to the peak hour congestion; the number of
students at each school site contributes to the traffic problem. The farther a student lives
from the school, the less likely they are to walk or bike to school. Also the increased
traffic congestion reduces the desire for people to walk due to safety concerns.
¯Existing traffic congestion at signalized intersections, particularly eastbotmd at Alma
which backs up to Ruthelma Avenue and even Wilkie Way during the AM peak.
¯Wilkie Way, both north and south of Charleston Road, is used to access internal
neighborhood streets to avoid the baclcaps on Charleston Road.
Future traffic volumes in the corridor could increase from a number of projects; the JCC
could become a middle school; JLS Middle School, Challenger School and/or other
schools could increase enrollment; and Rickey’s Hyatt House could redevelop.
In the Charleston/Meadows neighborhood south of Charleston Road, the only access into
and out of the neighborhood is via Charleston Road. While there are three streets serving
this area, Wiikie Way, Ruthelma and Park Blvd, they all lead only to Charleston Road.
343010
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY STUDY
Page 2 - 2
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
OBSERVATIONS AND ISSUES IDENTIFICATION
The congestion on Charleston Road affects emergency access for the 160 homes in this
area as well as residents’ access to and from the rest of the city.
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CIRCULATION
¯As stated above, there are few safe opportunities for pedestrians to cross Charleston Road,
and no median to provide refuge for pedestrians crossing the street.
¯Bike lanes terminate east of Middlefield.
¯Students still ride on the sidewalk in both directions even where there are bike lanes.
RESIDENTIAL STREETS IN THE CHARLESTON CORRIDOR
¯There is speeding and cut-through traffic on residential streets to avoid the eastbound
backup at Alma and the overall congestion at Charleston and Alma. This affects at a
rnim’mum the following streets:
¯Edlee Avenue
¯Whitclem Avenue
¯Greenmeadow Way
¯Creekside Drive
¯Lindero Drive
¯Wright Avenue
¯Carlson Circle
¯Wilkie Way
343010
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SA~:ETY STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
Page 2 - 3 ¯
Chapter 3
FINDING5 AND RECOMMENDATION5
This chapter presents our findings and recommendations to address the traffic congestion on
Charleston Road and its associated problems. These problems are:
1.The real and perceived unsafe conditions on Charleston Road that compromise bicyclist
safety;
2. The real and perceived unsafe conditions for pedestrians crossing Charleston Road; and
3. Traffic diversion and speeding through residential streets to avoid Charleston Road.
The recommendations to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety fall into several categories,
engineering policies, behavioral strategies, physical changes to the. roadway geometry,
residential traffic calming, and enforcement.
POLICY STRATEGI ES
Purpose: The City should acknowledge that Charleston Road/Arastradero Road is an important
school route, that the speed limit should be enforced and that "through" traffic should use other
arterials. "
Recommendation 1: Reclassify Charleston Road as a "School Corridor." Develop criteria to ¯
differentiate arterials and collectors that are school corridors from other arterials and collectors.
Adopt associated policies that address minimum levels of accommodation for pedestrians and
bicycles on school corridors. These could include: bike lanes and bike lane widths, sidewalks
and sidewalks widths, minimum and maximum distance between safe crossings of the corridor,
crosswalk design, pedestrian median refuges, and signal timing and phasing to accommodate
bicycle and pedestrians.
Recommendation 2: Encourage information sharing between the City and the schools regarding
Charleston Road traffic incidents and accidents. This type of exchange could occur with a
liaison between the City and the Schools’ Transportation Committee.
Recommendation 3: Encourage the use of Page Mill and San Antonio Road/El Monte Road
between Foothill Expressway and 1-280 rather than Arastradero. The use of Fabian Way should
be encouraged between Charleston and San Antonio Road. (Page Mill and San Antonio Road
both have grade separations over the Caltrain tracks compared to the at-grade crossing at
Charleston Road).
One option is to sever the connection between Arastradero and Page Mill Road. A less intrusive
option is to implement traffic management techniques such as peak hour turn restrictions, peak-
hour activated barriers1 of flashing red or yellow lights. Signs on E1 Camino Real should direct
traffic destined for 1-280 and Highway 101 to use Page Mill Road.
Another approach would be to discourage the use of Charleston Road by increasing travel time
and/or enforcing the 25 mph speed limit. This latter suggestion may seem to contradict the goals
343010
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
Page 3 - 1
FINDINGS AND RECO/v~I::NDATIONS
of most traffic engineering improvements which are to facilitate traffic flow and decrease delay
for motor vehicles. While such goals are appropriate for Page Mill Road or San Antonio Road,
they are not appropriate for Charleston Road and in fact tend to encourage the use of Charleston
Road rather than other arterials. San Antonio Road could be improved to carry more traffic.
Recommendation 4: Land use decisions that affect traffic volumes and speeds on Charleston
Road should be consistent with the nature of the roadway and its role as a school commute route
used by school-aged pedestrians and bicyclists.
Recommendation 5: Evaluate Louis Road and the intersection of Louis Road at Charleston
Road to determine strategies to reduce the number of speeding vehicles and misdirected vehicles
which are intentionally and unintentionally using Louis Road instead of Fabian Way.
BEHAVIOP.AL STRATEGIES
Purpose: Improve conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists by reducing the amount of school-
related traffic and by proyiding more supervision for school-age pedestrians and bicyclists.
Recommendation 6: Increase the level of transit use and carpooling particularly for school trips
by developing a focussed plan targeted toward the parents of school-children along the
Charleston Corridor. The magnet and private schools are particularly amenable to carpooling
since students typically live farther from school than those who attend neighborhood schools.
The city’s commute coordinator may be able to provide assistance in. carpdol arrangements.
RIDES and ALTRANS also contract with local, agencies and businesses, to develop focussed
carpool plans and transit route planning. Focussed carpool plans help connect the families who
live in the same zip code or neighborhood who attend the same school.
Recommendation 7: Reduce the number of Gunn’High School students who drive by
improving transit service, encouraging carpooling and improving pedestrian and bicycling
conditions. Encourage the school district and the City to cooperatively fund a program for
developing school commute options.
Recommendation 8: Provide more supervision for children along the mutes to school in the
Charleston Corridor. This could be one or more of the following strategies: more adult crossing
guards, the use of parent or community volunteers, walking school bus program,1 etc. The latter
two suggestions, parent vglunteers or a walking school bus, would need to be spearheaded at the
grass-roots level or possibly at the school or PTA level. The City could help by providing
funding to help pay for, for example, a leader of the walking school bus. The school district or
City may be able to help coordinate the use of retired or able-bodied senior citizens who live in
the neighborhood to help as volunteer or paid adult crossing guards or walking school bus
leaders.
Recommendation 9: Increase motorist awareness of the need to drive more slowly and of the
presence of the many schools in the area. This could include the proposed banners to be
developed by the education grant from the Office of Traffic Study.
I Walking school bus is the term used to describe the use of parents or other adults to walk through the neighborhood, picking UP
children as they go, to walk the children to school as group,
343010
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SAFET~ STUDY
Page 3 - 2
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING STRATEGIES
Purpose: Develop a good database of traffic data includingADT and accidents as well as other
data that reflect changing traffic conditions due to seasonal fluctuations. These seasonal
variations are more significant on Charleston Road than at other locations due to the number of
schools.
Recommendation 10: Have a liaison with the school transportation committee monitor traffic
conditions and pedestrian and bicyclist safety. One part of this would be integrating Fairview
Elementary School’s accident reporting system with the City’s system.
Recommendation 11: Conduct ADT and speed counts every two months to assess the varying
conditions: back to school traffic (mid-September), holiday season traffic (mid December),
winter season (February), Spring (April.- not Easter week), early Summer Qune) and late
summer (August).
Recommendation 12: Count bicycles and pedestrians on Charleston Road annually (during the
same .season) to monitor mode splits and mode shifts.
Recommendation 13: Increase enforcement on Charleston Road. Given the presence of schools
and senior citizen centers, the speed limit of 25 mph isenforceable. The use of radar
enforcement is permitted on weekdays when children are present since the street is posted with
the school area speed limit of 25 mph. 2
ROADWAY DESIGN AND GEOMETRY STRATEGIES
Purpose: Improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists by slowing traffic and by modifying the
existing roadway configuration.
The following recommendations are summarized on Figure 8.
Recommendation 14: Restripe Charleston Road to have one through lane in each direction
between Mumford Place and Nelson. Left turn lanes should be provided at the following
intersections: Carlson Circle, Nelson Road and Mumford Place. A level of service analysis
showed that this would have no negative impacts on vehicular level of service at the two
signalized intersections: Nelson Drive and Carlson Circle intersections. (The existing and future
LOS are depicted in Table 13.) Charleston Road at E1~ Camino Real and at Middlefleld Road
would need to retain two approach lanes in order to maintain acceptable levels of service. This
redesign would also have a traffic calming effect by changing the look of Charleston Road from
a wide arterial/expressway feel to more of a neighborhood collector street in anticipation of it
being designated a school corridor.
State of California 2000 Vehicle Code, Section 22352: Prima Faeie Speed Limits. The prima faeie speed limit of 25 mph is in
effect "when passing any school grounds which are not separated fxom the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier
while the grounds are in use by children and the highway is posted with a "SCHOOL" warning sign... [and] when passing a
senior center or other facility primarily used by senior citizens, contiguous to a street other than a state highway and posted
with a standard "SENIOR warning sign".
343010
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
Page 3 - 3
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY STUDY ¯
Challenger
School
Fairmeadow
Elementary
School
Elementary
School
RECONFIGURED CHARLESTON ROAD
B
I
K
E
N
Retain parking on one-slde of street
JCC, Gunn ..~
High School
~WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
Existing Traffic Signal
Reconfigure Charleston Road
(as shown in diagram above)
Add BikeLanes, Reconfigure
Charleston Road
Figure 8
SUMMARY OF ROADWAY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
343010\Figure 8-8/15/2000
FINDINGS AND RECOMMF:NDATIONS
Impacts of Recommendation 14
¯ No adverse effect on vehicular 1eve1 of service;
¯ Improved pedestrian safety due to center median (raised or striped) facilitating pedestrian
crossings between signalized intersections;
¯Provides exclusive left-turn lanes at Carlson Circle, Nelson Drive and Mumford Place;
Left-turn phasing can either be protected or permitted)
Intersection
Carlson Circle
Nelson Drive
Table 13
CHARLESTON ROAD
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
WITH LANE MODIFICATIONS
Modified Lane
Configuration
Existing Lane
Configuration
AM PM
16.8 (C)12.6(/3)
11.203)9.803)
xx.x (Y) = Delay in seconds (Level of Service)
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 1994 Updated Version
10.1(B)
8.603)
PM
4.6(A)
6.903)
Description Of Lane
Modifications To
Charleston Road
One through lane in
each direction;
one left turn lane
One through lane in
each direction;
one left turn lane
Wilbur S~aaith Associates, February 15, 2000
Fo!low-up recommendations - If Recommendation 14 were implemented and!or expanded, the
following improvements would also be possible to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and to
slow traffic down to the posted speed limit:
Recommendation 15: Provide raised median refuge at locations where pedestrian
crossings are to be channeled such as west of Park Blvd. and at Sutherland Drive.
Recommendation 16: Provide raised median at signalized intersections at Nelson Drive
and Carlson Circle.
Recommendation 17: Bulb-outs for pedestrians could be added at spot locations.
Recommendation 18: Separate right-turning traffic from bike lanes at Alma Street by
providing a separate right-turn lane and placing the bike lane to the left of the right-turn
lane.
Advantages of protected left-turn phasing: the pedestrian phase is a separate phase from the left turn phase, reducing or
eliminating the possibility of left-turning vehicles seeing a gap in opposing traffic, gunning it to make it through the gap, only
to fred a pedestrian in the crosswalk. Disadvantages of protected left-turn phasing are that the overall phase length is longer,
causing more delay for the pedestrians waiting for the pedestrian WALK phase.
343010
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
Page 3 - 4
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Other Recommendations
Recommendation 19: Re-evaluate striping at Fabian/Charleston to encourage use of Fabian
Way to access San Antonio. Increase signage to direct cars to Fabian Way.
Recommendation 20: Consider planting trees to improve the aesthetics of the street and slow
traffic. These could be either in a median or in a widened planter strip.
Recommendation 21: Evaluate the possibihty of replacing signals at Willde, Carlson, and
Nelson with roundaboutsl If replaced, consider pedestrian signals if necessary, to provide a gap
in the traffic for pedestrians to safely and conveniently cross Charleston Road.
Recommendation 22: Restripe or otherwise rectify the problem caused by the mis-alignment of
Park Blvd. at Charleston Road so that the northbound cars tuming from Park Boulevard onto
Charleston Road are not blocked by the queue of cars at Alma. Northbound cars currently block
the bike lane to budge into the stopped queue of traffic.
Recommendation 23: Provide eight foot wide bike lanes; may reduce the incidents of sidewalk
bike riding by children.
Recommendation 24: Provide bike lanes on Charleston Road east of Middlefield Road.
Recommendation 25: Convert part-time bike lane to be a fulltime bike lane on the northside of
Charleston Road between Wright Place and the bike path to JLS. The bike lane is currently day
time only (7 AM to 7 PM bike lane). There would be no impacts to adjacent property owners
since no homes front onto this side of Charleston Road.
Recommendation 26: .Evaluate the effectiveness of the 4-way stop at East Charleston Road at
Grove/Sutherland.
RESID ENTIAL TRAFFIC CALMI NG STRATEGI ES
Purpose: Reduce speeding and cut-through traffic on residential streets.
Issue 1: Cut-through traffic on Lindero/Wright/Carlson Circle and Greenmeadow/Nelson to
avoid congestion at Charleston Road and Alma.
Issue 2: Speeding and cut-through traffic on other local streets, to avoid the eastbound backup at
Alma. For example, Wilkie Way is used to access Whitclem Drive and Edlee Avenue; these two
streets are wide and straight with rolled curbs and parallel parking; the parking is sparse, yielding
a wide open vista which makes it very conducive to speeding,
Recommendation 27: Develop a traffic calming plan for. Edlee Avenue, Lindero/Wright,
Greenmeadow Drive, Whitclem Drive, Louis Road, Montrose Avenue and/or other affected
streets.
There are several traffic calming strategies that could help alleviate these problems of speeding
and cut-through traffic. The specific strategies used should be chosen in conjunction with
affected neighbors. The most promising traffic calming strategies are:
¯Stripe shoulder or parking lane to narrow roadway;
343010
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY STUDY
Page 3 - 5
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
¯Retain lack of center line;
¯Install traffic circles at all intersections and/or speed humps midblock;
¯Consider one-lane choke points or rumble strips;
¯If speeding is still a problem, install a peak hour barrier on timer, that would close the
street midblock only during a few,hours a day, for example 7:00 to 8:30 a.m..and 4:30 to
6:00 p,m.
PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
The recommended projects vary in the timeframe in which they can be implemented and also in
the agencies that need to be involved. Table 14 presents the primary agency or agencies that
would need to be responsible for the implementation Of each of the 28 recommendations,
including the Planning Department, the Transportation Division, the City Council, the school
district and the Police Department. The recommendations have also been assigned to three
phases. Projects in Phase 1 are those that can be implemented with existing resources within the
next 12 months. Projects in Phase 2 are those that require city council action for additional
budget allocation and could be implemented within one to three years. Projects in Phase 3 would
also require city council action for additional funds (capital improvement, program, grants,
interagency agreements, cost sharing) and would probably .take three or more years to be
implemented.
Existing city and state programs also dovetail with the recommendations of this report. These are
describedbelow:
The City of Palo Alto has begun a citywide neighborhood traffic calming program. The City is
also currently working on the Downtown North Traffic Calming Study. Funding is available for
$100,000 worth of traffic calming improvements for local and collector streets. If Charleston
Road corridor residents are interested in pursuing the recommendations regarding traffic
calming, they should organize and. petition the City to be included in the next round of traffic
calming studies.
The City has also begun a residential arterial study, the first phase of which was Embarcadero
Road. It may be possible to further develop the long2term solutions under the next phase of this
study, if Charleston Road is studied under this program.
The State of California has developed a grant program for Safe Routes to School, and all of the
improvements in this document have benefits for school commuting, especially the
recommendations for Charleston Road.
343010
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY STUDY
Page 3 - 6
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATE, S
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation
POLICY STRATEGIES
1. School Corridor Designation
2. Information Sharing
3. Encouragement of Page Mill/
San Antonio Road ,
4. Land-Use Decisions
5. Evaluate Louis Road
Table 14
Summary of Recommendations
Agencies
City Council
Transportation Division, PAUSD
Transportation Division
Planning Department
Transportation Division
Phase
1
1
1
ongoing
2
BEHAVIORAL STRATEGIES
6. TDM Plans - Elementary.Schools
7. Gunn High School TDM Plan
8. Routes to School Supervision
9. Motorist Awareness
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING STRATEGIES
10. Monitor School Incidents
11. Traffic Count Program
12. Pedestrian Bike Count Program
Transportation Division, PAUSD
Transportation Division, PAUSD
City, PAUSD, PTA
Transportation Division, PAPD
Transportation Division,
Fairview Elementary School
Transportation Division
Transportation Division
13. Speed Limit Enforcement Transportation Division,
ROADWAY DESIGN AND GEOMETRY STRATEGIES
14. Reconfigure Charleston Rd.
15. Raised Pedestrian Refuges
16. Pedestrian Refuge at Signalized
Intersection
17. Bulb-outs
18. Restripe Bike Lanes at Alma
OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
19. Re-evaluate Charleston and Fabian Way
20. Tree Planting
21. Roundabouts at Signalized Intersections
22. Provide Eight Foot Bike Lanes
23. Correct Misalignment at Park Blvd.
24. Bike Lanes East of Middlefield
25. Full Time Bike Lanes on Charleston Road
26. Evaluate 4-Way Stop at Grove
27. Traffic Calm Residential Streets
Transportation Division
Transportation Division
Transportation Division
Transportation Division
Transportation Division
PAPD = Palo Alto Police Department
PAUSD = Palo Alto Unified School District
PAPD
Transportation Division
Transportation Division
Transportation Division
Transportation Division
Transportation Division
Transportation Division
T~ansportation Division
Transportation Division
Transportation Division,
Affected Neighborhood
1
1
1
1
ongoing
ongoing
ongoing
ongoing
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
3
343010
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SAFPTY STUDY
Page 3 - 7
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
Appendix
INTERSECTION
SHEETS
LEVELS OF SERVICE CALCULATION
3~L3010
CHARLESTON ROAD CORRIDOR TRAFFIC STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
’T
II
÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷
u
x
m
u
x
m
G
x
x
J
J
G
u
x
,J
x
x
x