HomeMy WebLinkAbout0429.091, I ,
, I
i
saptember 26, 1991
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
palo Alto, California
Attentio~: Policy and S.~iC.8 Committee
Members of the Council:
RUQBT IN BRIEF
1
The purpose of this report js to r-aco:allllend that Council (1) approve
a recomm~nded plan for the extension of the Bryant Street Bicycle
Boulevard, (2) approve the Negative Declaration prepa~ed for the
project and (3) lI.\Jthorize staff to proceed ,d th the necessary
design, installation and fundinq procedures to implement the
extension project.
During the past year, staff has conducted. a study to develop a
recommended plan for the extension of the Bryant street Bicycle
Boulevard from its present terminus at Churchill Avenue northward
to and through downtown Palo Alto and on to the existing
bicycle/pedestrian bridge across San Francisquito creek into Menlo
Park. Exhibit 1 illustrates the location of the proposed extension
relative to the existinq section of the bicycle boulevard.
The effort to development a recommended plan for the extension of
the Bryant street Bicycle Boulevard is one part of an overall
process that: Ca) began vith a city COuncil decision I a decade ago
to establish the eXisting Bryant street Bicycle Boulevard, (b)
buildS upon long standing Council policies: actions and
a~~ievements that support ncn-drive alone modes of travel, as well
as approval of capital improvement projects related to the bicycle
boulevard, and (c} continues with this study and a subsequent city
council decision regarding the extension of the bicycle boulevard.
The overall process is illustrated in Exhibit 2.
CMR:429:91
..
i ,
i
I
I
"'-·~·_""7"".1
"
'.
'-
The study has now been completed and a recommended plan :or the
exto!:nsion ot the: bicycle boulevard has been developed. The
recommended plan, as illustrated in Exhibit 3, includes: (a)
in_stallation of ~ na...-'traffic s"ign.-,.l 1'!I't th", i!"!:t-=,r5:e~ti~~ :::f er:r"ii"t
street and Embarcadero Road, with certain turn restrictions; (b)
modifications to stop signs at selective locations along Bryant
Street; (c) removal of existing bike lanes on Waverley Street
between Lytton Avenue and Coleridge Ayen~, and on Churchill Avgnue
between Waverley Street and Bryant Street; and (d) extension of
existing bi~e lanes on Addison Avenue and Coleridge Avenue from
Waverley Street to Bryant street. The total cost of the project is
$229,000 with the source of funds being state TDA fUi~S (57\) and
City of Palo Alto Utility Funds (43\) ~ The project lr,,"ot. L,~ take nine
months to fully implement.
Staff reco~ends that Council refer this report to the Policy and
Services comaittee for review, discussion and a recommendation to
the Counc 1.1 ~
BACKGR01JNI)
The City ot Polo Alto has long-standing policies, and a notable
record of actions and achievements, that em.phasize, encourage and
f,a;,cilitate the use of alternative tr3t'l.sFortation modes to the
automobile (wal):i"9, biking, c.ar/vanpools, transit). These
policies and actions, carefully and consistently applied over an
extended period of time~ have made a favorable difference in the
utilization of several transport components, includinq a bicycle
system and related support facilities that consistently place Palo
Alto in the top ranks of bicycle. usage and user friendliness
throuqhout the nation.
Comprehensive plan
The transportativ~ element of the Comprehensive Plan contains a
number of policy statements and related programs that strive to
redu<:e the usage of the automobile and encourag~ the '.lse of
alternative travel modes. Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan
includes Transportation Policy 12: ·PROMOTE BICYCLE USE-, along
with related .programs to support and achieve such a policy
including:
Program 34 -Develop and im~lement a network of
through bicycle boulevards, and
Program 35 -Remove traffic control impediments and
physical barriers to bicycle travel.
CMR: 429: 91 9/26/91
Page 2
(
----------
i
!
The objectives o:f these policies and programs is to promote,
encourage and facilitatE bicyc~e travel throughout Palo Alto and
i t_G ",,1"IU'ir~?'!!';l, fer .all ags gr;:;'iJPS, and for all trip purposes
including recreational travel, shopping trips, travel to school,
commute to work trips, business travel and other reasons for ~hich
people traveL
Traffic Congestion & Air Quality
Efforts to facilitate and encourage the use of alterna~ive
transportation modes, includinq the use of bicycles, ~ill continue
to take. on increasinq importance as the effects of Congestion
Management Agency require~ents, regional implications of state air
quality regula.tions, und the City's recently enacted 'I'ransportation
Demand Hanaqement (TCM) or~inance become more evident. In tact,
~any of the policies and actions to encourage and facilitate the
use of alternativ'3 modes to the lIIutomobtle,. which Palo Alto has
voluntao,rily pursue.d during the past two decades l are noW' becoming
institutionalized Yith applicability to the entire say Area as part
Qf continuing: leqislative and judicial efforts to addres5 and
resolve the issues of traffic congestion and air pollution. w~ile
no single action or strategy is gOing to solve the eXisting and
projected traffic congestion and air pollution problems, it is
increasingly 6vident that any ar.d all mea~ures that offer potential
ben'9fit in terms of reduced use of the private automobile are
likely to become increasingly important during the next several
years.
~rpose of Bicycle Boulevard
The purpose of the bicycle boulevard is to pr~vide: (1) a
throughway upon which bicycles have precedence over automobiles;
(2) a direct route that reduces travel time for bicyclists; (3) a
s~fe travel route that minimizes conflicts .o"ith motor vehicle
t1affic; and (4) a facility that promotes and facilita.tes the use
of bicycles as an alternative trar.spor-to.tion mode ter all purposes
of trave.l.
EXisti':".g 'Bicycle Bcule.y'~l;_g
The existing initial segment of the Bryant. Stre.et Bicycle Boulevard
was established in 1982 and involved street closures at two
locations and changes in stop signs at several intersections. It
extends. a distance of two miles alonq Bryant street, from East
Meadow Drive to Churchill Avenue. At pre.sant. the bicyci~
boulevard does !lot connect ~ith a.ny major activity center at either
end. At Ch~rchill Avenue l bicyclists are directed one block east
to Waverley Street.
CMR,429,91 9/26/91
Page 3
1 ~
11
i
I
-
wittlin the existi.,g initial two mile seqtr,ent t there are thr-ee
locations that specifically permit bicycle passage and prohibit
automobile passage (a street closure at Lo .. el1 Avenue, a street
closure at El Veri!:no Avem .. e, and a bridge crossing at Matadero
Creek] a In addition, stop signs at a number of intersecticns along
Bryant Street have been located so as to favor bicycle travel along
the Bryant street Bicycle Boulevard. In all other respects, the
bicycle. bouleva.rd appears and fu.'1ctions as a normal local :::i ty
street providing automobile access to residences, on-street parking
and unrestricted local area travel. Initially, some complaints
were rec9ived about the visual appearance of the t2mporary street
closures. These have. recently been replaced 'With permanent
landscaped closures, and city stat! has not received any other
complaints frQM residents wh~ live on or near the existing initial
segment cf the bicycle boUlevard.
Capital ImprQvemen~
The city has made a substantiai investment in upgrading the bicycle
boulevard si:'lce its initial implementation in 1982. In 1986~ a
narrow pedestrian bridqe., where Bryant street meets Matadero ere'!!):,
vas replaced with two new structures; ·a wide bicycle bridge and a
s~parate pedestrian bridqe at a cost of $82.000. In 1590 1 the two
temporary wooden street closures (barriers) on Bryar.t Street were
replaced with permanent ~aised and landscaped concrete islands at
a cost of $22 •• 00. Both projects were funded through the City's
Capital Improvement Program with grant funding in excess ot $71,OOD
from the State. of california, through the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission ($47,700 for the t~o bridges and $22,400
for the concrete islands).
In January 1989, Council authorized staff to file a grant
application rl)r 1989-1990 Transportation Development Act (TDA)
funds for Pedestrian/Bikeway Projects (CMR:I01:9) which included
funding for a traffic signal at Embarcadero Road and Bryant Street
as part of the antiCipated extens.i.on of the bicycle boulevard. The
grant application was approved and an amount of $75,000 is
available to the City for this specific proj~ct for a pericd of up
to three years beqinning July 1, 1990.
In 1990~ as part of the 1990-1995 capital Improvement Program (page
107), Council approved a project with funding for the installation
of a traffic siqnal at the intersection of Embarcadero Road and
Bryant Street. The total cost at the traffic signal in~tallatio.tl
~as estimated t.o b~ $150,000 pl'.Js $24~OOO for inteqrat10n into the
City's computerized traffi.c signal coordination system. The
remaining costs for the traffic siqnal installation and
integration, after use of thE $75,000 TDA Grant, is designated to
come from the City's Electric Fund~
CMR:429:91 9/26i91
Page 4
!j I
~
1
At the ti~e that Council approved the 19;0-1995 CIP project for
installation of ~ traffic signal at Embarcadero Road an~ Bryant
S~reet, it was ~ith the clear understanding that no funds were to
be spent tor design and c~n5truction of a traffic sign31 u~til the
bicycle boulevard extension study is completed and staff returns to
Council with a recommended plan tor Council discussion and
approval.
The purpose of the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension Study
was to develop a recommended plan for the extension of the eXisting
bicycle boulevard from its present te:nainus at Churc;hill Avenue
northward to and through downtown Palo Alto and on to the eXisting
bicycle/pedestrian bridge across San Francisquito Creek into Menlo
Parle.
The study considerpd alternative means for extending the eXisting
bicycle boulevard .further northward along Bryant Street to San
Francisquito Cree,k. An alternative alignment along waverley Street,
from Churchill Avenue to San Francisqui~o Creek, i6 not suitable
fo~ the extension of the ~icycle boulevard for a number of reasons
including: (a) waverley Street is a designa~ed collector street in
the Palo Alto street network, (b) traffic Volumes along Waverley
Street are in excess of 4,000 to 6,000 vehicles per day,. (c} the
impact of traffic diversion from Waverley street to other streets
within adjacent neighborhood ~reas, due to any measures that wculd
reduce vehicular volume, and (d) the presence of b~ses traveling
and making stops along Waverl~y Street.
Tbe study report docume~t~ the information gathering, altern~tives
evaluation, public review and comments, and development of a
recommended plan for the implementation of a project to extend the
existing bicycle boulevard. The study ~eport describes (a) existing
conditions; (b) a set of conceptual alternatives, including an
initial concept plan; (e) the first round of c.r::lmrn~mity review and
c?m.ments; ,d) an evaluation of ~lte~natives; (e) the development of
an intert!l.ediate preferred plan; (0 a second round of commur.ity
revielll' and comments; {g) additional evaluation and (h) a finol
recommended plan, including costs, funding and an implementation
schedule. A copy of the complete final report is included as
Attachment 2.
Offi:429: 91
----------~--'
9/<6/91
Page 5
,
"
1
· -"~"',..~ "f 'fLiSD
RECOMM'£NDEP put! FOR B!C¥CLE BOULEVARD EXTENSION
The recommended plan for implementation of ~h~ extension to the
Sry~nt S~reet Bicycle Boulevard, as illustrated in Exhibit 3, is
based upon staff's analysis and evaluation at all the information
developed throuqhout the study prvces3, as documented in the study
report. The :recommended plaTI is described a:;;. folloi.ls:
Segment A
Seqment A starts at {:hurchill Avenue and extends to, but does not
include, the Embarcadero Road intersection. At present, the
exiatinq initial segment ot the bicycle boulevard ends at Churchill
Avenue and cyclists are directed along Churchill Avenue to waverley
street which bas marked bike lanes from Coleridge Avenue to Lytton
Avenue and a signed bixe route from Lytton Avenue to San
Francisquito creak.
The recommended plan for Seqm£nt A includes the removal of the
existing stop signs on Bryant street at Churchill Avenue.
The removal of the stop signs on Bryant Street at Churchjll Avenue
is important to help facilitate bicycle travel along the bicycle
boulevard and is not e.xpected to cause any serious operational
problems. 7f.actual experience indicates that conflicts, speeding
or other operational problems do occur, corrective measures,
includinq the possible reinstallation of the stop signs on BrY-3.nt
Street, can ~ take.n.
The existing stop signs on Chur~hill Avenue, as ~ell as those on
Kell09g Avenue, Coleridge Avenue, and Lowell Avenue would remain as
they are at the present time. Drive~ay access to Castilleja School
and on-street parking would also remain as it is at the present
time.
Segment B
SegDent B incluaes only the intersection of Bryant Street and
Embarcadero Road.
The recommended plan for segment B includes the installation af
a new traffic signal at the intersection in general conformance
with Option II-A .. hich includes a neW' traffic signal, right
turns only from Bryant Street (throuqh and left turns
prohibited}, left turn pockets on Embarcadero Road and no
street closure on Bryant street.
CMR:429:91 9/26/91
Page 6
The recommended plan vould facilitate bicycle and pedes~rian
crossing of Enbarcadero Road ~ith little negative consequence to
Embarcadero Road traffic flo. {stops, -d-elay) and air q"<.lality
because the traffic :;iqnal at this location .... ill be crx>rdinated
with the e~isting traffic signal at waverlsy street~ The study
report inQicates that it would result in an increase of only one
add.itional car stopping per cycle. on an average throughout the
entire day. The recommended plan 'Would also limit the diversion of
Bryant Street ve~icular tra~fic to other area streets~ ~ould be
less costly to implement, and is likely to be less disruptive to
the neighborhood than a solution that includ~d a street closure~
.s..eqment ~
SEqMent C starts at Enharcadero Road (excluding the intersection)
and extends up to Forest Avenue.
The recomme.ndeQ plan for Seqment C includes the rev€"t"sal of the
st~p signs at Kingsley Avenue, removal of the existing stop
signs on Bryant Stree.t at Addison Avenue, and p] a~ement of
additio:1al stop signs on both Channing and Homer Avenues at
their respective intersections ~ith Bryant Street~
The removal of the Eitop signs on Bryant street at }(ingsley Avenue
and Addison Avenue is important to help facilitate bicycle travel
al..mq the bicycle boulevard and is not expected to cause any
serious operational problems. If actual experience indicates that
conflicts, speeding or other operational problems do occur,
corrective measures, including the possible reinstallation of the
stop signs on Bryant Street~ can be taken.
Placeme~t of additional stop signs on Channing Avenue at Bryant
Street and on Homer Avenue at Bryant street __ ould not only
facilitate travel for ~icyclists by providing gaps in traffic on
the collector streets but would also address some e.xisting concerns
related to high pedestri~n usage and driver rehavior at these two
intersections. (Observations indicate that many drivers stop on
Bcmer and Channing even in the absence of stop signs~)
The existing stop signs on Lincoln Avenue, Addison I,venue and
Forest Avenue as 'Well as the existing stop signs on Bryant Street
at Channing Avenue, Homer Avenue ~nd Forest Avenue would remain as
they are at the present time. On-street parking would also remain
as it is at the ~resent time. ACCESS to the current and/or future
Urgent Care services at the Palo Alto Medical Clinic would rem~in
essentially unChanged, 'With the exception that non-emergency
9/26/91
Page 7
.... ehicle traffic .. ould flot be able to cross Embarcadero Road at
Bryant Street.
segment D atarts ~t Forest Avenue and extends through the dc~~town
business district to Lytton Ayenue.
The recommended pl~n for Segment 0 is to make no changea trom
existing conditione.. The t!xif::ting on-street diagonal parking
along Bryant Stre-et al! well as the eXisting traffic siqnal
timinq ~ould remain as it is at the present time.
EXperience in Palo Altv 5u9geGts that existing on-street diaq~nal
par-king within the downtown business district creates no inherently
more severe or less safe environment for bicyclists. Therefore, the
potential loss cit 19 on-street parking spaces, that would result
from t.he conversiofl of diagonal parking to parallel parking, is not
~arranted.
Also, the existinq traffic signal ciming is an integral part of a
more extensive downtown coordinated tra~fic siqnal syste~ that is
set in a manner that favors traffic flow along Hamilton, University
and Lytton Avenues over tr~ffic flow on the cross streets. The re
tiainq of traffic signals to facilitate bicycle travel ~lon9 Bryant
street, through the downtown business district, is problematic and
'Would create unacceptable consequences on vehicular traffic floW' in
the east-~est direction.
segment E
Segment E starts at Lytton Avenue and extends along Bryant Street
to Palo Alto Avenue, and then proceeds along a one block section of
Palo Alto Av~nue to the eXisting bicycle/pedestrian hridge crossing
San Francisquito creek.
~he recommended plan tor Segment E includes the reversal of the
stop signs at Hawthorne Avenue and removal of an existing stop
sign on Bryant Street at Poe street.
Th~ removal of the stop signs on Bryant Street at Ha'Wthorne Avenue
and Poe Street is important to help facilitate bicycle travel along
thlt bicycle boulevard and is not expected to cause cony serious
operational problems. If actual experience indi.::::ates that
conflicts, speeding or other operational problems do occur,
CHR:429:91 9/26/91
Page 8
corrective measur£$, including the possible reinstallation of the
stop siqns on sryant Street, can be taken.
The existing stop signs on Everett Avenue, Poe street and Palo Alto
Ave.nue would remain eo.s tney are at the present time. O:l-street
parking ~ould 31so re~ain as it is at the present time.
segment F represents all related changes on streets adjacent to the
pr~sed extension of the Bryant Street eicycl~ Boulevard,
includinq chanqes to biXe lanes and on-street parking along
waverley straet, Addison Avenue. Churchill Avenue and Coleridge
Avenue.
~he recommended plan for Segment F includes the following:
Waverley Street
o Removal of existinq ~arked bik~ lsnes bet~een Lytton Ave.nue
and coleridqe Avenue (Waverley Street from Lytton Avenue to
the ~icycle/pedestrian b~idge at San Francisqulto cre~k is
a signed hike route but does not have marked bike lanes).
o Restoration of on-street p3rking between Embarcadero Road
and Forest Avenue.
o conversion of existing on-street parallel parking to
diagonal parking' on the east side of waverley Street between
Lytton Avenue and University Avenue l and on the west side of
Waverley Street between University Avenue il!nd Hall'tilton
Avenue, vith the concomitant gain of 13 on-street parxinq
spaces ..
~n Avenue
o Extension of existin9 bike l~nes for one block from Waverley
street to Bryant Street.
o Initiation ot parkin'] restrictions (1 AM to 7 FM) on one
side of one block of Addison Avenue (between Waverley and
Bryant streets) to accommodate bike lanes.
o Removal of existing bike lanes bet.,.een 'Bryant Street and
Waverley Street.
CMR: 429: 91 9{26/91
Page 9
o Cessation of existing parxinq restrictior.s (7 AM to 7 PM) on
one side of one block or Chcrchill Avenue (betw~en 5ryant
Street and Waverley Street).
Coleridge !yenug
o EXtension of existinq bike lanes tor one block from waverle~'
street to Bryant street.
o Initiation of parking restrictions (7 AM to 1 PM) on one
side of one block ot Coleridqe Avenue (between Waverley and
Bryant streets) to acco~odate bike lanes.
COST 1NQ FUNDING FOB EXTEN~ PROJECT
As part of the study process, a cost estimate was 9repared tor the
implementation of the recommended plan for the extens!c:-:I or the
Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard. The total project cost ia
estimated to be $ 228,000. Exhibit 4 presents a 5ummary or the
project costs.
Potential fundinq 50urces fo~ implementation c! the extension of
the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard, as shown in Exhibit 5, include
previously approved funds (State Transportation Development .Act
qrant funds ana City of Palo Alto Utility Fund) as well as yet to
be considered and approved future state Transportation Developcent
Act grant funds.
SCHEDULE lOR IMPLEMENTATION Of EXTENSION PROJECT
A schedule proposed for the implementation of the extension of the
Bryant street Bicycle Boulevard is illustrated in Exhibit 6 and
includes the following:
o Study repcrt with recomm .... ndation to Cowlcil for refer'ral to
policy and Services Commil:tee (Oct.ober '1, 1991).
o Policy and Services Committee review and recommendation to
Council (October B. 1991).
o Final council approval (disapproval} of project
(November 1991).
o Council approval (disapproval) of supplemental fundinq for
project (December 1991).
C'HR:429:91 9/26/91
Page 10
c Preparation of design plans and d~cuments (December -March
1991) •
c Project bidding process (April· May 1992).
o conatruction of project {June -Septe~ber ~992}.
o Opening of extension of Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard
(September, 1992).
ENYlRONNENTAI. ASSESS~
An initial study recvllUllending a Negative Declaration has been
completed and is i~cluded as ~tt~chment 1.
RECOMMENDATIoN
Staff reco~ends that Council:
1. Approve the reco1l\1'll.ended plan for the extension of the Bryant
Street Bicycle BoulevaI'd,
2. Approve the Neqativ~ Declaration prepared for the project,
and
3, Authorize staff to proceed ~ith the nec£ssary design,
installation and funding procedures to i~plement the
axtension project.~ including the follo'Wing ite;n.s which 'Will
require future Council approval~
a. TeA grant application,
b$ CIP budget amendment ordinance.
c. Resolution amending the Stop Sign system Hap,
d. Resolution establishing parking restrictions.
e. Award cf contract for installation, and
f. Resolution amEnding the Bikeway Master Plan
If Council approves the bicycle boulevard extension project and
following its full i=~lementation, staff viII monitor actual
conditions (speeds. volumes, conflicts, etc.) on Bryant Street at
the locations where s~op signs have been removed, on a periodic
basis; and will report back to the Council following an initial six
month period, or earlier, as conditions ~arrant.
CMR:429:n
j ,
9/26/91
Page 11
-. ---, .... •• ...... _rIlliT
.' •• 1.,
Staft tu~~&r recommends that council refer this staff report to
the Policy and services Committe.e for revie ..... , discussion and a
~ecommendation to the Co~n~il.
Respectfully submitted,
/??~~
MARVIN L. OVERWAY
Chis! Transportation official
CflllL. jU((CC"Cj'"
JUNE FLEMING
Assistant ci t'j' Manager
j/ / "£' /./ .. ,~, /1£~.·c;:£R( / .. /U'Vi.l~ '/
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Envir~nment
AttaChments: 1. Environmental Assessment (91-EIA-28)
2. B~rant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension
Report, September 1991
ec: Palo Alto Planning Commission
Architectural Review Board
Historical Resol.lrces Board
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
Palo ~~t~ Chamber of Commerce
Ci~y of Menlo Park
Stanford University
June 6th Public Meetinq participants (without attachment 2}
C!!R:429:91 9/26/91
page 12
•
\
------....... ---
..
::f~~j'~"
-
EXH!B!T 1
LOCATION OF PROPOSED EXTENSION
IN RELATION TO
EXISTING 'BICYCLE BOULEVARD
•
>
,
I.
•
,..;.,""'"
" -" .:~.
BICYCLE IOULEVARD
EXTENSION STUDY
Project Goals
Data collection
Conceptual Alter.
Communi ty Revie .. ·
Evaluation
Preferred ?lan
Draft Report
Community Review
Re-:::ommendation
Final Report
':IHPLE.IIBH"r BnU'SIOll 07 "
IlIt(UI'r S'l'RllZ'r
BICYCLE BOVLBVARD
EXHIBIT 2
PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
i
i ,
i'
I
I
!i~ z i. " « _~_~ ___ J t-"~ ~-~ D,~-~_~~j::i::= >::iQT:::~ ...J -__ =-=1 [~-----j II.
I 0 ----------------r3~~....__-~"iJ-q-;~-:r'j,~-j r--------------""-tJJ
'" 0 '" ., z t. • I-W
w S ::E c :E ::E ~ .. 0 z z X " ;! ... 0 ;;; iii ... <r ..
"
8 ;;
;; ..
i !; I I ,. .. w
\!! " .. ~ .. " .. '" .. " 11 z
" ... !5 z ! :5 ... .. w w • = .. " ii • Ii ~ • • :.
:lMf N'Q::n.ui " 1.1 .. .. w
'" !i '" ~ ,.
II! : ..
l! ,. ~ c 9
" .. " .. ~ • ,. .. w " 0: " ;;; :il .. .. ! ...
! y .. ~ B .. • .. e ~
c .. z :. z ~ '" ~ " .. ;;; ~ z .. ;; -,-! c ~ L
l! .. z
<> .. • ~w' ~ ..
II! I
~
~
IE
'" ~ z < ~ 1 ~ .. Ii! v iii i ;; ! ~ • '" z .. I!! ,.
'" " ... ~ z z
~ -~ < " ~ >
! .. z -~ • OIl <
~ 0 <
0: ;;; ~'~ili'~ .. ~ .. z
~ .. " Q
5 '" Z '" .. 8 ... z ..
t " .. z c is " C; " c "' " ,.
~ " 0.1 lID LL ~ ,. ;;;
.!l
w z " " " " Z L .. .. " " irtMfiiI~ z .. • .. .. " 'A " I? "' .. L
I? ..
w z
" • -.... 3/1'" A.lIS~3.\INn 0
mQ]DUDDm~
,
" ..
W ~ ~ .. 'm fIDEJ ....
c " ~ z
I? ~ II! .. .. •
fiI "' z z
. ,'" ""~ Z ~ 0 • ~ '" " '" ,S .. ...
r --· .--:. . .. ir .•. . ...-" is " ,. .. " W
Z .. 0:
S! .. .. • .. .. .. ;;;
" " L
" " '" ~ : !
.. ..
~ ~ ---.. -
EXHIBIT 4
COST ESTIMATE FOR EXTENSION OF BICYCLE BOULEVARD
Segment A
-Remove/relQCate/in~tall
signs and pavement markings
Segment B
-Remove/relocate/install
siqns and pavement markings
-Install handicapped ramps
-Construct raised concrete islands
-Restricted ·work hours cost increment
-Install new traffic signal
-Traffic signal interconnection
segment C
-Remove/relocate/install
signs and pavement markings
Seg:ment 0
-Install signs
Segment E
-Remove/relocate/install
signs and pavement markings
Segment F
Waverley streE.t
-Re~ove signs/pavement markings and
install new centerline and loops
Addison Avenue
-Install signs and pavereent markings
Churchill Avenue
-Remove si~qs and pavement markings
Coleridge Avenue
-Install signs and paveme~t markings
$ 2,000
SubtotallA) $ 2,000
$ 6 ,000
$ 6,000
$ 12,000
$ 6 /000
$ 120,000
$ 24,000
Subtotal CS) $ 174,000
$ 4 ,000
Subtotal (e) $ 4,000
$ 1,000
Subtotal 10) $ 1,000
$ 3,000
Subtotal IB) $ 3,000
$ 36,000
$ 3,000
$ 2,000
$ 3, ODe
Subtotal (F) $ 44,OQO
TOTAL CA+B+C+D+E+F) $ 228, ODD
EXHIB1T 5
FUNDING SOURCES FOR EXTENSION OF BICYCLE BOULEVARD
At previously Approyed
1990-1991 state Transportation Development Act
funds for Pedestrian/Bikeway Projects
Signal $ 75,000
1990-1995 City of Palo Alto Capital Improvement
Program (utility Electric Fund)
B. Not CUrr~ntly Approved
Signal
Interconnect
S 15.,000
$ 24,000
Subtotal (AI ,174,000
State Transportation Development Act funds for
Pedestrian/Bikeway Projects
Signs/markings $ 54,000
SUbtotal (Bl $ 54,000
TMAL (A+B) $ 228,000
FUNDING SQll1<CE SUMMARY
State TDA Funds $ 129,000 (57\)
CPA utility Funds 99,000 (43\)
TOtAL $ 228,000 ( lOOt)
i
r
i
I
1
"'
M
'" ..
§
:i ~ i'< ....
H ..
~ ....
>3
In
Q ..
'" 8
f;j
E:.;isting 19~O
$174K
I.
I
IS_~~j
~ . -. i~
=E DE . " go
0"
.!! ..
;:'"
00 D-
e-"~ -" -0 "--. ., "
CIP
1991
ocr, I NOV.
• .!' ..
" • • • ,
0 • ~
• • • > ~ •
> ~ ~ ~ • e .. ! • • .! • >
O !
O
'" 0 • .. , • .. 0
1992
OE~F,.:.A.:.:N.:.:.-+-:...F=-E=.cB_+MAR:...f~R'I,_MAY iJUN~~ JULY I AUG'I SEPT. I
• .. >
" • :;; ~
~ = a '0 ~ -<
!! • --• <r .0
,; • • • " . 0 • 0 ,,;;
-eEc:; <0
0 0 C-;~2 .. -ID-__
0 EO=, CL
0'2 <:c~ _cr-• • lie:;;;; 0 • .g~Oc~ :::-
0-ija);1!J D-
;:"
a.. ~t< • ;; • __ ,.,0 " OO)a..~ ZO
"--,
• .s! • • • •
.! 0--x o· .0
.!! -~ 0" .-•• >>< .>
.~ -. -'" .0 ... ·0 .-;;:~ ." " . e· e'" •• .~ ""-• .. ~-~o .! -. ,.a o. e· -. )"~ <" .!l • 0. _0
!--.. 0 . ·
,
Construction I ______________ .1
".-" .
AITACHl!rlIT
Environmental Documents -City of Palo Alto
ENVlRONMENTAL ASSUSMENl
ProJect Description/Tit'!: ~ryant Street Bicyc1e BouTevard [xtension Project
-Recolm~ended Pl an-
location/Address: Bryant Street and Wal,'erley SJreet between Churchill A~enue
and San Frar,d squjt.o Creek
Sponsorln9 Agency(App1icant: Citi of Pale Alto ________ _
Address and Telephone of Applicant: ~O kamilton Avenue,_Palo Alto. CA
( 4151 329 -2552
App H cat i on for: nR"c.,.d"-.Ji'l'm",Pflr"o~y",em!"'''"l!t",s'o-__ --'-__ -,--,-,_,--_, __ '-____ _
(e.g., zoning change, subdivision of property. architectural review, use
permit)
Zoning at Project lacat ion: .Jjj"' __ _ Fee R~ceipt No.: nla
NOTICE Oi...m;TERM\N.~TION
Zased upon re~iew of the proj!ct files, th~ unde~si9ned member of the Planning
Department has concluded:
Iii Negative Declaration: The proJect has no significant environmental
imp!ct. No Environmental lmpact Report is required. The reasons f~r i
Negative Declaration are:
ln the attached Initial Study. which concludes that there are no
significant environmental impacts. T~i~ document is avail~ble for re
vi!!w at the PalQ Alto Tran!Q9Ltation Division. Sixth floor. (itv H<lll.
250 H'amjHon Ave~u~8 AJoI -12 Man and I PM - 5 ___ PM . .Monday-Friday.
lnstallatfpn and removal cf stop s;gns~_categorical1y exempt ~nde~
~..n.Q....nQ.. environment:ll ar,alvsis is required.
[] Hte project may have a significant environmentll impaC-t. An
EnvirD1'Ime:nti:1 Impact R~p()rt wi 11 be prepared.
Phnning Oepartment Offic;'l: ~ ~L h ... ~;...&.t1,~~
Planning Director: ry ... f£le.5-Ju"d-£r Date: Wbl'?f
The project ~as been approved.
The project has been denied.
Date:
Date:
File No_: 9J,11&:f~ __
EIANDO 91-EIA-2S
1
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS -PALe ALTO
iNITIAL STUDY" ,1"
I. Project Tit' !/AddrE'ss: kYill. Str~et 8iCYc~ Soul e ... ard Extensign
II. Proje:::t Description: Extend the present bicvcle b·Julevard fr..9!ll its ________ _
gr~s.er,t term' nus at th!Jr~hU.uyenue. nort"wa-rd, through downtown Paio
Alto. to t~g exfsting bicvcle/pedestrian bridge across San fTanC159uito
Creek. The "Recommended Plan" is evaluated in this initial study.
fiI. Environmental Setting: Urban resfdential area, downto ..... n central
bUSiness district (CBO)' "p'av~d roads, 'Substanthl 1andsc~iM ctnd till-~ __
.iILihJ!: residential i!.rea. urban traffic noise. especialJx ___ j:1 CSO and
Emb@rcadero/Brvant intersection.
IV. Environmenta1 Impact C;ecklist (Explan.tion of a ~ 1 ·yes" answers
Settion Y)
J. iltlh. Will the propos.' resuH in: YE~ ~.AY8E
•• Unstable eafth conditions or cnange:s
in geologic substruct~res?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil
c. Change in topography or ground
surface relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
Physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion
of soils, tither on or off the site?
f. Exposure of reo~le or property to
geologic hazards such is eart~quakes,
l~~ds'ldes, ~udslides, ground failure
or similar hazards!
9· Changes in siltation, deposition, or
erosion which may modify the channel
of a river Dr the bed of a bay or
inl et?
* Adapted from Appendix I. California Guidelines for Implementation of
CEQA, December 14, 1975.
** Updated May 19B2, June 1983
flACK I 91-EIA-,8
I
are
NO
_1.
J_
J_
J_
.L
.L
J_
in
•
2.
3.
A~r. Will the propo$~l result in:
i. Substantial air emissions or de
tel";{lration of ambient air quality?
b~ The creation cf objectionab1e odors?
c. ATteration of air mo¥ement, mofst~re
temperature, or iny change in cli
mate, either lota'l)' or regional?
Watn. Will the proposal result in:
i. Changes in absorption rates, dr.inage
patterns, or the rlte and amount of
surface water r~noff?
b. Alterations to the course or flo~ of
fj{)od waters?
c. Discharge illto su.rfac.e 'IIatns. or in
any alteration of surface ~ater
qual;ty, including but not limited to
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity~
d. Alteration of the direction or rate
of f10w of ground waters?
e. Expo$ure of peop1e or property to
water related hazards such as flood
ing or tidal w~ve?
f~ Change in the Quantity of ground
waters, !ither throug~ direct
additions or withdrawals, or througr.
interceptio~s of a~ aQu,fer b1 c~ts
or excavatfons?
4. Plant life. Will the proposal re~ult in:
a. Change in the div~rsity of species, or
number of any species of plants (in
cluding trees, shrubs, gross, crops,
microflora ind aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of pl ants?
c. rntroduction of new species of
ElACKl 91·ElA-28
2
_1-
_1-
r ,
I.
pTants into an area, cr in a barrier
to the nonmal replenishment of
~xisting $pecies?
d. Reduction in acreage of ani
agricultural crop?
5. Anirr.al Ljfe. Will the propo.s.al result in:
I. Change in the dive~sity of species,
or of any species of anima1s (birds,
land animals including reptiies,
fisM and shellfish. benthic organisms,
insects or microfauna)?
b. Reduction of the numb~rs of any
uniq~e~ rare or endangered species
of animals?
c. Introductio~ of new species of
animals into an area, or result in
a barrier to the migration or mo~~·
ment of anima1s?
d. Deteriorati«n in existing fish or
wildlife habitat!
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
7.
8.
il. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
level s?
tight a~d Glare. Will the proposil
produce new 11ght gTare?
illd Us"'. Will the propes:!l resul t in
a substantial alteration of the present
or piann!d land use of an area?
9. Energv/Natural ResQyrces. Will the
proposal result in:
1. Use of substantial l~ounts of fuel
or energy:
b. Substant; al increase in demanj upon
existing sources of energy. or
ill
EIACKI 91·EIA-28
l
•
_x_
_x_
_1_
_1_
_1_
_1_
.. _--.-. ----. -
[JACK)
/
requira t~e ~eve1opment of new
sources or energy?
c. Incr::::3se in the rate of use of any
naturil resourc~s?
d. Substantial de~leticn of any nonre
n~wable natura1 resource?
10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal
invol ve a ri sk of l.n explosion or the
release of hazardous substances (in··
eluding, but not li~ited to, o;l~
pesticides. chemicals or radiation) in
the ev~nt af an accident or upset?
11. population/Housing.
i. Will the proposal aHe; the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate
of the human population of an area?
b. ~jll the proposal effect existing
t,ousing, or create a demand for
additional ~ous1ng?
ll. Transportation/Circu1ition. Will the
proposal Te5~'t in:
i. Generation of substantial additiondl
vehicular movement? _X ___ _
b. Effects on existing park;n~ facili-
ties, nr demand for new parking? ~
c. A~ tent ions to present patterns of
circulation or movement of recple
and/or goods? _X_
d. Increase ir. traffit hazards to motor
~o
_1_
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ~_
13. Public Services. Will the proposal have
in effect upon, or result i" a need for new
or al tered go .... ernmental services in any of
the fcllowing areas:
a. Fire protection?
g)-ErA-1S
4
flACK!
b. Police. pr{,ltectiorl?
c. Schoo15?
d. Parks or other recrfat~onal
facilities?
e~ Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Oth~r governmental ser'fic-es?
14. Utilities. Will the propos.' result in •
need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. WatH?
d. Sewer Dr septic tank?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid wast. and disposal?
]5. Hyman Health. Will the propcsal result
in:
a. Creation of an~ health hazard or
potenti.l health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
b~ Expasu~e of people to potential
health hazards~
15. Aesthetiq. 'iill U1e proposal resuit
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
ar view open to the p~blic. or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
pubic view?
17. ~ecreation. Will the proposal ~esult
1n an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
_x_
91·EIA·28
5
_X_
_1_
l
. x..
_X_
l
_X_
l
_X_
_1_
•
. ,,0
S?( .•
;~~
'c~",,' ,,' ., .....
18. Cultural Resourcgs.
a. ~ill the proposal result in t~e
alteration of/~r the destruction
of a prehistoric cr historic
archaeo1ogical sit!?
D. ~il1 the proposal resuit in a~
verse physical or aesthetic effe~ts
to i prehist,ric or ~istoric
buildjng. structure; or object?
c. Does tMe proposal l1ave the potential
to cause I physical change ~~ich
would affect ~niqu~ cultural values?
d. Will tne propoHl restrict exist',!19
religious or sacred uses witnin the
potential impact area?
19. Mandatory Findings of Significanc~.
ill
i. Does the project have the potential to
degrade tne qUdlitj of the environment~
substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
or wildlife population to drQP b~1uw
self-sustaining levels. threaten to
eliminate a plant or anim~l community.
reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare ~r endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples
of t~e major periods of Cal ifornia
history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potenti~l
to acnjeve short-term, to the dis
advantage of long-term. enviro~menta'
goals? (A short-term impact on t~e
environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period
of time whtTe long-term impacts ~ilT
e~dure well into the future.}
c. Does the project have impa~ts w~ich
are ind;yjdually limited, but
cumulatively c0l1siderab1e? (A pro
ject may impact on twa or mQre
separate resources where the imDact
[IACKl 91·EIA-28
5
•
,
"
;~
on each resource is relat1vely
small, b~t where the effect of the
total Df tnose impacts or. ihe
en~iro~ment is significant.)
d. Does tht project have Envircnm€ntil
effects wnich will cause substantial
advers! effects en human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
ill
Y. E)~ianation of ~yes· answers in environmenta1 checklist~
See attached.
[lACKl 9l ~E!A-28
1
'I
Purp_9se of the Bicycle Bo..i:!.levlL~ _____ f)(tE'nsion Project
The pureese Df this project is to extend the eXlsting bicjc'i~ bc~le\lard by
approximat!ly 1.3 miles. Th~ purpose of a bicycle bcuievard is to. provide a
d;T~ct ro~te t~at reduces travel time for bicyclist-!. end' miniwizes cor.flicts
between bicycles and motor vehicles. T~e bicycle boule~ard thus promotes the
use of bicycles as an aiternative transportation mode fo, ill travel purposes.
Use of the bicycie is in alt!rnatille transportation mode will take on
increasing importance as iii 'IIIay to meet t~e requirements of nelll State
regulations which attempt to. improve air quality and decrease traffic
congestion.
Explanation ~f C~efkli5t Items
fn the following paragrap1'1s, all checklist itel7ls markeod "Maybe"' and ·Yes·, as
well as some lOIarked "No". are explalnea. Section and figure refet'ences belOW
refer to the aryant Strpet Bicycle 8Qu'ev_~_r_d_ Extension Reoort, Cit.\'" of Palo
Alto Transportation Division, Sept(mber 1991. This report is aYiilabl~ as
described in the Environmental Ass[ssm~nt. The term "project~ refers to the
~Recommended Plan-is described i~ C~apter )0.
Item 2eal. Air This it~m was marked ~no.· A study of the estimated ~missions
at the B!"yant/Emoarcadero inters(I<::tion for unslgnal ,_ed (existing) and
siqnali:ed (project) conditions ~a3 <::onducted in June 1989. City staff
provided the traffiC data, and tne emiss1o~s calculations were prepared by
Michael Kim of the Bay Area Air QualitJ Management District. The results of
the emissions calculltions are as follows:
Before signalization
After signalization
Change
Emfssions (tons/day)
Hydr-ocar~
.05
.05 o
Carbon
MQnoxid~
.34
.49
.15
Nitrogen
.Q)(ide
.05
.05
o
The increa:e in emissions of carbon monoxide; of .15 tonsjda~' ~s below the
thresho1d level of .275 t01'1sjdaj conSidered tr:: be significant by the Bay Area
Air quality Management District, as defined in Table VIII-A-l of Air Ql'ality
.and Ur~an Devel..QM.ent: Guidelines for .Possessing Impacts of Project and Plans,
BAAQMD, No¥ember J985. Sin<::e June 1989, traffiC volumes at Bryant/Embarcadero
have increased by ahout 2 percent, whi<::h does not materia1ly affect this air
quality analysis.
It.ems 12..la. b. c. cD. Transportation/Circulation
Vehicuhr Moverl',ef'1t. The project will prohibi;t certain motor v: Ilc1e turning
mo¥ements at the Embarcadero/Bryant intersection, th~s causi~g some drivers to
use other routes. Increase in vehicle-miles travelled due to turn
prohibitions, as i percentage of total ¥ehicle-mile~ travel1ed for any given
EIACKl 9i ·[lA·2S
8
.
trip, is expected to be ~inima', is drivers are ~xpected to use alter~ate
ro~tes which iTE no lQnger, or ~nly up t~ three blocks langei, than routes
without the tUl'n p-rohibitions. Refer to the Circulation section beT;:..", for iii.
disc~ssion of the impacts of these di~erted trips on a~erige dai1y traffic
vo1umes on n~iilrby streets.
Parking. The project will not cause iii. demand fnr ~ew parking. :0 the degree
that the project causes i shift from automobile driving to bicycling for non
recreational trips, the demand f~r automobile parking w;11 decrease.
Channelization fs1ands associated with the Bryant\Embarcadero traffic Signal
...,111 require that two to three on-street parking spaces be removed on eac.n
sid'e of Bryant imedhtely north and south of E!11barc.aderC', for a total 1 ass of
8 to 12 Dn~street parking spaces. Half ~f this loss would oc.cur south of
Embarcadero a~d wouid be noticeab'e when Castilleja School is in operation, as
most on~street parking spaces in that block are in use during school hours,
especially on the Castilleja side of Bryant. Otner wnoccupied an-street
parking is av~ilable during th~se ~ours in t~e blocks of Kellogg Aver.ue and
Emerson Stre!t bordering tastil1eja, on the Castilleja side of the streets,
$0 this loss of parking spac~s is not considered to be a significant impact.
The project ~ill result in the prohibition of park~ng bet~een 7 AM and 7 PM on
O1'\e side of one bloc~ of both Coleridge and Addison AlJentJes., resuHing in the
loss of about 20 spaces in each blocK. dLirin9 daytime ~ours. As documented in
Section 9.3, this loss may create so~ deficiency of spaces en Addison Avenue
during the periods immedhte1y fol10\lling 7 AM and immediate1y precEding 7 PM,
is ~e11 &S in~onvenience to some ~dd,son Ave~ue residents; hG~e~er, th~se
impacts are not Significant. Parking demand on Coleiidge is 10-", so the loss
of daytime parking on Coleridge will ~ot have a significant impact. The
project will result in r gain of appr~ximately 170 on-st~eet parking spaces as
a result of the removal of b~k~ lanes and reinstotement of parking on port ions
of Wa~'erley Street and Churchill Avenue, H1is include-s 13 new spaces on
~averley in the downtown area.
Circulation. 1wo aspects of the project .ill alter present patterns of
Circulation. The new traffic signa1 at Embarcadero/Bryant will result in the
prohibiti<ln of motor 'v'i!hic1e left turns from Bryant to Embarcadero and the
prohibition of through motor vehicle traffic O~ Bryant acro~s Embarcadero.
Changes 1n stop signs on Bryant and some cross streets will also cause changes
in circulat;on pattern~. All of t~ese changes ere documented in detail in
Section 9.1 (refer especially to Figures 9.1·9.4). whi:h discusses circulatfon
cnanges caused by the project, with and without the cumu1ative impact of the
proposed expansion of the Palo Alto Medical foundation (PAMF expansion). The
traditional grid street pattern predominant in this erea will help to diffuse
the impact of changes in traffic patterns. The project wi1l also affect the
c~n:::ul.a.Uon patterns of t!mergency vehicles arid City service vehicles, as
described below under item 13.
Without P~.MF flcpansion (r.i~lE-Jo Figt.'res 9.1 and 9.2), Trre bicycTe
boule~ard ~r~ject w511 cause average daily traffic voTumes (ADTs) to decrease
on Bryant ~treet, both north and south of £mbarcadero, which is an
environmental benefit to Bryant Street. On Waverley Street. north and south
of Bryant, the bicycle boulevard project ~ill cause increa~es iM ADTs ranging
[IACKl 91 ->IA-1S
9
· c. i .
7..
from abo'Jt 45 to 330 'lIehicles. Increases in ADTs on cross streets be-been
Bryant and 'li/a¥erley (Kingsley, Lincoln, Add;sO~lf kel1099. Churchill,
Coleridge, and lo .... ell A .... erlues) range fro:r: abuut 30 to 210 \o'€:hicles. As
~~pli1ned in Sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.Z, th~ lraffic Infusion on Residential
fnilironment (BRE) Inde ... is used ta eV~1~jdte the severity of these }i,DT
increases. In all but one loca.t ;0", t"-e ADT increases are not expected to be
noticeable to the i'llerage resident, ilS the change in the TiRE index is less
than 0.1. On Kellogg between Bryant and Waverl~y. tne TIRE index is O.!,
indicating the minimum noticeable increase in ADT to the avere~e resident.
None of these increases is consid'ered to be a significant environmental
1nJpact.
Wfth PAM, [xpa.nsion (rff~r to Ficn..;.res 9.3 and 9.4). The PA.'-IF e)(pansi{ln,
by ltse'f~ would cause AnTs to increase O~ tome streets and decrease on
others, as documented in U1e ~nlJironmEnta1 im~act report for that project, and
as illustrated in Figures 9.3 and 9.4. As explained in Section 9.1.3, the
ctlang!s in ADTs caused by the bicycle boLtlenrd project are about the same
whether or "ot the PAMr e~pansion is built. In all but one location, ADT
increases due to the bicy~le boulevard project are not expected to be
noticea!:;'le: to the average resident, as the cnange in the TlRE inde)(' is 1ess
than 0.1. On Kellogg between Bryant and Wa~erley, the TiRE index reaches 0.1,
indicating the mlnimum noticeable fncrfase in ADT to the average resident.
None of these increases is considered to be a Significant environmental
impact.
Impact on Castilleja School. (astilleja sc~onl is located an the
southwest corner of the Bryant/Embarcadero intersection. The channelization
islands associated ",ith. the Bryant/Embarcadero traffic signal w-ill prohibit
motor vehic12 left turns from Bryant to Embarcadero and the tnrough movement
across Embarcadero. This will not affect drivers approacning the school~ ~ut
wi 11 cause some drivers leaving the school tn use alternate rot.:tes. As
described above, 1rivers~ use of alternate routes, including drivers
originating at Castilleja School, will not have a signHicant impact. He
primary reason that the TIRE index shows t~e minimum noticeable impact due to
increased ADT on K~lTogg between Waverley and Bryant, is due to drivers
lea ... 1ng Castilleja S(ncol 'Using KEllogg to reach t.~e Waverley/Embarcadero
intersection in order to t~rn left onto, or (TOSS, Embarcadero. As stated
above, this impact is not considered to be signlficart. Loss of 4-6 on-street
parking spaces d~r5ng school hours was discuss2d above under ·ParkingW, and
was not considered to b! a s igrll fi cant irr1pact.
Traffic ~azards. In the checklist, this item ~as checked "no·. ln ~rder for
the Bryant Street B~cycle Boulevard to be !xtended as proposed~ a traffic
signal mu.st be installed at the Bryant/Embarcadero intersectio~. This sign;Jl
will provide a safer crossing ~f Embarcadero Road, a ~ajor arterial street,
fo~ bicyclists and pedestrians. Cyclists and pedestrians who currently use
Bryant Street must wait for gaps ~n the flow of traffic on Embarcadero~ which
is heavy during the peak corm;ute periods. As documented in Section 9.2,
removal of stop .signs or. Br.,llant Street is nat expected to result iii increased
motor ~ehicle speeds on that street. As stated in Sections 10.1 and 10.3, if
actual ~xp~rience indicat~d that conflicts, speeding, or ot~er operational
[IACKI 91· [lA-IS
]0
~ ~ • ,j ,
:,j
1
_.
"
problems were ~ccurin9 as a result of stop sign removals, (orrective m~isures.
including possible reinstallation of stop signs, would be taken .
ll.em$ 13(;a. b. It. flo Public S~l'\Iices
polict and Fire. The channel~lit;on ;~lands lssoclated wit~ the
ary~r.t/Embarcadero traffic signa' ~;ll impede right turns from Bryant to
Emblrcadero for very large trucks) and ~ill impede left turns from Brycnt tD
EmbarcaderD and tn~ through ~ovement across (~barcaderc fer all vehicles.
However, pol ice and fire vellicl'5's (including fi re trucks), operating in
emergency cond;ti~ns, will be ab1e to bypess the islands by driwing to tne
left of them. Police and fire vehides occasionally ha~e to use the left
sides of intersections in o~der to bypass queues of vehicles. Effects on
em2r9~ncy response tfme would not be measurable. Th~re ~ill thus be no
significant fmpact on fi~e and police protection servfces.
~afntenance of Public Fa~il1ties. The pr~ject ~;11 result in increased
maintenance for the new traffic signal and the issociated channelization
1slands. This increase will be offset by the removal of bike Jane lines on
portions of ~ayerley and Churchill, which results in elimination of the
periodic repainting of bike lane lines. There will be no significant negative
impacts on maintenance of public facilitlEs.
Go~enmental Services. The channelization iSlands at t~e 8ryant/Embarcadero
intersection may cause alteration of routes for the Postal Serwice, Palo Alte
Sanitati~n Company. tity street sweepers, and other occasional governmental
services whose vehicles use that intersection. The impacts on these serwices
are not expected to be significant.
cs
EIACKI 91-E1A-26
II
•
\
, .
1I'l"l'ACHIIEJIT 2
BRYANT STREET aICYCLE BOULEVARD EXTL~SION REPORT
September, 1991
copies of this r~port are available in the Transportation Division
office, 6th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilto~ Avenue, Palo Alto.
II
!I
~ I ~ I
I . ;.
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
o
J
BRYANT 3TREET
BICYCLE BOULEVARD EXTENSION
REPORT
Prepared by the
Transportation Division
City of Palo Alto
September 1991
~
~~
[(fbI
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~. • -> •
.. "' .
.
,
-'-, .-'
I ~ I
I 1~t>1 a
Q,
BRYANT STREET ~ I BICYCLE BOULEVARD EXTENSION
REPORT ~ I
I ~ I
I ~ I
I Prepared by the I~-b) Trnnsportatlon Division
C City of Palo Alto
D
September 1991
~ ~
j ~ j
:'l j@-b/ -
J
'-'
. '.':
,
I
~U1J! OP COI!'rEII'l"
1. 0 nrraoDtlCTION. •
2.0
3.0
1. 1 PURPOSE OF THE STUOY • • • •
1. 2 THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
IIACIi:GJtOlJIID •• •• ••• •
2 • 1 COKPREHENS IVE PLAN • • • •
2.2 TRAFFIC CONGESTION' AIR QUALITY
2.3 PURPOSE OF BICYCLE BOULEVARD
2.4 EXISTING BICYCLE BOULEVARD
2.5 CAPITAL lMPROVEMENTS
2.6 EXTENSION ALIGNKEWT
2 • 7 S'l'UDY REPORT
BXI'TIN~ CONDITIONS
3.1 EXISTING BICYCLE ROUTES
3.2 EXISTING LAND USES
3.3 PHYSICAL AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
, • 0 COtrCEPTIIlU. ALftlUlAUnS
, • 1 SEGMENT A
4.2 SEGMENT B
, • ~ SEGMENT C
4. 4 SEGMENT 0
,. S SEGMENT E
4 • 6 S E<lMEN'l' F
5.0 C010WNU'Y 1I.EVl:£W loIII) COMKENT8
5.0
INITIAL pUBLIC MEETING 5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
SUMMARY OJ' SELECTED SMALL GROUP COMMENTS
SIDIKARY OF OPEN FORUM COMMENTS
SUMMARY OF WRITTEN RESpONSE FORMS " •
6 • 1 SEGMEII'r A
6.2 SEGMEN'r B
6 • 3 SEGMENT C
6. , SEGMEII'r 0
6.5 SEGMENT E
6.6 SEGMENT F
i
PAGE
2
2
2
4
4
5
5
5
1
8
9
9
9
9
14
16
16
19
20
20
23
27
27
21
31
31
33
33
35
49
S6
58
~O
I
I
I
I
J
J
7.0 nz &alIBI) rLAJI
7 • 1 S &G!IElIT A
7 • 2 SEGMENT B
7 • J SEGMENT C
7 • 4 SEGMENT D
7.S SEGKENT E
7.6 SEGMENT F
•. 0 COIOCOJlI'l'Y U'VIn PI> COIlKENTa
e. 1 SECOND PUII!.IC M];;ETr~G
8.2 PUBLIC COllMENTS •
'.0 ADDITIOKaL JV1~vaTIOX
9,1 '!'RAF!'IC DrvERSION
9,2 I!E!!I"'1AL OF STOP SIGNS
9.3 ON-Snu:ET PAR!{ING • • ,
9.4 RELATIONSHIP >lITH PAMF EXPA.'ISION PROJEC'I'
9.5 BRYANT Snu:ET TURN RESTRICT'ONS ••••
9.6 PALY HIGH/TOWN' COUNTRY TRAFFIC SIGNAL.
10. D IIlICOIllO!Jll)ED PLAJI
10.1 SEG!IElIT A
10.2 SEGMJ;;NT B
10, 3 SEGMENT C
10.4 SEGl'lENT 0
10.5 SEGMEII'l' E
10.6 SEGM];;NT F
11.1
11.2
11.3
11. 4
COST ES 1'IlIA':'E •
f\l1IDING
CITY COUNcI L REVIEW
SCHEDU!..E •••• •
AND APPROVAL
ii
em j ? ~,;,...; ... =--.............
66
66
66
69
69
69
70
72
72
72
84
84
92
93
95
97
98
100
100
100
103
105
105
106
107
107
107
110
110
•
J
~
g 1.1
2.1
3.1
~ 3.2
4.1
~ 4.2
4.3
~ 4.4
4.5
4.6
~ 4.7
6.1
~ 6.2
6,)
~ 6.4
6.5
6.6
~ li.7
7.1 a 7.2
9.1
a 9.2
9.3
9.4
:I 10.1
10.2
I 10.3
j , ...
J
., ,
-J
__ :I
1.19'1" OF F1GDRES
Plan Development Precess
Existing Bicycle Boulevard
Pale Alto Bicycle Routes
Primary Features Along Bryant Street
Initial concept Plan
Initial Concept Plan -Segment A
Initial concept Plan -segment B
Initial Concept Plan -Segment C
Initial concept Plan -Segment D
Initial Concept Plan -Segment E
Initial Concept Plan -Segment F
Traffic progression Diagram
Intersection Group Option 0
Intersection Group Option I
Intersection Group Option II
Intersection Group option III
Loc&tions for possible Street Closure
Propo&ed Diagonal Parking on Waverley Street
lnt~rmediate Preferred Plan . 4
Bryant/Embarcade~o Inters&ction
Expected Daily Traffic Volumes
Expected caily Traffic Volumes
Expected Daily Traffic Volumes
Expected DAily Traffic Volumes
~eco~mended Plan
Bryant/Embarcadero Intersection (Recommended Plan)
PAGE
3
6
10
11
15
17
1&
21
22
24
26
37
41
42
43
H
51
6'
67
68
67
88
90
91
101
102
Bryant/Embarcadero Intersection (Substitute Plan) _ 104
iii
\ ,
D
j
J
5.1
6.1
6.2
9.1
11.1
11.2
" .
LIB'!' 01" !,QUS
S~~ary Description ot Initial Conceptual Plan
Summary Description of Inters~ction Options
Traffic volume Changes
TIRE Index Table • • .
Cost Estimate for the Extension of the
Bicycle Boulevard
40
4S
B6
lOB
funding Sources for the Extension of the . . • . . . . ~09
Bicycle Boulevard
iv
I
I
I
APPEND!X A
A."~ENDIX B
a APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
I
APPENDIX E
I
I
j
J
/
APPBIIDICZ8
sketches of Preliminary Oesiqn
Concepts for Intersection of
Bryant st~eet and Emba~cadero Road
Materials Related to Initial Public
Meeting
Map of stop Sign Locations
Map of Professorville Historic
District Boundary.
PAGlI:
• 111
•• 115
147
149
Materials Related to Second Public .. . 151
Meetinq
v
\ ...,;"c'
o "
•
;
J
...
j
1.0 nrl'JU>ollC'rIOJl
This report c!oewn..ents the information qatherirn;, alternatives
evaluation, public review and comments, and development of a.
recoamended plan fo~ the lmple~entation of a p~oject to ~xtend the
existing Bryant street Bicycle Boulevard.
1.1 PIlRPOSE OF TIfE STUOY
The purpose of the current study is to develop a recommended plan
for the extension of the Bryant street Bicycle Boulevard from its
pr.sen~ terlllinus at Churchill Avenue northvard to and through
downtown Pelo Alto, and on to the existing bicycle/pedest!"illn
bridqt:. aCt'OSs San Francisquito Creex into Menlo Park.
1.2 THE PLAN OEVELOPMENT PROCESS
The developllent of a recommended plan for the extp.nsi~, of the
bicycle boulevard is one part of an overall process that: (1) began
with a previous City Council decision a decade ago to establish the
exlstinq bicycle boulevard# {2J builds upon long-standing council
polieiea, actions and aChievements that support non-drive alone
modes of travel, as well as approval of capital illlprovement
projects related to the bicycle boUlevard, and Cl) continues with
this r:.tudy and a subsequent city Council decision regarding the
extension of the bicyt::le boule-yard. The overall process, ir.cluding
this current study component, is shown i~ Fiqure 1.1.
2
•
'-1
'I ,
I
I
?. Ai';:
:; -~:':~ ',,:
" " ""?:--~::;::¥~ .-;~,~~ -:;'--~ ~
_""""~~ ........... ~,~" "",.»<oR".
,:.~~~
BICYCLE BOlllJ!VAJW
ZrTZNSION STUDY
Project Goals
Data collection
concept~al Alter.
Community Review
Evaluation
Pre-ierred: Plan
Ora ft Report
Community Review
Recommend ... tion
F ina! Report
FIGURE 1.1
PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
3
•
. ~,
..
•
(T'r
. ....J, ..
,
j
j
a
j , ... .,
2.0
Tha City of ~alo Alto has long-standing policies, an~ a notable
reoo~d ot actions and achi&vementa, that emphasize., encourage and
facilitate the use of alt~rnative ~odes to the automobile (walking,
bikinq, car/vanpoo18" transit) ~ These pclicies and actions,
carefully and consistently ~PFlied over an extended period of time,
have made a favorable difference in the utilization of several
tra,nsport components, including a bicycle system and related
support facilitie.s that consistently place Palo Alto in the top
ranks of bicycle usage and user friendliness throughout the nation.
COKPREHENS lYE PLAN
The transportation el~nt of th2 Comprehensive Plan contains a
number ot policy statements and related programs that strive to
reduce the usaqe of the automobile and encouraqe the use of
alternative travel Jlodes, Spe.cifically, the Comprehensi-;te Plan
includes Transportation Policy 12: ·PROMOTE BICYCLE USE-, along
with related programs to support and achieve such a policy,
including:
P~oqra. 34 -Develop arzd implement a network of
thra~qh bicycle boulevards, and
Proqram 35 -Re30ve traffic control impediments and
physical barriers to bicycle travel.
The objectives of these policies and proqrams are to promote,
encourage, and facilitate bicycle travel throuqhout Palo Alto and
its environs, .tor all aq-e qroups, and for all trip purposes~
includinq travel for recreation, shopping, school, busines5# work
commutes~ and other reasons tor which people travel.
2.2 TRAFFIC CONGEST:ON , AIR QUALITY
Efforts to tacilitate and encourage the use of alternative
transportation Qodas, including the use of bicycles, will continue
to tAke on increasing importance as the effects. of Congestion
Management Agency requirements, regional implications or State air
quality zb.;ulations, and the City's recently enacted Transportation
oe.and Xanaqelllent 'TOM) ordinance become more evident. In tact,
many of the policies and actions to encourage and facilitate the
use of alternative ~odes to the automobile. which Palo Alto h3&
voluntarily pursued during the past two decades, are now becoming
instit'ltionalized with applicability to the entire Bay Area as part
of continuing legislative and ju,,"icial efforts to aadre&.s and
resolve the issues of traffic congestion and air pollution~ While
no sinqle action or strategy is qoing to solve the existing ar.d
4
-L
•
,
''----
I
\
I ,
."~
------::...--::..--
projected. traf~ic congestion and air pollution problems, it is
increasingly evident that any .and all measures that offer any
potential benefit, in terms of reduced use o~ the private
automobile, are likely to become mandatory during the next several
years.
PURPOSE OF BICYCLE ~ULEVARO
The purpose of a bicycle boulevard is to provide: (l) a throughway
upon which bicycles have procedence Over aut~mobl1es, '2) a direct
rout9 that reduces ~ravel time for bicyclist8, (3) a sate travel
route that minimizes conflicts ~ith motor vehicle traffic, and (4)
a facility that promotes and facilitates the use ot bicycles as an
alternative transportation mode for all purposes of travel.
EXISTING BICYCLE BOULEVARD
The existing initial segment of the Bryant Street Bicycle
Boulevard, ,eo,S illustrated in Fiqure 2 • .1, was establist.ed. in 1982,
and involved street closures at two locations and changes in stop
signs at several intersections. It extends a distance of two 4i1es
alonq Bryant street, trom East Meadov Drive to Churchill Avenue.
At present, the bicycle boulevard does not connect with any major
activity center at either end. At Churchill Avenue, bicyclists are
directed one block east to Waverley Street.
Within the existinq initial two lJile segment, thare are three
locations that specifically J)Qrmit bicycle passaga and prohibit
automObile passage (6 street closure at Lowell Avenue, a street
closure at El Verano Avenue, .and & bridqe crossin9 at Matadero
Creek). In addition, stop signs at a number of intersections along
Bryant have been located so as to favor bicycle travel along the
Bicycle Boulevard. In all other respects, the bicycle boulevard
appears and functiona as a nOl"JDal local city street; providing
automobile access to resid.enca:s, on-street parkinq, and
urlrestricted local area tr-6veL Other than periodic:: c~mplaints
received. about the visual appearZlnce ot tl"!e initial temporary
street closures (rece:'lt.ly replaced with permanent landscaped
closures), city staff is not aware of any serious concerns from
residents who live on or near the existinq initial seqment ot the
bicycle boulevard.
2.5 CAPITAL IMPRO\TEMEN'I'S
The City has made a substantial investment in upgradinq the bicycle
boulevard sinee its initial implementation in 1982. In 1986, a
narrow pedestrian bridge, where Bryant meets Matadero Creek, was
replaced with two new structures; a wide bicycle bridqe and. a
separate pedestrian bridge. In 1990, the two temporary wooden
5
'.:.;.a-
., ,
..J
-
FIGURE 2.1
EXISTING BICYCLE BOULEVARD
L
--''-
SOU1'H Erro
OF EXISTING
BICYCLE 1'L\"'11.
@ E. MEADOIol J-i<-"'''''''''' ~,;:O'( ...
i t
!
I
i
•
8t~eet closures (barrie~5) on Bryant were replaced with permanent
raised and landscaped concrete islands~ Both p~ojects were tunded
throuqh the Cityts Capital Improvement Program with grant funding
in excess of $D7 ,000 from the state of California, through the
Metropolitan Transportation commission.
In January 19S9, co~cil authorized statf to file a grant
application tor 1989-1990 Transportation Development Act ('!'DA)
funds tor Pedestrian/Bikeway projects (CMR:I01:9), which included
funding tor a traffic siqnal at ~arcadero Road and Bryant as part
ot the anticjpated extension of the bicycle boulevard. The qrant
application was approved and an amount of $75,000 is available to
the City r,:,r this specific project for a period ot up to three
years beginning July 1, 1990~
In 1990, as part of the 1990-1995 Capital Improvement Program (CIP
!page 107J), Council approv:a<1 a project with funding for the
installation Qf" a traffic siqnal at the intersection of Embarcadero
and Bryant~ The cost of the traffic signal installation was
estimated to be $150,000 plus $24,000 for integration into the
City·s computerized traffic siqnal coordination system. The
remainlnq costs tor the traffic Signal installation and
integration, atter use of the $75,000 TDA Grant, is desiqnated to
come from the City's Electric Fund.
At the time that council approved the 1990-19'95 CIP proj ect for
installation of a traffic signal at Embarcadero and Bryant, it was
with tba clear understandin9 that no funds wera to be spent for
desiqn and. construction of a traffic signal until the curI"'ent
bicycle boulevard extension study has }:Ieen complll!!:ted and staff
raturns to council with a recommended plan tor Council discussion
and approval:-prior to implementation ot the bicycle boulevard
extension.
2.6 EXl~NSION ALIGNMENT
This study, as documented in th2 tclloYing s~ctions of the report~
cons.iders alternative means for elrtenclin9" the ex:isting bicycle
boulevard f"lJrther northward along Bryant, from i ts pr-es~nt terminus
at Churchill A ..... enue to the existing bic,)'c:'e/pedestrian bridge
crossinq San Francisquito Creek into Henlo Park. An alternative
alignment alonq Waverley Street, from Churchill Avenue to San
Erancisquito Creek, is not. suitable for the extension of the
bicycle boulevard for a number of reasons includinq: (a) Waverley
is a designated COllector street in the Palo Alto street network,
CD) traf~ic volumes along Waverley are in excess oL 4,000 to 6,000
vehiclas per day, (C) the impact of traffic diVersion ~ro~ waverley
to other streets within adjacent neighborhoods, due to any measur£:s
thAt would r~duce vehiCUlar volume, and {dJ the presence of buses
travelinq and makinq stops along Waverley.
7
r ,
i..
;
11 , ~ f.
~ ,
~
~;
.,-~
a
l
3
a
0
:1
~
a
~
I
0
" ...
• \ ,
...J
'1
~ .,
j
2 • 7 S'l'tJO ~ REPORT
SUbsequent sections cf this report document: (Il) existing
conditions, (b) a oet ot. conceptual alternatives, includinq an
iriiti&l concept plan, (e) the tirst round ot communit~ review, Cd)
&n evaluation of alternatives, (e) t-21e devalopoaent of an
interaediate preferred plan, (t) a second round of r;ommunity
r.8view, and (9) presentation of a final recommended plan, including
costa, tundinq and an implementation schedule, for r~esentatlon to
the city Co\mcil for its consideration and I!ctio7l$ This study
report is intended to provide appropriate intormation to serve as
a fraaework upon which understanding and decisions can occur~
8
"~--__ lIlil_".".I_tlA·_----"-"
•
---------.
~
I
~
j
J
J
, ",. '. -\
~_,:,":-"--::"". ___ -___ r_~~·-"'"""'·~----'----,.~-----
3.1 EXISTrNG BlCYCLE ROUTES
The existing initial segment of the Bicycle Boulevard, as well as
its proposed extension northward to San Franclsquito Creek, are an
integral part of a comprehensive citywide system of bicycle routes
throughout the entire c.i,ty. As illustrated in Figure 3.1, the
citywide bicycle route ayatSJI: is comprisE:d of a series of lanes,
paths, and signed routes throughout the entire city with lin~aqes
to adj¢ -::ommunities, the baylands, and the Stc'l.nford University
campus, as well &S bridqes and underpasses that span existing
physical barriers such as creeks, commuter rail transit lines, and
freeways.
3.2 EXISTING LAND USES
The existing initial seqment of the :bicycle boulevard passes
entirely through areas ot residential neighborhoods. The proposed
extension of the bicycle boulevard from Churchill Avenue north to
San Francisquito Creek passes through areas ot residential
neighborhoods (including Castilleja School ond the d".19'llated
historic Professorville area), continues past the Palo Alto Medical
F~undatlonl proceeds into and through the do.~town business
district, continues onward throuq!'J the Doimtown North neighborhood l
crosses over San Prancisquito Creek via an existing
bicycle./pedestrian bric:lqe, and connects with a corresponding system
of bicycle routes in Henlo Park.
3.3 PHYSICAL AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Existing primary characteristics of Bryant and aajacent land uses,
from Churchill Avenue to San Frar.cisquito creek are illustrated in
Figure 3.2 and summarized below.
• BI)·ant is classifiel1 as I!! local street.
• The street width is 26 feet, except the portion between
Lytton Avenue. and Fo::-ast Avenue (within the downtolm
business district), wher-e the str-eet width varies trom
44 to 53 feet.
• An eXisting arainaqe dip across Bryant in the pave~e~t
Btructur~ near Ki~qsley serves as a significant potential
speed control measure along Bryant, be.tween Embarcadero
and Lincoln.
9
• , , .
& .;.-----;-'
,,-
c-
,
i
••••• ON -SfFE[T a.u:: LAtE
~ OFF~~ B~E PATH
__ SlOEV'MLK BIKE PATH
.'''1 I n. SIGNED BI<t ROUTE
~..I..FISDfCTOO
""'" IlOUTE
• BIKE IRIDCi~ERP-.sS
'--B~ BOuI..EIIAAO
FIGURE 3.1
PALO ALTO BICYCl E ROUTES
10
r -
~=~~-~~-~-----------
-
FIGURE 3.2
PRIMARY FEATURES ALONG BRYANT STREET
•
•
•
On-street parking is penaittec1 on both sides of the
atreet, except ror designated loading zones. A
combination of diagonal and parallel parking exists along
tbe seqaent betveen Forest Avenue and Lytton Avenue
(within the business district): elsSlihere alonq the
proposed extension, only pa~all.l parkinq is permitted.
On-street parkinq is fully utilized throuqhout the da)'" on
the seqment of Bryant between Ac!dison and Havthorne, and
1:'1 the area of Castilleja School; and intermittently
utilized else~here.
Availa.ble counts indicate th&t on an average day over GOO
OOllUD'.lter, student, and recreational cyclists travel along
the existing initial segment ot the ~icycle boUlevard.
Racent counts on Bryant and ~averley indicate a total of
725 cyclists are crossinq bbarcl\dero daily; 325 at
Bryant and 410 at Waverley.
• Traffic volumes vary considerably alonq Bryant.
1000 -1300 vehicles/day south of Embarcade~o
1400 -1700 vehicles/day north of Emba~cad8ro
2000 -2200 vehicleS/day in front of PAMF
vehicles/day in business district
vehicles/day north of business district
• Major c~oss streets include:
~rcadero Road
Channing Avenue
Homer Avenue
Haailton Avenue
university Avenue -
Lytton Avenue
21, COO vehicles/da,y
5,000 vehicles/day
5,000 vehicles/day
11,000 vehicles/day
17,000 vehicles/day
13,000 vehicles/day
• EX"istinq traffic c.ontroi .eaaures along Bryant ar-e as
tollows:
Churchill Avenue
Xelloqg Avenue
Embarcadero Road
Jl:inqsley AVQnue
Lincoln Avenue
Addison Avenue
Channj nq A venue
Homer Avenue
"cre~t Avenue
HAlllil ton Avenue
university venue
Lytton Avenue
Everett Avenue
Hawthorne Avenue
Palo Alto Avenue
Bryant , Churchill traffic stops
Xelloqg traffic stops
Bryant traffic stops
Bryant traffic stops
Lincoln traffic stops
Bryant , Aadison traffic stops
Bryant traffic stops
Bryant tra f:fic stops
Bryant traffic stops
rraftie siqnal control
Tratfic 51qnal control
Traffic .i9n~1 control
Everett traffic stops
Bryant traffic stops
Bryant, Poe' Palo Alto stops
12
L
r
c.
L
-
~ g
=
~
= g
~
0
Q
~
~
~
=
~
I
~
j , -
'1 ...
"'I
'" ~
'"
A r.vlev of recDrded traffic accident listings indicates
that during the period troa July 1, 1988 thro~9h
Sept.aber 30# 1990, a total of five accidents invclvinq
bicyclists were reported on Bryant from t:hurchill to Palo
Alto Avenue. During the &l!IlIe period, II. total 0: three
motor vehlcle/bicycle accidents were l"ecorded en
W8verley.
Bryant Street
To~al accidents 44
Bicycle accident. 5
waverley street
Total acci~.nta 51
Bicycle accidents J
Of the bicycle accidents on Bryant., two occurred at or in
the iIIIlIIediate viCinity of the intersection with
Embarcadero. The three remaining accidents occurred in
the. residential neiqhborhoods north lind south of the
downtown business district. On Wa'Verley, two of the
three reported accid.ents occurred. in the downtown
business di8trict. Of the. total of eight bicycle
accident., motorists vera at fault in four cases,
bicyclists vere at fault in three cases, and both pa.,rties
were at fault in one case.
1)
--.... 3 ...... ""'4IU.I ... >..,.· "." --_ .. -....
Q
~
t ! ~ , .
'~ , 0
~ . a
l
~
~
=
=
II!
ill
0 ..
oJ
~
j ., ...
...
J -• .;
.,
-'
4.0
ITt the early stage of the study process, a set of conceptual
alternatives were developed for the extension of the bicycle
boulevard along Bryant, based ~pon ~n initial set or identified
issues and available information. These conceptual alternatives,
from which an initial concept plan was i~entified, are described in
this chapter. These same CO!lcept:lal 81 ternatives, inclusive of the
initial concept plan, were usa~ for the initial round of community
review and comment, as discussed in Chapter 5; and for subsequent
further eveluatlon, as discussed in Chapter 6.
In order to facilitate the discussion, evaluation, and presentation
of proposals, opticns, and recommendations, the proposed extension
of the bicycle boulevard from Churchill to San F~ancisquito creek
was organized into five contiguous segments ($~qments A through E)
alonq Bryant, and one additional se~ent (Segment F} representing
all potential related changes on streets other than Bryant
(waverley and Coleridqe, Churchill, and Addison). These seqments
~re QQ$cribed as follows:
Segment A:
Segment B:
Segment c:
S89Dle nt D:
Seqment E:
Seq:m.ent F:
Bryant from Chur~ill up to Embarcadero, but
not inclu,'inq the Embarcadero intersection.
Bryant intersection with Embarcadero.
Bryant from Embarcadero (eJl:cluQiiny the inter
section) to Forest.
Bryant from Forest to Lytton.
Bryant from Ll-tton tc the San Francisquito
Creek bridge.
Waverley frOID Chur~'lill to the San
Francisquito Creek bri~s~. and short sections
of Coleridge, Churchill, and Addison (between
Waverley and Bryant).
Ttie fol~owin9 paraqr.c.phs identify arid discuss the issues and
concept~al alternatives that were developed in the initial phase of
~lan development end evaluation for the extension of the bicycle
boulevard. Also included l is the iaentification of the initial
conceptual plan for each seg1llent. Fiqure •• 1 illustrates the
initial concept plan .
14
".' '
SEGMENT F
FIGURE 4.f
INITIAL CONCEPT PLAN
__ --.J "-..:..:.--
•
j. ....
SEGMENT F
SEGMENT ,..
/
" •
i ..
J
...
J -;
"
4.1 SEGMENT A
Se~ent A starts at Churchill Avenue and e~tend5 to~ but does not
include, the Embarcadero Road intersection. At present, t...l-le
existinq initial seqment of the bicycle boulevard ends at Church!ll
and cyclists are dire.cted along Churchill Avenue to Waverley, 'Which
has marked bike lanes tr~ Coleridge to Lytton, and a signed bike
route from Lytton Avenue to San Francisquito Creek. Issues relatea
to the extension of the bicycle boulevard along Bryant for segment
A include:
•
•
•
Potential removal of stop signs on Bryant at Churchill,
Potential changes to on-street parking, and
Poten~i.al operational conflict at Castilleja school drop
off/pick up area.
The initial conceptual plan developed for Se~ent A, as illustrated
in Figure 4.2, included the removal of the existinq stop signs on
Bryent at Churchill Avenue. An alternative yas to leave tr.e stop
sig:"is on Bryant and Cburchill as they are at the present time. On
street parkinq would rgmain as it is at the present time.
The referenca in Figure 4.2 to the removal of a bike lane eeqment
(on Churchill] and the extension of' bike lanes (on ColeridgeJ,
between Bryant and Waverley, is orqa~izationally incorpo~ated and
discussed as part of Segment F~
4.2 S£Gl!ElI'l' B
Seqment B 1s the shortest, albeit most complex, seqment of the
proposed ertension. The prima.ry issues related to the extension of
the bicycle boulevard along Bryant for segment B include:
•
•
•
Potential installation of a new tra.ffic signal,
Suitability of a non-signalized intersection, and
General design configurations (roadway channelization and
traffic flow restrictions) for siqnalized a.nd non
siqnalized intersection control alternatives~
The initial conceptual plan developed for Seqment B, as illustrated
in Fiqure 4.3, di~ net specify a single plan vith related
alternatives. Ratl',er it included five alternatives, four that
involv.~ installation of a ne~ traffic siqnal and one that diQ not
involve installation of a new traffic siqnal. These five
alternatives Yere selected as being representative of a larger
16
•
-~-~-----.----~-
,~
,-
L
r
,-
-~
'--
....
~ , • l '"' .-I ' ...
FIGURE 4.2 "" I INITIAL CONCEPT PLAN SEGMENT A W
J" I 17 I.;
-----~
·' /.
.. --.. --
urSnNG C"OND~TIO""S
----.. --
-
-"Iolll __
l ......
¢ IrlJJlc~1
... .59 \21.
ra,llng ,." 'IOIItmtI
~rN _ .. 1111
Ihrr,..I1-...
.~-
.... ....,-
---
._-
~ow.~"""" I.VT nRI ov;q .... 111.-." C\oa:D .J"WrL" ..-,.. _ uexo._
._-
-loll-=--
~'''''"IID.v.aD _ __ ,.... OIU _.....-n.
1IOO~c.c'--"
ALTERI4A.TIV£ "'
FIGURE 4.3
•
--JI!!II -----
AlTERNATIVe: 2
-.~
-----
... _..,--"IoE1~_ '--
.~
ALTEANATIVE 5
I NITIAL CONe EPT PLAN -S EG MENT B
:'-
•
--. _ --_.---""
number of earlier prellsinary design concepts as illustrated in
.ketch for. in Appendix A. Resultant traffic vcl~es on Bryant as
well as traffic diversion to Waoverley was estimated tor each
altern~tive and i. included with each illustration •
!ltermltiyes 1 And 2 both included the pr-ovision of a new
stret!t closure on Bryant (:between Kinqsley and C!".anninq),
in conjunction .. ith the installation of e: new traffic
siqnal at the intersection of Bryant and Embarcadero, in
order to Ii.it automobile traffic on Bryant.
Alternatiyes 3 ond • also inclUded the installation of a neW
tr&t!~.c siqnal, but;. cUd not involve the proviSion of a
new street closure. Rather, potential tr&ffic volume
increases would be limited by prohibition of selective
travel Dloveme!'lts at the intersection ot Bryant and
Em))arcadero, throu9h the use of re9'lJlatory siqninq and/or
roadway channelization.
Alternatiye 5 did not include the ins~allation of a new
traffic signal or ~ street closure further along Bryant.
It did involve prohibitinq selective travel movements at
the intersection at Bryant and Embarcadero through the
use of regulatory signs and roaGway channelization.
SEGMENT C
Segment C starts at Eubarcadero Road Caxcluding ~~e intersection)
and extends up to Forest Avenue~ Issues related ~o the extension
of the bicycle boulevard along Bryant for Seqment C include:
• Potential reversal of stop signs at Kingsley from Bryant
to Kingsley,
• Potential removal of stop signs on aryant at Addison l
•
•
•
Potential street closure ~l~cement and desiqn,
Potential additional stop sign on Channing at Bryantl
Potential additional stop siqn on Romer-Avenue at Bryant,
• Pot~ntial cbanqes to on-street parking, and
• Effects and potential chanqes to the Palo Alto Medical
Foundation CPAMFJ.
The initial conceptual plan developed for seqment C, as illus~~ated
in Figure 4.4, included reversal of the stop siqns at Xingsley, the
location of a potential street closure in the block betwee.n Addison
and Lincoln, :t'eJDoval of the existing &top siqns on Bryant at
19
-,
I
I
I
I
:
., ,
Ad~ison, and placement ot additional stop signs on both Channing
and Homer, at their intersections with Bryant. Alternatives were
to leave the stop signs on ~ryant at Xingsley, locate the potential
street closure one block further north or south along the bicycle
boulevard extension, leave the stop signs on Bryant at Addison,
and/or not place additional atop signs en Channing and Hrymer. on
street parking would remain as it is at the present'time.
The reference in Figure 4.4 t~ the extension (If bike lanes on
Addison between Bryant and Waverley, and the removal of bike !ane.,
and restoration of on-street parking along Waverley, is organiza
tionally incorporated and discussed ~s part of Segment F.
SEGMENT 0
seqment D starts at Forest Avenue and extends through the downtown
business district to Lytton. Three of the cross streets, Hamilton,
University, ane Lytton are controlled by existing traffic signals.
Issues related to the extension of the bicycle boulevard along
Bryant for Segment 0 include:
•
•
Potential conversion of on-street diagonal parkinq to
parallel parking, and
potential coordination of traffic sic;nals along Bryant to
facilitate bicycle travel.
The initial conceptual plan developed for Segment D, as illustrated
in Fiqure 4.5, included no change to tbe on-street diagonal parkinq
along Bryant, and retention of t.he traffic signal timing along
Bryant. An alternative was to convert the on-street diagonal
parkinq spaces to parallel parking spaces. The threa traffic
signala along Bryant are part of a lIore extensive downtown
coord-inated traffic siqnal system that is designed to favor treffic
flow along Hamilton, University and Lyttons rather than the cross
streets.. The initial conceptual plan includea no change to the
existing traffic siqnal operations.
4.5 SEGMEN'I' E
SSgIIIent E starts at Lytton, extends along Bryant to Palo Alto
Avenue, and then proceeds along a one hlock section o£ Palo Alto
Avenue to the eXis.ting bicycle/pedestrian bridge crossing San
Francisquito Cre~k~ Issues related to the extension of the bicycle
bo~levard alonq Bryant tor Segment E include:
• Potential reversal of stop signs at Hawthorne fr-om Bryant
to Harthorne,
• Potential removal of a stop sign on Bryant at Poe, and
• Potential changes to on-street parking.
20
---".--"-~~.-... ':.:;,. ... -~~
•
. , ", 1
"J ••
FIG URE ~.4
INITIAL CONCEPT PLAN -SEGMENT C
21
i -
r.
i:.
....
t,.. .. ; , --f_,
C -
r
l-
~ -
r-
'-
r
L...
r-.
""' r ..
C
1"1
~
~
,
i
I
f
I
I
\
I
-
.,
..1
FIGURE 4.5
INITIAL CONCEPT PLAN -SEGMENT D
22
, .
, , .
\
I ... -
, . . ,
:
The initial conceptual plan developed for Segment E, a& illustrated
in Fiqure 4.6, included the reversal of the stop signs at Hawthorr.e
an.d removal or an existing stop sign on Bryant at Poe. Alter
natives were to leave the existinq stop signs on Bryant. at
Hawthorne (no new stop siqns on Hawthorne:) and/or leave the
exi~tinq stop sign on Bryant at Poe. on-street parking 'Would
remain as it is at the present time.
'.6 SEGI!El<T F
segment F represents all related changes on streets adjacent to the
proposed extension of the Bicycle Boulevard~ including:
Waverley Street
•
•
Removal of existing bike lanes related signs
between Lytton and Coleridge (Waverley from Lytton
to the bicycle/pedestrian bridge at San
Francisquito CreeK is a siqned bike route but does
not have marked bike lanes).
Restoration o.f on-street
Embarcadero ana Forest.
parking between
Addison Avenue
•
•
Exten&ion ot existinq bike lanes for one block from
Waverley to Bryant.
Initiation ot parking restrictions (7 a.m~ to
7 p.m.) on one side g( one block of Addison
(between waverley and Bryant) I to accommodate
extension of the existing bike lanes on Addison~
Churchill AvenUe
•
•
Removal of existinq bike lanes and related siqr.s
between Bryant and waverley.
cessation of parking restrictions {7 a.m. to
7 p. III.) on one side of one block of Churchill
(between aryant and Waverley}.
Coleridge Avenue
•
•
Extension of eXisting bike lanes tor one block from
Waverley to eryant.
Initiation of parking ~estrictions (7 a~m. to
7 p.m~J on on£ side ot one block of Coleridge
(between waverley and Bryant), to accommodate the
extension of existing bike lanas alonq Coleridge.
23
-
-, ....
c I
c !
D
f1 g
t ~
~
..
..I
-;
~
... . ,
FIGURE 4.6
INITIAL CONCEPT PLAN -SEGMENT E
24
_.-. ...:......--......-..:.-.. ,
The initial concept plan developed tor Segment F is ~ummarized in
Figure 4.7. Alternatives were to retain the existinq bike lanos
and on-street parking restrictions along Waverley # retain the
exi.tim; bike. lanes and on-street parlc:ing restrictions alor,g
Churchill., and not extend the existing bike lanes and on-street
parking restrictions tor one block (from W~verley to Bryant) alonq
Addison and/or COleridqe.
25
.\
'--" ... -~ ... '-I-)or, l~ ... '&1
-
~
,...
'-'
c_
,-
" 1-:::'
r ... !'
,.. I t, ...
c I
~ !CiIII
i1 g ~ I !,
t ~ " ~
~ , 2
~
a
IIf
rl
j
~
~
tI .,
<Ii
~
'" ...
a ,., ...
J
'" j
-
-,
J
.' :-"!"
RELATED CHANGES ON ADJACENT STREETS
WAVERLEY STREET
o Remove existing bike lanes and ~elated signs
between Coleridge and San Francisquito Creek
o Restore on-street parkinq
ADDISON AVD.'l1E
o Extend bike lanes from Weverley to Bryant
CHURCHILL AVENUE
o Remove bike lanes between Bryant and waverley
COLElUOGE AVENUE
o Extend hike lanes from waverley to Bryant
FIGURE 4,7
INITIAL CONCEPT PLAN -SE(zMENT F
'"
. ,
.------~-.
.. ..
j
5.0 COIlllU1lXTY amn AIID COIOlZ1l'l"&
S.l INITIAL PUBLlC KEETING
On October 25, 1990, a public meeting was held at the Palo Alto
senio~ center tor the purpose of providirJq a.n opportuni ty for the
public to learn more about the studY$ and comment on the initial
concaptual plan ter the bicycle boulevard extension. The initial
conceptual plan presented, for discussion purposes, was described
in the previous chapter of this report and summarized as Ta~le 5.1.
The meeting was organized in a workshop format, which included a
qeneral presentation, qucl3tions for claritic'3tlon, and small group
discussions 'With comments rec~Ided on newsprint. This was followed
~y a period for public comment and completion of a written response
form. A professional consultant was hired to serve as a
tacilitato~ for the meeting.
A meeting notice vas sent to nearly 1,900 area residents and other
interested persons. Approximately 65 people attended the three
hour meeting. While there we~e obvious and qenuine differences of
opinioh &mong the meetinq participants regarding the need for the
e~ending the bicycle boulevard, as vell as the manner of doing it~
there was a qeneral sense that the partiCipants gained a better
understanding of tha proposed project; and their comments provided
valuable input for further evaluation and consider-.ation. Included
as Appendix B is a copy of the Jileetinq notice~ agenda, handout
material&~ and a summary of comments from the meeting.
5.2 SUMI'.ARY OF SELECTED SMAI.L GROUP COMMENTS
It is certainly prOblemati~~ if not impossible, to summari%e the
esserlce of a broad, diverse, sometimes cvntradictory, set of publi.c
comments and responses into a few brief cateqorical statements.
However, notwithstanding the difficulty and potential inadequacy~
this section attempts to c~pture the general intent of the public
ccmments and CGncerns, as they relate most directly and siqnifi
cantly to the design and man ... er in which the bicycle boulevard
extension project would be implemented. The reader is advised that
a more comprehensive set of COI!llDE!.nts from the public meeting' is
provided as part of Appendix B.
Segment A
• qeneral concern
associated with
Churchill
about visibility
removal of stop
27
.e.nd speed problems
sign on Bryant at
TAllLIl 5.1
SDlOlAR~ OES::R1PTION OF rNITrAL CONCEPl'UAL PIAN
S..",ent A -
S""""ent B -
segment c-
S_ant D -
seqment E -
remove ex!.sting Ii top signs on Bryant
Waverley; n~ changes to on-street parkinq.
at
fiva alternatives; two with traffic aiqnal and
an associated street closure: t~~ with traffic
siqnal and selective traffic flow probibiticn.
no strQet closure; and one with aelactive
traffic flow prohibitions but no traffic s1qnal.
remove existinq s~op 5i~ on Bryant at
Kingsley: street closure, it required, located
betwe$n Lincoln and Addison: remove stop signs
on Bryant a.t Addison; add new stop siqns on
Che.nning and Romer at Bryant: no changes to on
street parking.
no changes to existinq conditlons~ inclu4ing no
chanq98 to on-street parking.
re.oye existing stop signs on Bryant at
Bavthorne.; add new atop SigllS on Hawthorne at
Bryant: remove .top siqn on Bryant at Poe: no
Chanqes to on-street parking.
remove existing bike lanes a10n; Waverley;
restore on-street parking-along Wave.rley: extend.
bike lane. on Adclison (Waverley to Bryant),
including parking prohibition {7 a.a. to 7 p.m.)
OJ'!. one side of Addison; remove bike lanes on
Churchill (Waverley to Bryant) and r~store
on-street parking; extend bilee lanes on
Coleridqe (Waverley to Bryant) includinq parkinq
prohibition (7 a.a. to 7 p .•. J on one side of
Cole-ridge.
28
.. <
,
~ ....
~ '"
r
<"
"
""
~, ,
~
"' e
""
\;
C"' -
~
<#
'7"
'J
)_ ....
~
~
~ '",
r ~~;;,;:
~
, ...
r I> ,
~
r'
~ '--L -. };:-
~
'-
g , , , 3
~
:J
g
g
0
J
III
.I
~
~ ..
oJ
"f ..
:J
" J -1 , --,
.J
-, , -
i
. ..::
---"'---.--_ .. _-,---
• concern about children crossing Bryant at Churchill on
way to/trom Palo Alto High School
• visibility of existing barrier (ae Lo~ell) is not very
qood, particularly at niqht
Segment B
• concern reqardin~ delay ~nd related consequences that a
!leW traftio: signal viI! create fer traffic on Embarcadero
• if a new traffic signal is installed at Bryant, consider
removal of the existing traffic signal at Waverley
• ;;rovision of lett turn lanes on Embarcadero resel t in
narroW lanes which are less safe for &wtomobiles and
bicycles
• alternatives with roaoway channelization and turn
prohibitions create unexpected# confusinq and less safe
conditions for automobiles and bicycles: particularly at
night
• left turns from Embarcadero to Bryant should be permitted
• non-signalized alternative should be tested, before a
final commitment is made to a traffic s19na1
• need to consider other non-signalized elternatives
• concern th~t retuqe area/island tor non-signalized
intersection be SUfficient to provide adequate security
and net a false sense of safety; sufficient for multiple
bicycle.s of varying configurations, as 'Well as
pe:,aestrians
• concern that alternatives that prohibit selective tra.ffic
movements at Embarcadero will cause more traffic: in
adjacent residential ~eiqhborhoods
• consider removal of a feW" on-street parkinq spaces on
Bryant at Embarcadero Road in order to facilitate tUrns
fro~/to Embarcad~ro; relocate existinq majl box
• bicycle boulevard should detour to waverle)' traffic
signal, and then either continue along Waverley or
detour back to Bryant
Segment C
• concern about removal of on-&treet parking
• general concern about visibility and spe.ed problems
associated with removal of .st.op signs; visihility exiting
from Whitman Court
2'
..
•
•
•
•
•
•
iBtop signa on Ho.ar and Chan....,ing at Bryant will stop
tr6~~ic on a collector .treet
potential ebanges to p~ facilities must ~ con5idered
Protes.orville 1a a recognizea histori~ neighborhood and
needs to be protected
street closure desiqn should complement architectural
cllaracter ot historic neighborhood.
a street cloBure will block fire trucks as well as access
to PAKF Urgent Care Center (UCC); consider a sinqle one
way barrier or t'Wo Beparated one-way ba.rriers in order to
maintain access to the vee
.. treet closure will divert traffic to ether streets
including waverley and Ramona
consider use of road bumps instead of a street closure
Segment 0
• potential conflicts are hiqhest due to traffic volumes,
bikes, parking, drivevays# pedestrians, ~nd qeneral
activity
• the three traffic signals along B:ryant should be timed to
favor Bryant traffic
• concern about any potential reduction of on-str-eet
parking
• varied opinions regardinq diagonal versus parallel
parking
• conflict between bikes and autos using the Civic center
garage
30
., "".." • t '_
" !
.~
~ -' ,-
...
j' -
r ..
C
C
C
C
i'i
U
I"
Ioi
-! ..
J
5.3
Seql!1ent E
•
•
conside.r stree';. closure. on Palo Al to Avenue and on Bryant
concern about visibility at Palo Alto/Bryant
intersection, Hawthorne/Bryant intersection, as well as
the approach to the bicycle/pedestrian bridge crossing
San Francisquito Creek
Seql!1ent F
•
•
concern about removal of on-street parking on Addison and
Coleridge (Waverley to Bryant Street), to accommodate
extension of bike lanes from Waverley to Bryant
restoration of on-street parking or. waverley is good
SUMMARY OF OPEN FORUM COMMENTS
The comments presented durin1 tbe open c'OmJQent period ot the
meeting re~lected the broad diversity among a qroup comprised of
strong advocat~s, e~~allf strong opponents, and some in between.
As such, it is not pos~ible to further qeneralize their statements
in a manner that responsibly reflects the seriousness and intensity
of their support and opposition. The reader is referred to the
summary of open forum comments provided 8S part of Appendix B.
5.4 SUMMAAY OF WRITTEN RESPONSE FORMS
At the end of the public meeting, ths participants were asked to
complete a written response fOIlll incUcatinq their opinion on
various alternatives tor each of the stUdy segments. This item was
placed at the end of the meeting 'With t.he expectation that the
opinions. expressed at that t.ime would reflect a better
understanding of the. proposed bicycle boulevard extension project.
About thirty response forms were submitted. Wnile it is difficult
to accurately s~lIl11ise the extent to 'Which the written responses
were a representative sa~ple of the diversity of the larger group
of meet.ing participants, a review of the data suggests a bias in
tavo~ of individuals who are mildly to strongly supportive of the
propos.d bicycle boulevard extension. Therefore, it is
inappropriate to interpret or extrapolate the numerical indications
a$ representing the diversity an~ intensity of opjnion among the
larger qrC"',Jp of meeting participa.nts. However, the 'Written
response forms do provide an additional source of information that
.. arrants consideration in the further evaluation and de:velopment of
a recommended plan for the extension of the bicycle boulevard.
"-----
~ -
I
L
I
!
S_nt A:
Se<pHnt B:
S89Jt.ent c:
Se9lll"nt D:
. .
Support for re.mcval Qf .top siqn& en Bryant
at Churchill.
Support for a neli tra.ffic siqnal at the inte!"
se~tion of Bryant and ~arcadero in conjunction
with a street closurQ turther alonq Bryant,
rather than roadway channelization and turn
prohibitions at ~arcadero.
Support tor reveraal ot stt)P siqr1s at inter
Bection 01 Bryant and Xin9s1ey; removal of stop
.iqn& on Bryant at Addison; and addition ot stop
&igns on Ch&r..ninq and Moaer at Eryant~·
Support tor no changes to the existing conditions
with .ixed feelings about conversion of existing
diaqonal parkinS' to parallel parkl.ng.
Support for reversal of stop aigns
intersection of Bryant and f!a.-thorne, and
of stop Sign on Bryant at P~e.
at the
removal
seqaent F: Support for .rel!Ioval of existing :bike lane and
restoration of on-atreet p:!lrk!nq on Waverlf!Y,
with .ixed feelinq. regarding the extension of
bike lanes on Ac1c1iso!'1 anc1 Coleridge (between
Waverley and Bryant Street), and its associated
on-&treet parkin9 r~&trictions.
•
..
III
I
-J
6.0
This section of the repert is int.-ended to provide evaluative
information for the various issues related to the proposal to
extend the bicycle boulevard. Some of this infonnation was
prepare~ in the early stages of the study, a~d was used to help
screen alterJ'!atives tor the selection of the initial conceptual
plan. Other information was prepared fol1o~inq the initial public
meeting, in order to responsd to issues raised at the meeting: and
provide more complete info~ation, as the project proqresse~.
6.1 SEGMENT A
Segment A starts at Churchill Avenue and extends to, but does not
incl~~e, the Embarcadero Road intersection.
Issues i Dcl ude ~
•
•
•
6.1.1
Potential removal of stop signs on Br .t at Churchill.
Potential chanqes to on-street parkin~, and
potential operational conflict at the castilleja School
drop off/pick up area
potential Rempyal of Stop Signs
At the ~resent ti~e, the intersection o~ Bryant and Chu~chil~ is
controlled as a 4-way stop.-Tbe removal of the existing stop signs
on Bryant would facilitate travel for bicyclists alonl the bicycle
boulevard; thereby, make bicycling a more attractive travel
alternative. Related concerns include visibility at the
intersection, potential higher automobile speeds along Bryant, and
children crossing Bryant at Churchill on their way to/from Palo
Alto High School.
Bicycle counts at this intersection irldicate a 1'learly equal number
of bicyclists on Bryant and Churchill durinq the school related
~orninq (7-9 a.m.) and afternoon (2-5 p.:.) perjods. During other
portions of the day, bicycle usage on Bryant likely exceeds that on
ChurchilL With the I:licycle boulev-~rd exte.nsion in place, and the
corresponding elimination of the existing shi.ft from Bryant to
Waverley at Churchill, bicycle usage of Bryant would turti:ler
increase. Visibility at this intersection is adequate. However,
there is a continuing need to insure that existing vegetation on
the horthw8lit corner is not all:;)wed to obscure adequate sight
distance. The other three earners of the intersection are
relatively open and free of any visual obstructions.
While it is difficult to ~ccurately predict what imp~ct removal of
the stop signs on Bryant at Churchill would have on automobile
))
, .
0.. i~~:,:
-
speeds I the fact that Bryant is closed at Lowell, and thP. tact thAt
speedir.q problems hav. not .aterialized elsewhere along the
.xistinq bicycla boulevard, indicate that $peed proble~s would not
likely dEvelop as a result ot the removal of these particular stop
.. 19110.
Potential Changes to On-street PArking
on-street parking, which is veIl utilized in the area. ilClDediately
adjacent to castillsja School and intenaittantly utilized elsewhere
along this segment, could and should remain as it is at the ~resent
time.
Potential Operotional Conflicts
The ~rimary areas for student drop ctf/pick up at Castilleja School
are the areas of the two semi-circular driveways along Bryant in
front of t!J.e administration building. Existing traffic operational
conditions adjace~t to the sch?Cl, ~hich already include a number
of bicyclists using Bryant Street, would n~t change in any
substantial lDannar, in cor.junction wit.h the extens.ion of the
bicycle boulevard.
Prom a aeetinq with representatives of Castilleja School to discuss
the bicycle boulevard extension, the followin9 primary interests
and concerns emerq~d: (a) support for the need to provide a safer
crossing for pede5tri~ns and bicyclists, Cb) access to th. school
driveway. immediately south of Embarcadero Road should not be
blocked by medians or barrier. alonq Bryant street, Cc) on-street
parkin<J along Bryant, adj acent to the school, should not be
reduced, and Cd) favor intersection alternatives that Would
maintain left turns from vestboUnO Embarcaaero Road to southbound
Bryant. The master plan tha~ is r,ow beinq developed for the school
~as also discussed with the general resolution that little or no
chanqe would occur alonq Bryant, and there was no evident conflict
between the proposed exte.nsion of the bicycle boulevard and chanqes
that vere. being considered in the development of the master plan
fo~ c.stilleja Schoola
Other Concerns
A conce.rn was raised regarding the visibility (particularlv at
night) of the street closure at Lowell. The permanent landscaped
closure that now exists at Lowell was only recently installed as a
replacement tor a lChq-existinq tempor~ry closure. The visibility
of the new permanent closure is be] ieved to be adequate at the
present time.
L
-
-
-
..
Ii
6.1. 5
•
•
•
Conclusions:
Removal ot th.'!: .top signs on Bryant at Churchill is
important to help facilitate bicycle travel along the
bicycle Dou16vard,ana Should be pursued.
If conc~rns about removal of the stop signs on Bryant at
Churchill (as perceived at the preser.t time or as
experienced after the fact) are substantial, the present
retention or future reinstallation or the stop signs is
not a decisive factor that should, in itself, preclude a
decision to extend the bicycle boulevard.
Apart from
Churchill,
related to
boulevard.
SEGMENT B
removal of the stop signs on Bryant. at
there are no other changes in Segl%:;ent A
implementinq the extension of the bicycle
Segment B is the Bryant intersection with Embarcadero Road.
Issues include:
•
•
•
6.2.1
Potential installation of a ney traffic signal,
Suitability of existing non-signalized. inte.rsection, and
General design configurations (roadway channelization and
traffic floy restrictions) for siqnalized and non~
siqnalized inte4section control alternatives.
Potertial Installation of a New Traffic Signal
The purpose of a proposed ne'W traffic sign-\\l at the int.ersection of
Bryant and .Eml::>arcadero Road is to provide bioyclists W'ith a
controlled, safe, and convenient ~eans to cross Embarcadero. The
lack of a traffic siqnal at this intersection is a major impediment
to the use of the Bryant as a throuqh route to downtown Palo Alto,
or 'travel to Menlo Park. Embarcadero is a major street that
carries OVe~ 22,000 vehicles per day, and crossing Embarcadero ac
Bryant, without benefit of a traffic siqnal, 1s particularly
difficult during the morning and evening commute periods.
~ddinq a new traffic signal at Bryant and Embarcad~ro~ however~ is
not without related consequences~ The neW' traffic signal could and
vould be electronically interconnected with the existing traffic
signal at Waverley and Embarcadero, 4nd ope.rationally coordinated
so as to eliminate the ne~d for traffic on Emb~rcadero Road to stop
at both traffic signals. By subordinating the operation of the
35
•
.. 1 , ,. , .
, '
--------"-._._------.....
Bryant traffic siqnal to the operation of the Waverley 51qna1, it
i8 possible to minimize (albeit not eliminate) tt-~e adverse effects.,
to, a point of little or no consequence~
The addition ot a ne~ traffic signal at Bryant and Embarcadero is
expected to have the follo~inq effects:
';." .
• The amount of traffic on Embarcadero Road that would be
required to stop at ~ traffic signals throughout the
entire day, includinq the peak period! of traffic flow,
is minim.al.
•
•
SOIDe additional amount of traffic: on Embarcadero 'Would be
required to stop at one traffic siqnal (at either Bcyant
.2l: Waverley). Throuqhout the entire day" the averi"-re
incr&aae could reach 6 percent (one vehicle per cycle),
w:t .. ile during the peak. perioos of tro!l!ffic .tlow, the
average increase could reach 10 percent (tour Vehicles
per cycle).
The new traffic signal at Bryant would qive ft continuous
green siqnal indication t~ traffic on Embarcadero, except
when traffic (bicyclists, pedestrians, vehicles) is
detected on Bryant. Wllen the presence of traftic is
detected on Bryant, the interruption to traffic ~low on
Embarcadero would then be coordinated with the operation
of the traffic signal at Waverley.
• The installation of a new tr~ftic siqnal at Bryant would
benefit pedestrians and bicyclists by providinq them -wl"J1
a protected peri~ in which to safely cross Emb~rcadero.
•
•
6.2.2
Previously, a request was made to the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District to evaluate the impact that
the new traffic signal ~ould have on air quality. Based
upon the results of that evaluation, the expect~d
increase in stopped Vehicles would have no significant
affect on ~ir quality.
Figure 6.1 provi~es an illustrative exampla of how the
flow -Qf traffic on ·Embarcadero "'oulcl be changed with the
installation of a new traffic signal at Bryant.
suitability of th!! Existing Non-signalized Intersection
One of the primary concerns raised in opposition to the extension
of the bicycle boulevard has been the proposed installation of a
new tra.ffic signal at Bryant and Embarcad.ero. conversely, the lack
of a traffic siqnal at Bryant is viewed by proponents as the
primary impediment to the extension of the bicycle bouleva~d. The
preceding section discussed some of tt-e overall operational
36
",,~:,:, .
r
,.
•
....
r
r
I
j ..
J
]
j
•
B. Westbound
C. EaSIl>"'IO<t..~~sl
FIGURE S.l
TRAFFIC PROGRESSION DIAGRAM
37
i -
f
j r
!
I
I
"--'....'
"'.c .... .....-----'",: -... . . t~~;~~.
'-' . r
-
-
consequences on traffic flow on Embarcadero. This section
discusses the overall suitability, or lack thereot, tor the
existing non-signalized intersecti~n at this location. Subsequent
sections discuss the specific features and c~latea consequences fer
several intersection ~lternatives, s19nali7.e~ and non-signalized.
Embarcadero Road is a four lane art~rial roadvay carrying in excess
of 22,000 vehicles Fer day. This volume is similar to the volume
on Alma. (near channinq) ~ twice: the volWEle on Middlefield (near
Channinq), and a little aore than halt the volume on El Camino Real
(at Churchill) and Oreqon-Paqe Kill Expressway (at El Camino Real).
crossing Embarcadero at Bryant, w~thout benefit of a traffic
signal, ia particularly difficult durinq the morning and evening
comaute periods wben traftic vol>.lllies on Embar-cadero reach 2.000
vet~icles per hour (average -one vehicle each 1.8 seconds).
Crossing Embarcadaro is further ~xacerbated by factors such as the
,.,pee.d of traffic along: Embarcadero (85th percentile speed of
37 ~ph), the oblique anqle at which the two roadvays intersect, the
existence of tour lanes of moving traffic (two lanes in ea~h
direction) vith the need to judge all four lanes at one time, and
the lack ot an adequate center refuqe 6rea that would permit the
option or crossing the roadvay in two parts (one-half of the
roadway at ~ tiue). While su~~ conditions are not unique to this
location, they do constitute~ in the aggregate, a set of conditions
that impede rather than facilitate usaqe ot Bryant. Therefore. if
the existinq bicycle boulevard is t~ be extended northward from its
present terminus at Churchill, to and through downtown, ana on to
the existinq bicycle/pedestrian brid-qe across San Francisqui to
Creek into ,Menlo Park, it is necessary to make 50me improvements to
the intersection of Bryant and Embarcadero that would facilitate
crossing Embarcadero. While the nature and deqree ot improv~nt
and facilitation 1s subject to debate~ the unsuitability of the
existing ccnditions for the extension of the bicycle boulevard is
evident, ;and a sufficient basi. for not proceeding 'With the
extension; unless some improvements are aade.
6.2.3 General Intet§e~i9n Design Configurations
This section of the report. discu.sses a repreRentative s~t of
options for makinq improvements to the intersection Of Bryant and
Embarcadero for the expressed purpose of faCilitating bicycl~ (and
pedestrian) crossing of Embarcadero, in conjunction with the
extension of the bicycle boulevar-d. As such, they represent a
basic set of options 91ea~ed from a larqer number of alternatives
representinq nuances and variations that may become importan~ at
the detaile~ design stage, ~ut add an element of confusion at this
stage in the project development and decision making process.
For convenience of identification, the options have been organized
into the followinq four qroupings:
38
-
'". .. -
~
....
" ..
r-
c.
-.
~
~. ..
r
~
-
,-
'v
!""
I
'j I
I
I ,
I
I
2
I
I
..
...I ..
i ...
•
•
•
•
~r9Up QptLon Q (ineludes only Option Q)
Representative of eXisting {1~90) conditions.
Group optioo I (includes Options I-A. I-B. , I-C)
Representative of 4 ne~ traffic signal installation
that permits all or most travel moveoents at the
intersection~
Groyp optian II tinclgdas Options II-A. II-B. , II-C)
Representative of a nev traffic signal installation
that prohihits some or many travel movements at the
intersection.
Group option III (inclydes optioDS III-A. III-B. , III-C}
RepreEentotive
tha t Droh ib its
intersection.
of a ncn-siqnalized intersection
some or many travel movements at th~
Table 6.1 provi~es a summary description of each of the options
presented iT' this section, and Fiqures 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5
provide an illustration of each option.
Traffic diversion from one street to another is probably the 6ingle
most important concern, and is, therefore, a primary consideration
differentlatinq the intersection options~ The ideal solution would
be one that strikes an appropriate ~alance bet~een (a) reducinq
vehicular traffic on the bicycle boulevard and (b) minimizing
increased vehicular tra.ffic on surrounding streets. Table 6.2
provides indicators of projectec2 chanqes in vehicular t~affic
volumes on "two segments /?f 8ryl!nt street, north and south of
Embarcadero Road, and Similarly, two segments of Waverley Street.
Options I-A and I-B represent the "ffects ot adding a traffic
signal without any other measures to restrict travel moveUlents.
The reSUltant volumes reflect the evident added attraction that a
traffic signa.l, by itself, would create. Wnile operationally,
these two options are simple and permit all travel movements, the
vehicula.r volume increases on Brye!nt are substarltial, in and of
themselves, and are inconsistent with the objectives of the l:licycle
boulevard~
Option I-C represents the effect of incorporatinq a street closure
on Bryant. {north of Embarcadero) with a new traffic siqnal. Again,
the operational teatures at the intersection are Simple and permit
all travel movements. rhe point at -which travel movements are
restricted would be located on Bryant street, several blocks north
of Embarcadero. The resultant reduction in vehicular volu..'Ce on
Bryant Street. due to traffic diversion to other streets, is
consistent with the objectives of the bicycle boulevard .
39
. , •
TABLE 6.1
St.'MKARY OESCRIPIION OF INTERSECTION OPTIONS
Group Opt tQr, 0 Existing Conditiops
Option 0 No cbanqe from ext.tinq
Group Option I H~W Traffic Signal/lUll Aceess
Option I-A No street closur~; lett turn pockets on
Embarcadero
Option I-B No street ~losure1 no left turn pockets on
Embarcadero
Option I-C Street closure on Bryant; left turn pockets on
EmbarcacIero
Group Option IX Hev Traffic SignAl/Limited Access
Option II-A Right turn only from Bryant; no street clo5ure;
left turn pockets on Eabarcadero
Option II-B Riqht turn only frem Bryant: no street closure:
no left turn pockets on EmbarcadB~
Option II-C Street closure on Bryant: no lett turn per:.itted
frew Embarcadero
Croup Optipn III No trAffic signal/Limited Access
Option rlI-A Riqht turn only frOll Brya.nt; no street closure:
no left turn fro. Embarcadero: ~ith refuqe
island
Option I.II-B Right turn only froll 8ryant; no stre.et closure:
no le:tt turn froll bbarcadero: no re!u.qa island
Option III-C Right turn only frem Bryant: no street closure;
left turn pockets on Embarcadero
40
. '---.---""--"--.-~-----.
~_",J"Ii¢"'''l"''-_~ ___ ,,.-_ .... __ ~ _. __ . ___ ~
..
W
, EXISTlNG CONtmCINS
NO TRAFFIC SGNAl a NO TURN RSSTFICTlONS -... ,----------
-Tc EI catntnc RIIlJ
OPTION 0
j----------------------------
~
j , ..
"'I
.J
J
FIGURE 6.2
INTERSECTION GROUP OPTION 0
r ;0(--" ',,"" -_.-.-'
F\.U ACCESS SIGNAl.
NO STREET CLOSURE
co_
Q traffic algnal
1659 1274
existIng new 'itHume
vokIme -with .
."amative
... To £1 Camino RMI
OPTION 1-0
... ;0 £1 Clmlnc ANI
OPTION I-A
E ldelO
-1'0 £1 CaItV.o A.' To W&V*'lIIy ...
OPTION 1-8 ~ ..
-I ':.'~'!o
CUt~;a
Soma
FIGURE 6.3
INTERSECTION GROUP OPTION I
42
•
r
L..
r
! ...
i ...
r .... ,..
i..
~
-, ..
t , -
r ..
D
i.·
(-r I,
I
I
:t ,.. :nS.8.·
~
a
, ; "J
')
>,1 ~ "I
i , g
~
a
~
= ; ,
I
~
I
0
~
j
.,
I -..
" ,
oJ
UtvlTED ACCESS SIGNAl.
RIGHT TURN CN.Y
FROM BRYANT
NO STREET CLOSURE
Legend:
.Q: trame slpr\lil
1859 1274
ell'Jsling nttw .... otume
VO<u"" _.,..Ith
allerrlat;vli
Erft:ilarcllOllro
-- ----
-To 'EI C&mlno " .. I
OPTION U-C
c."I\tJ. s_
r "
-T~ £1 Camino F;l(jal
OPTION II-A
OPTION 11-6
Ca~lllGj.
Schooi
To W.~IItIe~ -
UtvlTED ACCESS SIGNAl.
NO LEFT TURNS
FROM a.tIARCADERO
WITH STREET CLOSURE
FIGURE 6,4
INTERSECTION GROUP OPTiON II
43
NO TRAFFIC SIGNAL
FIGHT l\JRN ON\. Y
FROM BRYANT
NO LEFT TURN
FROM~
NO S I FEE I C!.OSI.JI'IE
Leveod:
¢ ""ffi< ~
\659 1274
eJdS\tnaJ new wotume
YOIume -with
Iltemative
-To E I camorw: ~ .. 1
OPTION III-C
~.
•
------_ .... --,,_....:--
OPTION III-A
-To fl Clmmc RM: ~
OPTION 111-8
To W"'~}'_
NO TRAF,.1C SIGNAL
;WHT -fURN ON!. Y
FROM BRYANT
LEFT TURN POCKETS
ON EI.IlARCADERO
NO smEET CLOSURE
FIGURE 6.5
INTERSECTION GROUP OPTION ill
"
r
L
-
r ..
r "';
(1 g
~. ~
~
j
,
•
i -
i
J
.,
Options
0
I-A
I-B
I-C
II-A
II-B
II-C
III-A
III-B
III-C
TABLE 6.2
TRAFFIC vowm; CHANGES
Bryant Bryant Waverley Waverley
N.of hbarc. S,ot Emhflrc. Heot Marc. S.ot Elmbarc.
Y!!l lru; 1 ~ ~ 1 Ylll ~ 1 Ylll In£ 1
1659 1175 4715 3100
2429 +770 +46 1859 +684 +58 3945 -770 -lE 2416 -684 -22
2378 +719 1043 1828 +653 +56 3996 -719 -15 2(47 -653 -21
1274 -385 -23 1425 +250 +21 4773 + 58 • 1 2~50 -250 -8
1350 -309 -19 824 -351 -30 5004 +289 ... 6 3430 +330 +11
1299 -36D -22 794 -381 -32 5055 +340 + 7 3461 +36~ +12
1115 -544 -33 1235 .. 60 + 5 4949 +234 + 5 3040 -60 - 2
9U -740 -45 60. -571 -49 5434 +719 +15 3651 +551 +18
919 -740 -45 604 -571 -49 5434 +719 +15 3651 +551 H8
1350 -309 -19 824 -351 -30 5004 +289 + 6 3430 +330 +11
Notes: Vol'"" volwae of tra" ," '.c
Inc -increment vi~_ terence to existing
, -percent change tram existing traffic
traffic
45
-,----.......... ' ....... "', ...... -............. , .~,-,. ------
\
'.
t -:
I
I
r
-
While the volume change on Waverley is very small, the effect of
the street c]oGura, in this particular option, is to shift some ot
th~ prilllary diversion to Emerson [+120 vehicles/day) ar.d AllDa (+'200
vehicles/ day).
Optlona II-A and II-B represel1t the effect.s of a.ddinq a traffic
.tqnal alon9 with the prohibition of 50~e trav~l ~ovements (at the
interaection itself) to offset the attraction of a new· traffic
signal. Whiie the reduced number of allovable moveme~t& tends to
simplify intersection operation, the roadway channelization on
Bryant 'll.ust be carefully designed in order not to create a
complicating factor tor vehicles turninq lett from Embarcadero to
.&ryant,. in both directions of travel. The r!!s.ultant changes in
vehicular volumes are favorable on Bryant &nd low to moderate on
~~verley.
Option II.-C represents. the effect of incorporating a street clos.ure
on Bryant Cnorth of bbarcadero}, in conjunction with a new
tratf.lc siqnal and. limited turn prohibitions. The opera.tional
teaturu at the inte%'section are simple and permit all travel
'JI.ovements except If'ft tu.rns trom Embarcadero~ The primary point at
which t,ravel I1()Vfllll.ents are restricted. would: be at a street closure
located on Bryant Street, several blocks north of Embarcadero. The
resultant reduction in v~~icular vol~e on Sryant Street, due to
traffic ~iverl!1ion to other streets, is quite tavorable and the
VQluae change on Waverley is lOY. Aqain, however, the effect of
the street clo6ure~ in t~ls particular option Cas in option I-C),
is to ahitt some of the prilllary ctiver5ion to Emer-son l+120
vehiclea/day) and Alaa (+l90 vehicles/day).
Option. 111-& and II1-B represent the effects of a non-slqnalized
intersection with slgnificant prohibition of travel movements at
the intersection. Option II1-A provides an iz~rtant ~efuge area
for bicyclists and pedestrians to cross Embarc4dero i~ tvo parts.
While such I refuge area would need to include a raised isla.nd in
order to provide a reason~ble measure of protection, the
introduction of & raised islan4 on Embarcadero creates an obstacle
within t)".e roal3..,ay that may bave undesirable con&equenc~s for some
passing vehicles. option 11-8 1s a simple open intersection
design. However~ it does not incorporate a refu9~ ar~al and it is
likely that without any physical features to support travel
movement restriction.,. compliance with the speCified prohibitions
would be .inimal, without frequent police enfor-cement. While the
resultant change in vehic~lAr volumes ~or both Option III-A and
II1-8 15 favorable on Bryant, the corresponding volume change on
waverley is undesirable~
Option 1!I-C repr~sents the etfects of a non-signal i.ze~ design 'With
fever prohibitions and a corresponding reduction in the diver9ion
of vehicular volu.e fro'!! Bryant to Waverley. Sicyclist a.nd
pedestrian crossln~ aovements are more complex than Option III-A,
in that they may need to contend vith traffic turninq left from
Embarcadero as well as through traffic.
46
,,:
•
>.
-' ,..
...
-,
-
---~
.,
J
,<;,,'--'
c
other ConsideY§tigos
One consideration that warrants further elaboratiorl, concerns the
provision ot & left-turn pocket on Embarcadero, in conjunction with
a n~w traffic signal. With the addition of a traftic si~als the
provision of a left-turn pocket provides space for left-turning
vehicl~s to wait outside of the main travel lanes, thereby
eliminating unnecessary delays to through traffic and reducing the
potential for r-e.ar end accidents. At this particular intersEctions
the provision of lett turn pockets on Embarcadero would result in
minimal lane widths of 9 feets similar to th05e at waverley. While
it is desirable to have wider lane widths, the provision of left
turn pockets is 1I01'e desirable. Options I-A, I-C and II-A
incorporate lett turn pockets; options 1-6 and 11-8 per.mit left
turns, but do not include a left-turn poclcet; option II-C
prohibits left turns from Embarcadero. Another consideration that
warrants further elaboration concerns the use of raised islands 0,
the use of pavement aarJdnqs to create road'Way channelization
features. The use of raised islands provides a clear indication of
intended use as well as ~ hiqh deq~ee of requl~tory control and
compliance, whereas pavement markings can achieve a similar level
of intended use, but the deqree of regulatory control and
compliance is significantly diainished. On L~e other hand, raised
islands are an u.r:for9ivinq obstacle that can, at times, create
problems for v~icleB as veIl as bicycles and pedestrians, in spite
of the fact that such islands are properly desiqned and
constructed. Pavement markings are much more forqiving at times of
atypica.l or unexpected behavior. Options II-A and II-'8
(.signaliz.edJ and Options III-A and III-C (non-siqnalized) each
include a significant amount of roadway channelization for
directions regulation and compllance~
A third conside~ation that warrants further comment concerns the
potential inclusion of a street closure on 8ryant~ Two options (I
e and II-C) include the use of a street closure on Bryant, seve~al
blocks north of Embarcadero. As for the o~~er options: two (I-A
and 1-5) do not include any travel movement restrictions; and five
(:II-A, II-B., Ill-A, III-B and III-C) focus-the restrictions at
Bryant/Embarcadero. Features comparing the .general effects and
characteristics of a street closure versus intersection
restrictions include the followinq:
•
•
•
street Closure Versys InterBection Restrictione
Amount of traffic diversion is similar
Shift of traf:fic is to iiaverley, Emerson, and Alma rather
than predominantly to Waverley
Operational restrictions and physical obstructions are
locata4 sever-al blocks aw~y from Bryant/Embarcadero,
rather than at the intersection itself
47
,;~.
---::'~-"
," "
~~ .
i
I
I
I-
I
I
,
" '
•
• Any sense of potential neighbcrhood separation associated
with oparational reBtrictions and physical obstructions
viII occur at a nelll' point, within an existing neighbor
hood, rathel" than at a~ existing point of separ-atio:l
created by Embarcadero
Additional information and discussion concerninq a possible straet
closure on Bryant is presented in Section 6.3.3.
•
•
•
•
•
Conclusions:
While the nature and deqree o~ improvelIIent at the
intersection of B!yant and Embarcadero is sul:lject to
debate, the unsuitability o~ the existing conditions for
the extension of the bicycle boulevard is evident and
sufficient basis for not proceeding with the extension,
unless some improvements are made.
A traffic siqnal could be installed to greatly tacilitate
bicycle and pedestrian crossing of Embarcadero with
little (albeit some) consequence on traffic flo~ (stops,
delay), and no significant erfect on air quality~
However" pre<!:icted traffic attract~d to Bryant,
attributable to a new traffic signal, would likely be
sufficient to require ope~ati~nal restrictions at either
the intersection itself or internal to the adjacent
neiqr.borhOO<i.
A non-aiqnallzed improvement could be made to facilitate
bicycle and pedestrian crosslnq of Embarcade:--o; however,
operational restrictions would be required at the
intersection, and the resultant safety aspects are
somewhat problematic.
Extending the bicycle boulevard is :best. achiaved by
installing ill; new traffic signal at Bryant e:nd
Embarcadero, in qeneral conformance with either: Option
II-A (new traffic signel, riqht turn only from Bryant,
left-tUrn pockets on Zmtarcadero, and no street closure
on Bryant) or option I-C (new traffic 5ignal~ full
access~ l~ft-turn pockets on ~3rcadero, and a street
closure on Bryant)~
If installation of a new traffic ai9'nal proves to be
unacceptable, ill non-siqnali~ed improvement could be
pursued ih qeneral conformance with Option III-C (no new
traffic signal, right turn only from Bryant, left-turn
pockets on Embarcadero,. and no street closure on Bryant) ~
However, the resultant situation would be one that tenas
to encourage and concentrate hicyclists and pedestrians
in the middle of Embarcadero with two lanes of traffic
passing by on both sides. In such • 51 tuation, there
would be little margin for misjudgment or error, and the
resultant consequences of any misjudqment or error are
potentially quite severe.
48
po ,
\.:
r-
~~ .. , i ... ,
C l --~
!
,.
~ -, -
-' ..
...
'-..
.;.
j
j
i
J
.,
)
..,
i
6.3 SEGMENT C
Segment C starts at Embarcadero ~~ad {excluding the intersection)
and extends up to Forest Avenue.
Is§u§s include~
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
6.3.1
potential reversal of stop aiqns at Kinqsley, from Briant
to Kingsley,
Potential re~oval ot stop signs on Bryant at Addison,
Potential street closure plac~ent and design,
Potential additio~ of stop sign on Channing at ~ryant,
potential additional stop ~iqn on Homer at Bryant,
Potential changes to on-street parkinq, and
Effects and potential change& to the PAMF~
potential Reyersal of Stop Signs at Kingsley Avenye
At the present time, tbe intersection of Bryant and Xinqsley is
controlled as a 2-way Btop~ with stop siqns on Sryant but no stop
signs on Kingsley. The reversal of the stvp Signs, from Bryant to
Kingsley, would facilitate travel for bicyclists along the bicycle
boulevard; thereby make bicycling ill more att~active travel
alternativ.~ other stop siqns along Kingsle:y are located one block
east at waverley and two blocks west at Emerson Street. Reversal of
the stop signs would have only ill minimal eff"ect on Kingsley
traffic. Visibility at the intersection is adequate and the
existing drair.aqe dip in the pavement structure across Bryant 'near
the lti~sley intersection) 'Would. serve to moderate travel speeds
alonq Bryant.
•• 3.2 Potential Rgmoval of stop Signs at Addispn Avenue
At the present time, the intersection of Bryant and Addison is
contrOlled as ill ."'-way stop. The removal of the existing stop 5iqns
on aryant would facilitate travel for bicyclists along the bicycle
boulevard; thereby make bicycling ill more attractive travel
alternative. Other stop signs along Addison are locate~ one block
w~st at waverley and one block east at Emerson Street. Visibility
at the intersection is adequate.
49
' ..
6" J" J potentia] Street clQs~~e Placement aed pesign
Tvo of th~ nine options (I-C and II-C) include the use of a street
closure on Bryant, several blocks north of Embarcadero. Previous
cliscusaiQn in Section 6 • .2'.3 concerned the traftic diversion and
related effects of a stre-9t closure 0:1; Br:r·a.:..t Street. Ttda. Ciu-ctivl'l
discus~es the placement and design a3pecta o~ a street closure, if
an option that includes a street closure, is ultimately selected as
the most appropriate ~eans fer implementatior:: of the bicycle
boulevard.
Possible placement of a street closure along' Bryant inclUded
consideration of: (a) the presence of the designated Professorville
Bistoric District, (:b) the boundaries of the historic district, (e)
transition fron residential to non-residential land use, (d) access
to the Urqent care center, (e) minimizing U-turns at the closure,
(l) presence of driveways, utilities ~nd other limitinq features,
(g) side yard versus front yard exposure to street Closure, and (h)
proximity to Embarcadero and related traffic disper5ion~
Several alternative locations for placement of a street closure
along Bryant, as illustrated in Figure 6.6, include the following:
• Location A: Zone boundary between Channing And Addison
A.t neighborhood boundary: .idbloc)c. three
cross streets from Embarcadero; lillLited
curb space.
• Location 8: Bryant/Addison. north itd!! of AddisQn
Side yard frontage; internal to
neiqhborhood; en4 of block; at south end
of block: three cross streets from
Embarcadero; adequate curb space.
• Location c: ~nt/Addison. sPUth Bide of Addison
In front of one residence; internal to
neighborhood; end of block; at north end
of blcck; t'W'O cross streets from
Embarca~ero; adequate curb space.
• Location 0: Bryant/LinColn. north side of Lincoln
Side yard frontage; internal to
neiqhbcrhood; end ot block; at south end
of block: two cross .treats from
Embarcadero; pdequate cur-b space; three.
Pacific Bell vaults would: require
placement of str~et closure away froll!
intersection, ending' up in front of one
residence~
50
.1 _-.t....
"-
o Location A: Zone boundary betveen Channinq a.nd AcIc1ison
o Location B: Bryant/Addison, north side of Addison
o Location c: Bryant/Addison, south side of Addison
o Loca:tion 0: Bryant/Lincoln, north side of Lincoln
o Loc.etion E: Bryant/Lincoln, south side of Lincoln
...
FIGURE 6.6
LOC .... TIONS FOR POSSIBLE STREET CLOSURE .,
51
i ,
i "
I,
i -" ." ..... r !.
t .
j ": ".
I -~; " l "
t~
r
I
--... ~--
ii::," . ",,-~,--;,
'-;~-':"
•
._. _z ... _
Location E: u:nnt/Lipcoln. §ollth.. side of Lin~
In front of one residencoe.; internal to
neighborhood; end o! ~lock; at north end
ct block; one cross street from
Embarc4dero; adequate curb s~ce.
All other things being equal $ consideration of alternative
locations tor a possible street closure favors:
• Street closure adjacent to side yards r~ther than front
yards: th~reby, being somewhat less visually intrusive.
• Street closure at neighborhood boundary rather than
internal to a neiqhborhood, thereby minimizing any sense
of separation.
• Street closure at end of block rather than midblock;
thereby, red.ucing pZ'opensity of drivers (in one
direction) to enter a closed street and having to turn
around.
• Street closure at the south end of a bloc): rather than at
the north end o~ the bloc!c, thereby reducil'lq the
propensity of drivers to enter 8: closed street and having
to turn around; such an event is Jliore likely to occur
with drivers turning from Embarcadero and heading north
on Bryant, than for drivers leavirl9 the downtown artlla and
heading south on Bryant.
• street elosure at location where multiple rather than a
single cross street is available for dispersion of
traffic; thereby, reducinq the traffic impact on anyone
street~
• Street closure ~t location where there are no major
underqround utility vaults; the cost involved in
alte-rating such locations is generally SUfficient to
preclude further consideration as a viable location.
• Str~et closure at location where adequate curb space is
available. (a:b.sent driveways) to accommodate size and
r~lated desiqn features.
If a str6et closure is included 85 part of implementing the
proposed ~xtension~ its desiqn should reflect sensitivity to~ and
be consi&tent with~ the historical design character of the
residential ne.iqhborhood. While suc::h a desiqn has not been
prepared, it is reasonable to ~gsume that by working with
representatives fro~ the residential .neiqhborhood.~ the Historic
Resources Board., and the Architectural Revie.w Board, an appropriate
design for a street closure could be created.
52
.r,
j
B
j , ..
.,
....
...
j ,
From a meeting with a resi~ent of the pro!essorville neiqhborhood,
who 1s also a member of the Historic Resources Board, to discuss
the bicycle boulevard extension, and the location 3nd deGi~n of a
possible street closure, the follow-inq points emerged: (a) any
3treet closure is incompatible with the historic character of the
neiqhborhood~ (b) efforts are beinq made to expand the dofinition
of tha hls~oric district beyond presently established boundaries,
ec) there has alreadY' been too much disruption tv the original
neighborhood grid system (closures on Melville and Xinqsley)~ (d'
any changes in traffic patterns within the neighborhood would be
less acceptable than modest increases in eXisting traftic, and (e)
the neiqhborhood's orientation is more toward downtown, therefore
a street closure within the neighborhood is more undesirable than
restZ:'icted ll'Ovements at the intersection of Bryant and Embarcadero.
6.3.4 potential stop sign on Channing Avenue and/or Homer
Avenue
At the presene time~ Bryant at both Channing and Homer is
controlled as a 2-way stop; stop signs on Bryant at b?th locations.
Channing is a tvo lane one-way (eastbouna) street with a traffic
Volume ot 5,000 Vehicles per day.. Homer is a similar two lane one
way (w-estbound) 5treet that also carries 5,000 vehicles per day.
Together, they form a two-way c~uplet serving e~st-west travel.
Pl.scemerrt of an additional stop sign 00 Channing: and/or Homer
(maintaininq stop signs on Bryant) "'ould facilitate travel for
bicyclists a.long the bicycle boulevard by making it easier and
safer to cross Channing and/or HOlroer. In addition., it 'Would
address some e.xisting Vehicular and pedestrian safety rela.ted
issues at these intersections. Howev~r, it would require all
traffic on Channing and/or Ho~er to stop, with resultant
consequences similar to those experienced. at s.top siqn
installations throughout the city.
Other proximate intersaction controls along Channing incluQe &top
signs located three blocks ~e$t at High, and a traffic signal one
block east at Waverley. Other proximate intersection controls
a.lonq Homer include stop signs locate~ t~o Dlocks ~est at ~erson,
and one block east at waverley Street.
While consideration was given to the possibility of removing the
existinq stop signs on Bryant at Channing and/or Homer, in
CQojun,,-t.ion with the placeme.nt of new stop signs on Channing and/or
Homer, the conclusion is that the volume and character of traffic
flow on beth Channing and Hamer, in relation to that on Bryant, is
such that it 'Would be operationally unwise and potentially unsafe
to give a low volume ~treet precedent over a higher volume street.
'I'he placement of additional stop signs on Channing and/or Homer is
not a decisive factor that should, in itself, preclude a decision
to extend the bicycle boulevard~ Irrespective of whether tile
extension is implemented, however, continuing concerns
5)
»-" <: .... ~"
.. ' ".;': ~:~: . . i'
about vehicle and. pedestril.n cafety st both intersections lIay
re8ult in a future recommendation to install stop signs at ~~ese
tvo locations.
Potential Chang9§ to On-St,'eet forkins
on-street parki:r:g is fully utilized alon<] the portion of Bryant
from Addison north to Forest, and intermittently utilized alonq the
~rtion .from Addison south to ElIlbarcade.ro.. There is no evident
n.ad to alter existinq parking ·::onditions along this segment ot
Bryant in order to implement the extension of the bicycle
boulevard; therefore I none are proposed~
6.3.6 Effects ond Potential Changes to the PAMl
Zftorts regarding plans to conaolid~te and expand facilities of the
P~lo Alto Medical Foundation are on-goin9, and likely to continue
for some time. It is unlikely, nor is it necessary, that the
detailed plans of the PAMF will be fully resolved before reaching
a decision regardinq implementation af the bicycle boulevard
extension~ While the~e is .o~e relationship between the proposed
extension of the bicycle boulevard and. changes to the PAMF
f~cilltle8~ accomD04ation ot the bicycle boulevard within .ny PAMF
desiqn a1tarnative is achievable.
Early concepts for the PAMF project included the possibility that
eo one. hlock. portion of 8ryant ('between Channinq and HO"'Iler) vould. be
closed as a through city street and converted into a pedestrian
walkway, an4 possibly a parking qarage aC~esa dr1veway~ Current
approvals for the project include a provision that this one block
portion of Bryant remain a through city street. Suitable provision
for incorporating the needs or safe bicycle passaqe through this
area will be incluaed durinq the detailed design development and
review of the PAMF project~
At the present time, no special provisions are required or proposed
for the extension of the bicycle boulevard on this portion of
Bryant.
~.3.7 Qth~r Concerns
A concern vali raised about tbe street closure beinq unsiqhtly.
There are a variety of street closure de$lgns in place on a number
of Palo Alto streets~ Some of them being more attractive than
other... If a street closure is included as part of • .:.be
iza.pll$e.ntation of the proposed extension, its desiqn should. reflect
the historical ch~racter of the neighborhood.. By work.ing with
representa.tives frOID the re.sidential nei9h.borhood.~ the Historic
Resources Board, and the Arcbitectural Review-Board, an appre-.priate.
desiqn for a street cloyure could be Cre&ted~
54
• >
r ....
j
j
j
"'l -,
..J
A concern was also raised about addition~l bi~e route signs that
would ~ needed alonq aryant, if the proposed extension is
implemented. While there 'Would be a need for ad.ditional signs,
there would be a correspon~ing decrease in signs alo~g Waverley.
In addition., special efforts could bE:: purs'..Jed to irwestigate ways
that such signs could, a.t le:tst in part, reflect the historic
cha~acter of the neighborhood.
A. concern was expressed about accessing the dO'Wntown business
district. Given the: multiplicity ot origin and destinations of
both the r~sidential end and business district end of trips, as
well as the multiplicity of r-o'Utes that 'Would still exist, ..... jth
either a street closure on Btyant or restricticns at the
intersection of Bryant and Embarcadero, the n~er of persons who
might be anything :more than marginally inconvenienced would be
small, and limited to those pe~sons living in very close proximity
to tt,e street closure or intersection restrictions.
A concern 'Was expressed about .blockage of access for emergency
Vehicles to the PAMF Urgent Care Center in particular, as ~ell as
general access for fire trucks. A suggestion was also made to
consider tvo one-way barriers that would. allow free passage o.f
emergenC)" vehicles. Related considerations include the tollo'Winq:
• The type of se.rvice provided by the vee does not
generally involve emergency care,
• With a street closure on Bryant or restrictions at the
inte~section of Bryant and Embarcadero, the vee would
remain readily accessible via multiple alternate routes,
•
•
•
Access for emergency vehicles throuqh a street closure is
an int9qral part of the design of all street closures.
This is important for fire, police, and other emergency
services, as well as other types of public services~
The use of only a single one-way barriE'.r in the outbound
direction from the UCC, so as not to impede access to it,
and the use of two o~e-way ~arriers in staggered
posit:ions to permit elllet"qency Vehicles to pass around
them. was considered. While such installations -would
maintain existing emergency v~hicle access, e~erience
indicates that there yould be an unacceptably high level
of violation by non emerqency vehicles, thus neqating the
purpose of the street closure. While it would be nice to
believe otherwise, people consciously and unconsciously
disregarr:l regulatory measures, fer 'Which there are Ii ttle
or no physical controls.
Experience 'With emergency vehicles and services with
existing street. closure.s in other neighborhoods,
indicates that there have been no serious problems. This
is likely due in large part to the fact that emergency
vehicle drivers are .. ell trained ... knowledgeable about any
closures or restrictions, and familiar with alternate
routes.
55
.'
Finally, a aU9'Qestion vas mada to consider more than one atreet
cIo_ure. While the purpose and location ot an additional street
closure in this 8e~nt is unclear, ~ne of the guiding principles
ot this study has been to create an extension of the bicycle
boulevard th~t tacilitates and encou~aq~a bicycle use and travel,
without creatinq unnecessary or unacceptable ch~~qe8 to existing
traffic volumes, travel patterns, and neiqhborhood C'obe&ion. While
the use: ot lIIore than one st.reet closure in this segment would
further reduce vehicle traftic on Bryant Street, such a reductio~
i~ not necessary tor the bicycle boulevard extension and. the
related eft~cts and costs are, therefore, unacceptable.
6.3.8 Conclu§iong:
eo Reversal of the eXisting stop siqns troD Bryant to
Kingsley would facilitate bicycle travel with little or
no r~lated consequences, and should be implemented~
• Removal ot
(retaininq
facilitate
the existi~ stop signs on Bryant at Addison
existing stop slqns on Addison) would
bicycle travel, and shculd be implemented.
• If the implementation of the bicycle boulevard is to
include a street closure on Bryant, the preferred site is
Location A at the boundary of the residential
np.ighborhood. Alternate sit~s (Location B and Locati~n
0) are equally effective for ill!plementation of the
bicycle boulevard, and could be used, it prefErred, by
residents.
• Placement of additional stop signs. on Channi:l9 at Bryantr
and on Homer at Bryant, yould no~ only facilitate travel
fer tdcycliElts., but would also address some exlstinq
vehicular &nd pedestrian safety related issues at the5e
two Inter8~ctions, Bn4 therefore should be implemented~
6 • 4 SEGKENT 0
Segment 0 st~rts at Forest Avenue and extends throuqh the downtown
business district to Lytton Avenue.
I&suPCi include:
• Potential conversion ot on-street diagonal parking to
parallel parking, and
• potential coordination of traffic signals along Bryant to
facilitate bicycle traval.
56
•
J ..
.J
J
.., ,
6.4.1 Pgtential Conversion qt On-Street Diagonal Porking
At the present tim6, there are 51 diagonal on-street parking spaces
along various portions of ~;is segment (Forest to Lytton).
Conversion of these parking $p~ces from diagonal to parallel ~ould
result in a total of 38 parallel parking space$~ or a net reduction
of 19 on-street parking spaC~6.
The purpose of considering cGnvertinq on-st~eet parkinq from
di~qonal to parallel ~ould b~ to addrass a concern that parallel
parkin9 provides a safer environment for bicyclists than diagonal
parking. The question i5 one of whether a bicyclist's exposure ~nd
risk is more severe Erom vehicles unexpectedly back~nq out into the
traffic lane (diagonal parking), ~~&n from drivers or passengers
unexpectedly opening vehicle doors on the traffic sid.e of the
vehicle (parallel parkinq)~ While there ar& ~iftering opinior.s
amonq ~icyclists and non-bicyclists, actual experience in Palo Alto
suqqe.ts that existing diaq~nal parking, within the downtown
business district , creates no inherently more severe or less safe
environment for bicyclists. Without convincing evidence to the
contrary, t.h9 opportunit.y to fore,:!o the loss. of 19 o!".-street
parking spaces, that would result fro~ convertinq existing diagonal
parklnq to parallel parking, is significant and, therefore, no
change to existing parking i~ warranted.
6.4.2 Potential coordination sf Traffic Sianals
At the present ti~e, all of the traffic signals within downtown are
fixed time, interconnected and coordinatea to provide prefe~ential
progression in th~ peak direction of traffic ~lo~ in the east-west
direction lalGnq Lytton, University. and Hamilton), with little or
no progression aChievable for tr~ffic flc~ en the cross $treets in
the north-south direction.
While it is theoretically possible to provide p~ogression through
th~ three traffic signals for traffic on Bryant Street, the
relSul ting adv~rse consequences on traftic flow in the east-west
d.ire~tion WDuld be siqnificant and unacceptable. The ~xistin9
traffic signal operation ~lon9 Bryant through downtown is ad~quQt~
for the mix of Vehicular, bicycle, and pe~estrian traffic that is
present. ana is reasonably suitable for the extension of the
bicycle boulevard.
6.'.3 oth~r Cance rns
While a concern was raised regardinq potential conflicts between
bicycles on Bryant and automo~iles usinq the Civic center parkinq
garage, there is nO evidence th~t this is B serious problem, and no
action is contemplated at the present time.
57
6.4.4
•
•
•
6.5
, .
.....,...;---_ ...
Conclusions:
The conv~rsion of exi..stinq on-street diagonal parking to
parallel parking, vith its concomitant lODs of 19 parkinq
ap~ce3, is nat warranted.
The timing ot traffic siqnals (progression) to facili tate
flow alonq aryant througb the downtown business district
~ould have significant and unacceptable consequences on
traffic rlow 1n the east-west direction, and, therefore
is not warranted.
In sum:a.ary, no changes are required in Segment D for
implementation of the extension of the bicyc::le boulevard.
SEGHEN'l' E
segment E starts at Lytton Avenue, extends along Bryant St~eet to
Palo Alto Avenue, and then proceeds along a one block section of
Palo Alto Avenue to the eXisting bicycle./pedestrian bridge crossing
San Francisquito Creek.
Issues include:
6.5.1
• Potential reversal of stop signs at Hawthorne, from
Bryant to Hawthorne,
• Potential removal of a stop sign on Bryant at Poe, and
• Potential changes to on-street parking.
Ppt@ntiAl Reversal of Stop Signs at Hawthorne Avenue
At present, the intersection of Bryant and Hawthorne is controlled
as a 2-way stop, with stop siqns on Bryant but no stop siqns on
Hawthorne. Hawthorne is a two lane two-way street with a traffic
volume of 2,000 to l,neD Vehicles per day.
Reversal ot the stop signs trolll Bryant to Hawthorne, would
.fiPcilitate travel for bicyclists alonq the bicycle boulevard.;
thereby, making Di~rclinq a more attractive travel alternative.
However, it would require all traffic on Hawthorne to stop, with
resultant consequences similar to those experienced at stop sign
installations elsewhere throughout the city.
other proximate int.rsection controls along Bawth~rne include stop
signs located one block east at waverley and two blocks west at
be.rson Street~ Visibility at the intersection is aciequate.
58 !'" , ..
-'.-,~~,-, ,"~'-"-'-~" "',, .. .,: .................. .
,-,
j
i
:J .. , ... -,
6.5.2 PQtential Removal of 0 Stop Sign at poe Street
Praaently, the intersection of Bryant and Poe is controlled with
one stop siqn on Poe Street and one stop siqn on Bryant Stre~tl in
only the northbound direction (there is no stop siqn on Bry&nt in
the southbound direction). In very close proximi~y, Palo Alto is
con~rolled by a atop &iqn at Bryant in the eAstbound direction, ~ut
no correspondinq step siqn in westbound direction.
Removal ot the stop s19n from Bryant (northbo1.lnd) at Poe wou::'d
facilitate travel for bicyclists alonq the bicycle boulevard;
thereby, making bicycling a m~re attractive travel alternative.
6.5.3 Potential Changes to On-Street P0rking
On-street parkinq, is tully utilized along the portion of Bryant
trom L¥tton north to Ha~~orne, and intermittently utilized along
th2 portion from Hawt-~orne to san Francisquito Cree~. There is no
evident need to alter existing parking cond.itions along this
serpzle.nt cf Bryant in order to implement the bicycle boulevard:
extension; therefore, no changes are proposed.
6.5.4 Other concerns
Concerns 'Were raised about. poor visibility at ttJe approach to t.he
bicycle/pedestrian bridge across San Francisquito Creek, the
interaection of Bryant and Palo Alto Aven~e, and the intersection
of Bryant and Hawthorne.. \~ilSibility was checked at these three
locatier£ and found to be adequate.
A BU9gestion wac made to eonsid~r the need for a street clo6~re on
Palo Alto Avenue and on Bryant. Additional street closures 'Were
consider'!d, and judqed to be unnecessary tor extending t.l]e bicycle
boulevard.. Traffic volumes on Palo Al to Avenue and Bryant, in this
area, are relatively low and there are no actions related to
extendinq th~ bicycle boulevard that ~ould create any noticeable
chanqes in traffic volumes.
A suggestion lias also :made to make Palo Alto Avenue a one-'Way
street in the eastbound direction, as a means to enhance creek side
preservation. It is ~nclear whether this comment referred to the
entire length of Palo Alto Avenue~ bet'Ween Alma and Middlefield~ or
only the portion of Palo Alto Avenue between Bryant and Waverley
street. The need and benefits of such an action, CIS wel.l a5
related consequences, are unrelate~ and o~tside the scope of this
current study~ and would. be more appropriately a4dre:ssed as a
separate stUdy effort.
59
, ".
,
:1
•
6.5.5 Conc]ugions:
•
•
•
•
6.6
Reversal of the eX:isting atop aigns trom Bryant
Hawthorne would facilitate bicycle travel, and should
impl "",anted.
to
be
RelDov&1 of the stop siqn on Bry.nt (ncrthl>ound) at Poe
would facilitate bicycle. travel, anc: appears to have
little or no re.lated consequences.. Therefore, the siqns
should be removed in conjunction ~ith implementation of
the bicycle boulevard extension.
If concerns about reversing the atop signs on Bryant at
Hawthorne, or removinq the stop sign on Bryant at Poe are
substantial (as prese.ntly perr;.eived or as experienced
after the tact). the pre~.nt ret~~tion or future
reinstallation of the stop aiqn& ia not a decisive tactor
that should, in itself, preclude a decision to extend the
bicycle boulevard ..
Apart from reversing the stop signs on Bryant at
Hawthorne and relloving the stop sign on Bryant
(northbound) at Foe. the.re are no other changes that are
required in s~ent E tvr implementinq the extension ..
SEGHEIiT F
segment' rapresenta all related chan9~s on streets adjacent to the
proposed extension, includinq Waverley tro. Churchill to the San
hanei.quito Creek briciqe, and shert sections ot" coleridge,
Churchill, and Addison (between W6verlpy and Bryant).
Xasues include!
waverley street
• Removal ot existing bike lanes between Lytton and
Coleridge (Waverl-ay from Lytton to the bicycle/
pedestrian bridge at San Frl:f.noisquito Creek is a
siqned bike route, but does not have .marked. bike
lanes)~
• Restoration ot on-&.treet
~arcadero an~ Forest.
parking
A441aon Avenue
• Extension of existinq bike lanes tor one block trom
Wavarley to Bryant.
.0
r
'-'
,...
::..
... ,
r :..-
!'! •
"I
oj
J
J .,
j
• Initiation ~f parkinq restrictions (1 a.m. to
7 p.m.) on one side of one blork ot Addison
(betwee~ Waverl~y and Sryant) to ~ccommodate hike
lanes.
Churchill Avenue
• Removal of existing bike lanes betwe~n Bryant and
Waverley.
• Removal of existiQq parking restrictions
7 p .•. ) on one side of one block o!
(between Bryant and Waverley>~
(7 a,m. to
Churchill
Co!eriaqe Avenue
6.6.1
•
•
Ertension of existing bike lanes for one block:,
from Waverley to Bryant.
Initiation of parking restrictions (7 a.m. to
'p.m.) on one side of one block of Coleridge
(between Waverley and Bryant streets), to
accommodate bike lanes.
Removal of Existing BikD Lanes on Waverley Street
At present, there are marked bike lanes on Waverley from Coleridge
north to Lytton. From Lytton north to San Francisquito Creek.,
there. are no existinq marked bike lanes; instead, this portion
continues as a siqned bike routea With the extension of the
bicycle boulevard, there is little purpose fer: the presence of
marked bike lanes and a signed bike route along Waverley;
therefore, the bike lanes and siqns shoula be re.oved~
6.6.2 Restoratign of on-Street Parking on Waverley street
CUrr.ntly, due to the existing bike lanes, on-street parking is
restricted aloll"3' Waverley between Embarcadero £ond Fcre6t. The
nature of the restriction is that a on-s'treet parking is prohibited
from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m . ., on only the ea£t side of waverley. with the
extension of the bicycle boulevard and removal of the marked bike
lanes along-Waverley, the existing parking restrictions can be
eliminated., and on-street parking restored throughout tha entire
day.
6.6.3 ExtensigD of Bike Line, for One Block on Addison Avenue
At present, there are marked bike lanes on Addis~n be9inning at the
Waverley bike lanes, and extending eastwaZ'o. Witb the extension of
the bicycle boulevard and the related removal of bike lanes on
Waverley, the marked bike lanes on Addison need to be extended one
block veBtward, to co~~ect vith the bicycle boul~vard.
61
------'-----
6.6.4 InitiAtiqn ot Porking BeHtriptiQD5 on Addison Ayenue
Due to the limited width ot Addison, it is necessary to initiate
on-street parking restrictions between Waverley and. Bryant, to
e¥tend the marked biXe l~nes. The nature of these restrictions
would be to prohibit Qn-str~et p~~kin~ on only toe south side of
Addison betveen Waverley and Bryant; similar to what now exists on
Addison east of Waverley (no parking 7 a4D4 to 7 p.m.).
This restriction i. intended to xeep the bike lanes tree o~ parked
vehicles durifl9 the commute and! daytime period 'W'he.n. use ot the bike
lane$ is the qreatest and still permit residential related parking
to occur durinq the ~venlnq and niqht hours. The restriction would
be applied to only one side of the street with unrestrictea parking
continuing to be permitted on the OPPOSite side of the street.
6.6.5 R¥movol gf Bike Lanes 00 One Block of Chyrchill Avenue
CUrrently, there are marked bike lanes ~n Churchill between Bryant
and Waverley. 'With the extension of the bicycle boUlevard, and
elimination of waverley as a bike route, there is no purpose for
tb~ markt&d bilee lanes along Churchill: thenfore, the marked bike
l~es and signs should be removed.
Bugy.l of parking Restrictions on One Block qf Churchill
Due to existing bike lanes on Churchill between Bryant and
Waverley, on-street parking is currently restricted along Churchill
between Bryant and. Waverley. The nature of the restriction is that
on-street parking is prohibited from 7 a,m. to 7 p.m.~ and applies
only to the south aide ot Churchill. With the bicycle boulevard
extension and rem-oval of the marked bike lanes along Churchill,. '":.he
existing on-street parking restriction. between :aryant .and waverley
can be eliminated, and on-street parking restore~ throuqhout the
entire d&y.
6.6.7 gXbwsign of sike I.4ngG for Ooe Block on Cql§!ridge Avenue
At present l there are marked bike lanes on Coleridge starting at
~~e Waverley bike lanes and extending eastward. In conjunction
with the bicycle boulevard extension and the related removal of
bike lanes along waverley,. the marked bike lanes alonq Coleridge
need. to be extended one block westward, to connect Yith the bicycle
bouleva:rd.
52
•
·'
r ..
r ...
r" , ' ..
j ., ..
J
..,
J
6.6.8 Initiot"1on bf Parking Restrict;ons on Coleridge Avenue
Bec.a.UBe the width of coler-i<1ge is limited, it is necessary to
initiate on~street parkinq t'"estricti{\!,.g bet~ecn Waverley onu
Bryant, in order to extend L~e marked bike l~nes. Th~ nature of
these restrictions WOuld he to prohibit on-street parking on only
the south side of Coleridge; similar to what presently exists 310ng
Coleridqe east of w~verley (no parkinq 7 &~m. to 7 p.m~).
This restriction is intended to keep the bike lanes free of parked
v~lcles during the commute and day time period, when use ot the
bike lanes is the qreatest, and still perDit residential rel~ted
parking to occur during the eveninq and night hours. The
restricti~n ~ould be epplied to only one side of the street, wit~
unrestricted parking continuinq to be pen:aittea on the opposite
~ide of the street.
6.6.9 POtential Conyers ion of on-street Parallfl parking
While considerinq the potential conversion of diaqcnal parking to
par-allel parking alonq Bryant (between Forest to Lytton), 1I
similar, but opposite, issue surfaced regarding the pote.ntial
conversion of parallel parking to diagonal parking along Waverley
(between Forest to Lytton).
Waverley, like Bryant# bas sufficient width to accommodate diagonal
parking on one side and parallel parking on the other, where other
features such as lett turn lanes, bus stops and Lulbouts are not
present. on Waverley between .Forest and Lytton, there are two
sections Whare sufficient lenq+-h between existing driveways, and
other limiting factors are not present, to warrant the conversion
of existinq parallel parking to diagonal parltinq. ~·-nese. two
sections, as illustrated in Fiqure 6.7, include:
•
•
Hamilton AveDue to University Avenue
011 the west side. of 'Waverley, midway bet .. een Hamil ton and
university, there 15 a section where 9 existing parallel
spaces could be converted to 17 diagonal spaces, for a
net gain of 8 additional parking spaces.
University Avenue to Lytton Avenue
Or. the east side of Waverley, midway bet~een University
and. Lytton, thez'e is a section where 6 existing parallel
spaces could be converted to 11 diagonal spaces, for a
net gain of 5 additional parking spaces .
63
;i£
."-~:-
,.....,----
CONVERSION RECOMMENDED
'~"'.'.,',.,'-,"'," " "
Co, .~
, ---~~ , .,,7" ... :
.,
FIGURE 6.7
PROPOSED DIAGONAL PARKING ON WAVERLEY STREET
64 ,-
, ., .. . ,
f
I -
., ..
j
J
-,
~
..
I .. ..
III
j ..
! ~ -,
, .
.-~---------.->
A third pcssible location for converting parallel parking to
diaqo~al is on the east sloe of Waverley, between Forest and
H~ilton. Howeve~, due to such limitinq factors as the frequency
of driveways, a lett-turn pocket, and a bus stop., the only
Dractical loc~tlo!'l for di.!;gonal spa.ces is a short section just
north of Forest. since these diaqonal spaces 'Would be few in
number and separated frolll any other diagonal spaces by some
distance, a change in on-street parking for Lhis block (Forest to
Hamilton) ia not warrante~.
In summary, a total of 13 additional on-street parking spaces would
result from converting e~istin; parallel pa~king to dia90nal
parkinq at selective locations along Waverley .. between Hamilto!'l and
Lytton. At an eetimated cost of $20,000 to $25,000 per space to
p=oviQe additional parking within downtown, creating 13 2dditionel
parkinq spaces has a potential value of $250,000 to $300,0004
6.6.10
•
•
•
•
•
CODclu§ions!
Existing marked bike lanes and bike
Waverley betwe.en Coleridge and LJ"tton
and existing daytime (7 a.m. to
restrictions terminated.
route signs along
should be removed,
7 p.m.) parking
Harked bike lanes should be extended along Addison
between Bryant and Waverley, and related parking
restrictions £7 a.z. to 7 p.m.~ should be instituted on
the south side of Addison, for this one block.
Existinq marke~ bike lanes and bike
Churchill between Bryant and Waverley
and existinq daytime (7 a.m. to
restrictions termin~ted.
route signs along
should be removed,
7 p.m.) parkinq
Marked bike lanes should :be exte.nded a.long Coleridge
between Bryant and Wave:ley, and related parking
restrictions (7 a.m. to 7 p4m~J should be institcted on
the south side of Coleridge, for this one bl~k •
The conver~ion of on-street parallel parking to diagonal
parking at selective locations along Waverley between
Hamilton and Lytton, 'With the concomitant gain of 13
parkinq spaces, should be implemented.
65
"C"'-............... _ .. ,..~-""'--'.~
JI
FI J
" ~ ! : ,
'" oJ
:J
J
j
J
:l ..
J .,
.,j , .. ..
J . , ..
ii
~
..J
..,
-,
7.0
Based upon information cleviiloped as part of the anal~'5is and
evaluation of the conceptual alternatives and the initial
conceptual plan, an interze~iate preferred plan was developed £or
the p~rpose of qeneratin9 and focusing further consideration and
discussion reg.ardinq lmplementinq the bicycle boulevard. The
pu~&e o£ this section is to describe the interm~diate preferred
plan which served as the basis for a second round of community
review and comment.
.~
The £ollowin~ paraqraphs describe the intermediate preferred plan
as illustrated in Figure 7.1.
SEGKDIT A
Segment A starts at Churchill Avenue and extends to, but does not
include, the Enbarcadero Road intersection.
At present, the eXisting segment of ~he bicycle boulevard ends at
Churchill. cyclists are then directed along' Churchill to Waverley,
whi~~ has marked bike lanes from Coleridge to Lytton and a signed
bike route from Lytton to 5811 Francisqui to Creek.
The intermediate preferred plan developed for Segment A, as
illustrated in Figure 7.1, includes the removal of the existing
stop signs on Bryant at Churchill. On-street parking would remain
as it is.
7.2 SEGMENT B
Segment B includes only the intersection of Bryant street and
E"mbarcadero •
The intermediate preferred plan tor Segment s, as ill.ustrated in
Fiqures 7.1 and 7.2, inrludes the installation of a new traffic
siqnal a.t the intersect.ion, in general conformance with Option
II-A, which includes a new traffic signal, right turns only from
Bryant <through and left turns prohibited), left-turn pockets on
Embarcadero, and no street closure on Bryant.
If the preferred plan proves to be unacceptable, an acceptable
substitute plan (Figure 7.2) would be to install a neW" traffic
signal at the intersection, in general conformance ",ith option r-c,
'Which includes a new traffic Signal, a.ll through and turning
movements permitted, left-turn pockets on Embarcadero, and a street
closure on Bryant north of Embarcaaero.
66
'.
--' -'-
_rLJUOlrp~
/
FIGURE 7.1
INrEAMEDIATE
PAfFEFlR:II:D PLAN
"" J
---------
----
----------
-To EI camino Ani To Wavarl9)1 -
PREFERRED PLAN
Sirael ~. btltwe ...
ChannJng &; Uncoln ... m~!"''''i!'o-
Embftreadero
------
To EI CamJ no Real
SUBSTITUTE PLAN
FIGURE 7.2
BRYANT/EMBARCADERO INTERSECTION
LIQltnd:
¢' traffic !I~na.I
18S9 12r4
.xlsting Mw yolume
votume -with
aitemativl
Ta Wav!lfley -
· -,,_ ...... --... =_._--
It the installation o~ a new traffic signal proves t¢ be
unacceptable, th9n extension of the bicycle boulevard should not be
pursued. While a non-signalized improvement could be pursued in
qeneral con.formance with option III-C {which includes no new
traffic signal, right turn only from Bryant, left-turn pockets on
Eabarcadero, end no street closure on BryantJ, the re!5ultant
situation would be one that tends to encouraqe and concentrate
bicyclists and pedestrians in the mi~dle of Embarcadero, with two
lanea of tr~ttic passing by on both s1dee. Such a situation, vhile
thaoretically possible, is pra~tically unwise.
7.3 SEGMENT C
Seqmant C Btarts at Embarcadero Road (excluding the intersection)
and ~ends up to Forest Avenue.
The intermediate preferred plan developed for seqment C, aa
illustrated in Figure 7.1.. includes re-versing the stop signs at
K~.ley, removing the stop siqns on Bryant at Addison, and placing
add~tional stop signs on both Channing and Homer.. at their
intersections with Bryant. On-st~eet parking would remain as it
is.
The preferred plan d026 not consider a street closurE. However, if
the sUbstitute plan (Yh.ich does inr.lude a street closure) is
favored, the proposed location for th~ street closure is in the
block between Channing and Addison, at the boundary of the
rQsidential neighborhood (Location A). Ii this proposed location
is unacc~ptable, Illt~rnative sites at the intersections ot Bryant/
,Addison (Location B) or Bryant/Lincoln (Location D) are equally
~ftective and 8uitabl~.
SEGMENT D
Segaent 0 starts at Forest Avenue and ert.nds throuqh the downtown
business district to Lytton Avenue.
The int~na.ediate preferred plan developed for Segment D, as
illustrated in Fiqure 7.1, includes no change to the on-street
diagonal parking on Bryant, and retention of the existing traffic
signal timing. ",hleb is an integral Pl!.rt of a more artenaive
coordinated traffic signal system that tends to favor traffic flow
alofiq Hamilton, University, and Lytton.
7 • 5 SEGMENT E
Segment E starts at Lytton Avenue, extends along Bryant to Palo
Alto Avenue, and proceeds on Palo Alto Avenue to the existing
bicycle/pedestrian bridge crossing San Francisquito Creek.
69
.-
-
•
1 ,
~ .
. ...;"
,
,
m
:
I
...
. I ..
J
Tbe interaediate preterred pl~n develope~ for Segment E, as
illustrated in Figur. 7.1, includes revereal of the stop signs at
Sawthorne and r .. oval of a stop sign on Bryant at Poe. On-street
parkinq would remain as it is.
7.6 SEGlIEIIT F
Segment F represents .all related chanqes on streets adjacent to-the
proposed extension J including changes to bike lanes and on-street
parking alonq Wave~ley S~reet, and Addison, Churchill, and
Coleridge Avenues.
The Intarmediate preferrad pla:"'l developed for Segment F, as
illustrated in Figure 7.1, incl~des the ~ollowinq:
Waverley Street
• Removal of existing bike l~ne$ between Lytton and
Coleridge (Waverley from Lytton to the bicycle/
pedestrian bridge at San Francisquito Creek is a
siqned bike route, but does not have marked bike
lanes} .
• Restoration of on-street
Embarcadero and Forest.
parkinq
• conversion of on-etreet parallel par-kinq to
diagonal parkinq at selective locations along
Waverley between Forest and Lytton~ with the
concomitant gain ot 13 on-street parkinq spaces.
Addison Avenue
• Extension of existing bike lanes for one block from
Waverley to Bryant.
• Initiation of parking restrictions (7 a.m. to
7 p.m.) on one side of one block of Addison
(between Waverley and Bryant), to accommodate bike
lanes.
Churchill Avenue
• Removal of existing bike lanes between Bryant and
Waverley .
• Cessation of parking restrictions (7 a.m. t~
7 p.m.J on one side of one block of Ci:urchill
(between Bryant and Waverley) 4
70
--
.'
Coleridge Avenue
• Extension of existing bike lanes for one block,
trom Waverley to Bryant.
• rnlti~tlon ot parkinq restrictions (7 a.m. to
7 p~ •. ) on one aide ot one block ot Colerid.ge
(betvean Waverley and Bryant), to accommodate bike
laneli.
71
.--
r, -,
"ft-,
.-
..
.J
i
... , I ...
.,
J
-
8.0
8.1
COlOllllIII'1'Y 1IJIVl::n A!II) CO'OA"'1'8
SECOND PUBLlC KEETING
On June 6, 1991~ a second public meeting was held at the Palo Alt~
Senior center to infor.m the public about the status of the Dicycle
boulevard extensi~n study, to share information regarding the
Intermediate Preferred Plan, and to p~ovide an opportunity for the
public t~ ask questions and offer comments.
Approximately 2,100 meeting notices were sent to area residetLts and
interested persons. Sixty-ei'1ht people slgl'1_.:!d the meeting attendance
sheets. Of thee:e, 38 (or 56 percent) live between Embarcadero and sal".
Francisqulto Creek, and within three blocks of the proposed bicycle
boulevard ~ 13 (or 19 percent) live 'Within three blocks of the .xisting
bicycle boulevard; two live on the Stanford campus; one in Mountain
View, and one in Sunnyvale. The remaining-13 people (or 19 percent)
live in palo Alto, but :more than three blocks fr-om the existing
bicycle boulevard and proposed extension.
The l!Ieeting .fOrtDllt included: (a) a revieW' of the study process,
current status, and subsequent decision making process, (b) an
overview of the Intermediate Preferred Plan, (c) more detailed
}.lresentations on a seqment-by-seqment basis,. Cd} que~tions and answers
for clarifica.tion, (e) 9roup discussionIS and. responses, and (e)
individual comments. Appendix E includes a copy o! the meeting notlce
and agenda.
8.2 PUBLlC COMMENTS
The questions tor clarification and the comments {beth in support and
opposition to the extension of the bicycle boulevard) covered a broad
spe~rua of issues and. perspectives. This section ~ttempts to
smmaariz:e t.~e questions and comments raised at the second public
meeting •
8.2.1 Segment Quest 1 on9 and COmments
SegJllent A
•
•
•
Concern for bicycle/vehicle interaction at Churchill
and Bryant. What did analysis include?
Is parkinq near the Castilleja school ror drop off or
for day parkinq?
Study conducted by residents S8 cal'S droppir.q
children oft, and 50 cars traveling north •
72
.. ii"""', .... "
•
--------"-.-~-'~--.>--'"'~"-'"""''''''''''''''''~ ... ..,;:~.::.
•
•
•
}leed to address added delays to Churchill traffic.
Spacing of bicyclists on Bryant will easily a1101l."
Churchill traffic to cross. Delay5 should be minimal.
Leave yell enouqh alone. Keep tour way stop.
Residents fought to get all these stops a long tine
aqo. Bixes don·t stop anyway~ Removal may increase
nu=ber or accide~ts.
• Let bikes jog to waverley.
• Need to fully address studE=l'lt bike a.nd pedestrian
traffic.
•
Segment B
•
•
•
since it is not a do-or-dioe. iS5ue, further study
should occur before recoQmending any chanq~s.
Why does: this project cost so much?
breakdown of costs?
Is ther-e a
The more urqent intersection ~or a traffic signal is
Paly High/Town and Country. safety at Paly is II much
hiqr.,er priority. Due to funding limitations, and
proximity, & siqnal at Bryant will doom the
possibility of ever having a siqnal at Paly/ToW'l1 and
country. Ee:;pecially true sines every additional
siqnal will hurt progression along Emb4rcadero~
{Issue expressed several times.)
On Oreqon,. the Bryant intersection is signa.li~ed.
Does .it work well in teI"lllB of" spacing? Is there a
standard spacing for signals'? The spacing of the
signals on Oregon seems to be good. How Would Oregon
relate t.o Embarcadero? Consider one or the other
(Bryant signal or WaverleyJ, but not both. Perhaps
even consider one at cowpgr.
• Was the possibility of moving the existing Waverley
signal to Bryant ever considered?
•
•
•
Addition~l signals will cause del~ys,. conqestien, and
Bmog~
Reference to 6.2~1, paqe 36 (d~aft reportJ: how was £
percent increase in stopped traffic determined? Was
a computer program l.Ised.? Did delay computa'tions
include start-up times?
The signal at Melville and Middlefield does not
siqnificant delays to traffic on Middlefield.
the proposed siqnal at Bryant and Embarcadero
in similar delays?
73
create
Will
result
,~.
~-::.
[
r
,-
[I c ~ a
I
I ~
l
0
~
J
g
0
a
a
a
0
I
~ , -
J
'"l .
~
-,
• To what extent will the coordination ot the s.ignals
effect th .. 25 M.P}£ speed limit? Can the signale be
coordinated to control vehicular speeds on
Emobarca..:1ero? Should 6'eek pI'o-actt ve ways to reduce
speeds. Should even consider physical impedimen~s.
• Will • signal effect the amount of tr.ettic on
Embarcadero'?
• Kctoriats can currently turn lett from eastbound
Embarcadero to northbound Bryant. will t.his movel!lent
be eliminated?
• If a le~t-turn lane were installed, what would be the
r~~ultant lane Wi~th5? What is a typical lane width?
Has tee City experienced a history of accident
proble:s at other locations where the lane ~idths bave
been reduced?
• Provide qrean arrows for left turns~
• Concerned with use of nine toot lane widths.
• consider three lanes on Embarcadero.
• Menlo Park has qood coordination of signals on El
CAmino Real. Has their proqram been looked at?
• Question the data. Since traffic on Bryant will be
effected by both the signal and the chanqes on Bryan.t"
proj ections should be made. tor every scenario
possible. 00 not show changes in traffic, solely on
the basis of Signal options.
• Concerned that .. "$Doval of stop signs on Bryant is not
reflected in the traffic projections.
• Northbound traffic on Bryant should not be prohibited
trom turning left onto embarcAdero. other northbound
streets from the neighborhood all."eady ha'''e left turn
restrictions. Data shows low left-turn volumes
anyway. EVen with a Fignal, these volumes shoul~ not
increase substantially since there is a Darrier just
a few blocks to the south. It prohibited, all traffic
will need to go to Waverley to enter westbound
Embarcadero.
• Northbound Bryant traffic should not. be prohibited
from qoing straight to the downtown are&. As
proposea, a motorist would be forced to turn right at
Embareade:t"o, and then left onto waverley. Making a
left turn at the Waverley signal is difficult during
the morning rush hour.
I
•
__ , ___ -.. _,,"._,~, ___ .. __ ~_'ilS&tf"L_·
•
•
•
Rsther tllan restrict movements at the intersection of
Bryant and Eabareadero, staft should discoura96
tratfic by using a barrier, or other physical device 1
away trom the int6rs~ction.
With both a signal and a barrier, there is no need fo~
restrictions~
Without barrie~5, Bryant will provide a straiqht shot
to the PAMF. A b4rrier will do more to limit traffic
than restrictions at the intersection~
• Hotori.ts ma)cine; a right turn trom westbound
Embarcadel:o are <Join<] to be travelinq at high speeds.
• Inatead of turninq at Waverley, some traffic may turn
on Bryant. Consider restricting some lIIovements by
time of day_
•
•
Want. better details of bike islands and approach
lanes. How will a bicyclist make a right turn? How
will a bicyclist activate the ~i9nal?
Signal options, and S.s9lJi.ent C options all reflect
sensitivity to traffic on Bryant. However, that samQ
level of sensitivity-does not seeD to exiat for
Waverley. Impacts to waverley need to be accounted
for, when discussing signal options, barriers, etc.
• RegarcUnq a aiqnal at Embarcadero and. a barrier at
Acldiaon, look at traffic impacts and potential
increase of ~ccidents at Lincoln and Xingaley .treetB.
•
•
Haw many and wbat percentage of bicyclists now
activate the pedestrian signal at Waverley.
Activation of siqnall5 by bicyclists will certainly
increase delays to Embarcadero tral'.fic. Therefore,
aU. 600 bicyclists should be consolidated at one
location only; either Waverley or Bryant.
Ho~ many people ~ill th~ light protect. Six hundred
bicyclists divided by 12 hours is only 50 per hour.
Does this justi.fy i.pact to the higher number of
motorists on Embarcadero?
• Preference is fer a siqnal, with riqht turns only to
northbound Bryant and a barrier.
• As a resident of Embarcadero, need. to point out t'~":lt
cars will not stop for pedestrians. Fails to
understand how some people cannot be concerned about
bad auto trafric habits.
75
~t-<' .--~~ ....
,-
,-
.. ~ ,
l"
~ J ,
~ .,
H
J
:J .,
oj
'" .l .,
"j
J
:J
j
:I
~
..I
.,
ill ., , ..
... , ... -j
.,
Seqaent C
• ~~ a resident of Waverley. a barriet on Bryant is not
de.fraklle. There vill be too much diversion onte
Waverley •
• Its OK and appropriate to divert traffic onto Waverley
because it is a desiqnated collecto~.
• If all stops on 8ry .. nt are. removed, t:r.-affi-c will
travel too fast. Corlcarned that children (going to
Addison} crossing Bryant will bQ hit by speeding
motorists ~~d cyclists. This concern mentioned
several times .
• Are thera documented ftndinqa that show traffic will
travel faste~ when stop alqns are removed? What has
been our eLperienee on the existing bicycle boulevard
where stop signs have been removed?
• Bicyclists and pedestriana have the same concern.
They d~ not wish to be hit by cara .
• Bicyclists tend to drive defensively. Bicyclists have
a gre.at incentive to avoid collisions since in any
collision, they are vulnerable to severe injuries~
• As a bicyclist. one needs to know that cross traffic
will stop.
• Thirty years 8go, we worked hard to q~t the guard and
go system of stop signs installed. Why can't we just
leave them alone? Thirty years aqo. we had a lot of
accidents. but with the guard and go system, accidents
h~ve been reduced. The consistency ot 5topS at every
othe.r block works we.ll because it adds to driver
expectation.
• Why change the stop at Kingsley and Bryant? Kingsley
has very little treaftic that crosses Bryant, and
bicyclists cur-rently run the stop a::'1yway. R"'!ep as
part of the: Bystela •
• As a bicyclist, I do not think. we need to stop
Kingsley traffic. I do not bilee fast. Speeding
should not be an i$sue or qoal •
• We need to keep thIS stops. We need to think about the
children that bike. Allowing bicyolists to travel
fast8~ does not increase bicycle safety •
• No stop siqns, means more traffio on Bryant since left
turns are allowed fro. E~arcadero: BO a barrier is
preferred.
7.
•
•
•
•
Waverley bas &t~etches ot three or tour blocks without
stops or siqnals, and is liveable. We'd all lilee
barriers on our street, but they are not essential.
The neighborhood needs a harrier. There are a lot of
children, and the best way to control traffic is by
having a barrier.
Wherever a barrier is placed, there will be increased
traffic on the side (east-west) street&~ which needs
to be accoun~ed for.
• Consensus at one table for a barr ier somewhere on
BI)'ant.
• The substitute plan, ~ith a barrier, shows that less
traffic will be on Waverley.
• Prefer a barrier at location -,A-. A .id-block klarrler
is better than one at an intersection. At an
intersection, a motorist on the crOBs-street may not
expect to have a bi~iCli8t enter from the direction of
the barrier.
• Location -A-is preferable ~cause it is located at
the boundary of the rep; tder.tial area anc! the.
oommercial area.
• A barrier at location -A-will block ofr the
neighborhood I 6 direct access to the future urqent oare
site. Prefers a harrier north of location -A-tat
Channing_
• A barrier at location -A-will .aepar.a.te the
n£ighborhood from the clinic. With B PQtential five
year construction period, the barrier may actually
help to keep workers troll pa,rking in the residential
area.
• Believe that re.siaents 'Would prefer-a barrier at
location -A-r along 'With keepinq the e.xisting stop
signs on Bryan~. stop signs are essential in main
tainin9 reasonable car and bike speedS.
• Oppose a barrier at location -F,-. This causes B dead
end.
• Prefer. barrier at location -Oft. A barriE!r here 'Will
do the most to reduce auto traffic.
• While .. barrier can limit vel1icular traffic, it should
not be made so that it divides the neighborhood4
77
J
j
-, ,
...J
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
. , --
A barrier at the north side of the intersection of
Embarcadero and Bryant vill not divide t~e
neiqhborhood, or block it ott fro~ the medical cli~ic
or downtown~ Should be similar to the one at
Melville. Protessorville: relates to downtown~ not
E=barcadero.
Part of Protessorville is to be able to walk to the
downtown area~ A barrier viII qive a sense
(psycholoqi:alj of separation.
The new barriers on Bryant south of EmbaIcadero do not
visually impact the neiqhborhood~
Need to reiterate that a barrier anywhere will thro~
traffic onto Waverley.
Do not limit d:iverter to just barriers. Also consider
road bumps, stop signs, etc.
Road or speed bumps may be more desirable~ Tend not
to divide the community the way a barrier miqht.
This seg1l:ent, more ISO than any other, has a qreat
liihortaqe of on-street parking.. A barrioer will utilize
SOJlle of the. parking areas, and make the shortaqe more.
SIli&'I7ere.
On Addison, many of the homes are rental, with
numerous residents (Stanford students) havinq cars.
This Is an old ne.ighborhood~ Has only sinqle-car
drive\i",Ys. The study needs to re-e.mphasize the
importance of lla.intaininq all on-street parking
spaces.. Any plan must indicate that all parking will
be 'l!.aintained.
Emphasize the need to maintain the character o~ thQ
neighborhood. Has staff contacted the Historic
Resources Board? 8arri~rs may not be feasible~
Are there d1.tferent types of" barriers? Are they
designed so that they will not qive a sense of
separation'?
As a reeide. .. ·'l.t and a bicyclist, believes that nev
figures (prcjected traffic) need to be provided that
reflect chanqes to the c:lmplete system. It is not
appropriate to expect people to show a preference at
this time.
As a resident and bicyclist, I ride my bike north and
south all the ti~e. Everything i& fine. I experience
no problems and do not see 6 need for changes.. GOing
to Waverley to cross Embarcadero is not ~ problem.
As a bicyclist, request th~t ~esidents welcome bikes
through their ne.iqhborhood.
78
I i pt:;:,_.,.
•
,.
r
!
, •
•
•
Se91D ent D
•
•
As a resident and bicyclist, preterenc~ is tor speed
bumps.
What is the dIfterence between speed bumps and road
bumps?
Bicyclist. should just grow up. I rode bikes all my
life and never had problems. Its &afe~
Bicycle co~utin9 through the downt~wn area is
greatest conce.rn. with all the short-term: parleing,
there is hiqh turnover rat2. Need to chan9~ diaqonal
parking to parallel or remove it altogether to really
!lake it a bicycle boulevard. Concerned about both
backinq out and doors opening.
Improving' bicycle travel throuqh the downtown .. ill
promote more cyclists and ~educe the parking demand.
• Need to coordinate siqnals on Bryant for bicyclists.
Bicycle boulevard traffic should have preference over
east-west traffic on Hamilton, university. l'.nd Lytton.
•
.. -
Se91Cent E i-
8.2.2
•
•
Segment F
Somewhere near the bridqe# we need to put in something
to stop cross traffic.
Will bicycle boulevard signs be ins~all~d directing
bike traffic from Menlo Park.
• None expressed (meeting time had expired).
General Ou¢&tions and COmments
• This is a very expensive project~ If this r~oject
were not pursued, could th~ monies be redirected?
• Has the city taken steps to get funds regarding the
Federal Hj'ihway Re4uthorization Sill diverted from
highways to transit and other alternative modes.
• How were the two plans (preferred and alternate,
arrived at? Are they intended as options for the
neighborhood to choose from? Will the neighborhood
have the final aay?
79
.-
j
'1 -
-,
•
•
•
..
•
•
•
•
Have school. been adeq'.lately involved? Castilleja,
Addison, Paly, and other schools, warrant additional
attention.
concerned with small children crossinq the bike
boulevard. Especially if stop signs ar9 removed and
vehi:les and bicyclists are allowe~ to travel faster.
potential loss of on-street parking is of concern.
Wby waa on-street parking not addressed?
How does the timing of the bicycle boulevard relate to
the development ot the PAMF? Concernsd that staff is
beinq reactive, rather than proactive in bringing both
issues toqether~
will nev EIR be required for PAMF?
Dislike use of ·street closure-term. Prefers -auto
barrier-, since bi~es can still qet through.
Questions results and counts.
residents are ditferent.
Counts conducted by
Counts vary. What is important i~ futUre traffic.
Projections need t,=, account for complete scenarios.
Not seqment-by-seqment scenarios.
• Hiqh bicycle use on EmQa~cadero~
•
•
•
•
•
•
Were oriqin-destination studies c~r.ducted?
If all bicyclists were directed (force~)
Waverley, could Waverley handle the volume?
onto
city should not be content with current bicycle
numbers. Rather, there is a need to encourage more
ridership. Increased number of bicyclists will help
quality of life an~ cost o£ housinq.
For over 20 years, bikes, cars, and pedestrians have
lived harmoniously. "''hy chanqe thinqs now? Leave
thing's as tb,ey are.
City shoulc5 recognize that many of the people in
attendance are non-residents. Most are bicycle
activists and this is their pet project. Many of the
co~ents made durinq the eveninq do not reflect the
consensus of the neighborhood. A ballot of the
neighborhoocl resident.e: should be taken to properly
assess their sentiment.
Everyone ~as invited. ResiQ~nts had the opportunity
to be present.
60
3.2.3
• How wide is the S~P. right-ot-way? Is th~re room for
a bicycle boulevard along the~e. It a boulevard is
that important for bicyclists, than it may be WOrL~
pursuinq.
Britten Comments
In addition to the. oral discussion that occurred d'.J.'t'ing the public
meetinq, per~ons in attendance were provided with the opportunity to
submit written comments either at the end of the meetinq, or d~rin9
the subsequent weeks. Follo~in9 is a summary of the vritten com=ents
received, with regard to the second pUblic meetinq_
• p~~ construction likely to cause travel problams on
Bryant. Serious consideration should be given to
leavinq bicyclists on Waverley, and hold off on
pursuing bicycle boulevard chanqes until a.fter
construction is complete~
• Reducinq on-street parking on Addison is a real
problem. Rathert supports barrier .at locatio:t -A
alonq with a barrier on Addison (at Scott). A barrier
on Addison vill cut down on traffic and aliminate the
need fc~ a marked bike lane.
•
•
Urge completion of thOl!. bic1cl~ boulevard. Need. t.o
encourage. tdcycling. Changes required are minimal
comparea with what was needed to put in Oreqon
.E:xprelSsliay~ Not all bicyclists ar-e younq. Stops,
starts, and detours discourage distance ridinq.
Both the preferred or alternate (sub9titute) plans are
acceptable.
• The project is compatible with the objectives of the
Clean Air Act.
• Tha bicycle boulevsrd exten&ion is a nice a~enity. but
unneedec!~< and would increase air and noise pollution,
and negatively i~pact Embarcadero traffic.
• ~esidents on Kelloq9 will be blocked in by in~reased
traffic on Waverley and Bryant, especially if left
turns are prohibited from Bryant onto Embarcadero.
• Leave the bike route the ~ay it is.
• Move the traffic signal at Waverley/EmharcaO",ro to
Bryant/:blDarcaderc, and close Bryant to automobile
tra.ffi.r:: ..
• Minimize chanqes in Professorville.
81
~. ,
M ..
j
J
j
., ..
j
...
..i
.J
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
,
The .ubstitute plan is pre.ferable. The City should
consiger l~Atalling a temporary barrier to determine
the ill1.p.&ct and acceptance by the ne19~!"hood, before
proceadinq vith a permanent installation~
In ord.r to pre .... erlt speeding on Bryant, under either
the preferred or substitute plans, road bumps should
be installed. They have be&n very eftective in the
Midtown neighborhood, and pose no hindrance to
bicyclists.
The substitute plan (with ~arr!er at Location -A·J is
superior.. The p~efe.rr-ed plan calls for an unusual
roadway deslqn ~t BrIant/Embarcadero.
Waverley street resident wants bike lanes to remain.
Opposes additional traffic signal on Embarcader-o.
The proposed changes at Embarcadero, Channing, and
Hoaer will be counterproductive, environmentally
adverse, and have no off-setting ben.rits~
The eXistinq bicycle route on Waverley is adequ~te;
concerned that conditions ~ill deteriorat~ on WavErley
if the bicycle boulevard exten~ion is implementeQ.
rhe situation on Embarcadero at the Town and
Country/palo Alto High intersection is far more
hazardous, L~ funds would best be spent to improve
that situation.
Automobile traffic is not 50 heavy on Homer and
Channing that bicyclists cannot cross safely .
Reaident opposes new stop signs on Homer end Channing,
and the traffic signal at Embarcadero.
Supports project--traftic signal at Bryant end
Embarcadero ~oulC! help bicyclists, and reduce
vehiCUlar speeding on Embarcadero.
The pl~n to remove stop signs on Bryant may decrease
safety. cyclists should stop at stop siqns because
they are less • ... i .. ible. to motorists. Rather than
eliminating stops on Bryant, four-way stops should be
installed.
Supports traffic signal on Bryant at Embarcadero, but
does not favor plan that diverts traffic onto
Waverley, or c~eates a bicycle raceway on Bryant .
The cost of the project iF, a luxury, at this time of
fiscal deficits.
Bike crossinq
possible on
Churchill.
signs need to be installed as soon as
Homer, Ch.anning, Embarcadero, and
82
..
-
•
•
Hiniaizinq stop signa on Bryant 1s an inteqral _lament
ot the bicycle boulevard concept. It th41r r~val
creates l,atety problema, they can be reinstalled, but
if they are lett in place, it vill be very difficult
to remove them at .a leiter tiJOie ~
l"requll11t user of bicycle-boulevard supports the
Preferred Plan, but &180 favors a barrier betW'een
Addison ar~ Lincoln, and r~ad bumps between S~wthorn~
and Everett.
• Support. the rl!llloval of stops signs along Bryant.
Bicy~liat. travel .ore slevly than automobiles ~j are
more Ilaneuverablei thU8.. are not a: threat to
pedestrian., including children.
• Place aensinq lc.ops on Bryant so the Embarcadero
signal changes tor bicyclist. before they ara required
to ca.e to a complete atop.
• COncern about potential backups and conqeation on
Waverley and ~arcadero if a nay signal is installed
at Bryant.
BJ
•
;> ,
j
:J
I , -., -
'" ,
.J
9.0
This ~ectiDn of the report provide& additional evaluative info~ation
for several iss yes precipitated by the review, discussion and further
consideratlon ot the intermediate preferred p.!an. These issues
ir,elude the (olloving:
9.1
• Traffic diversion
• Removal of stop signs
•
•
•
On-street parking
Relationship with PAKF expansion project
Bryant Street turn restrictions
• Palo Alto High/Town' Country traffic signal
TRAFFIC DIVERSION
The redistribution of traffic--diversion from one street to another-
is a central i.ssue regardinq the p!'oposed ertensicn of the bicycle
boulevard~ While the proposed extension, unlike typical development
projects, will not create additional vehicula= traffic, the actions
taken to i:.p!ement ths project will cause some redistribution of
existing and tuture vehicular traffic. One of the underlyinq
cballenqes of the study process has been to seek ways to minimize such
redistribution, while strivinq to achieve the purpose of the bicycle
boulevard~
In earlier sections of this report, information on estimated traffic
diversion, associ~ted with a variety of alternatives, was presented.
The fell owing discussion present6 more detailed information on
estimated traffic cUversioT! associated with both the inteflllediate
prelerred plan and the liubstitute pll!ln~ In addition, data is
pr.gsente.d tOL both existing conditions and t..'t1oae that would be
expected, incl1lding the PAMF e.xpansion.
Both the intermediat~ preferred plan and substitute plan would cayse
existing traffic patterns to change for several blocks in all
directions. The amount of such changes, as presented in Figures 9.1,
9.2, 9.3, and 9.4, a~e estimates; based on professional judgment.
They reflect the composite effect of how drivers might adjust their
travel routes, over an area ot several square blocks, in response to
po$sible ohanges in the circulation system.
•
-
,'-_.---.,,--
g.l.l TIRE Index
The TIRE (Traffic Infusion On Residential NeighLorhoods) index is a
method of describing and mea&urinq resid€'nts I perceptions of the
effect of street traffic on residential activities; such as walking,
cycling, playinq, interacting liiith neighbors, a:.,d backinq a car in and
~ut ot a driveway. The index was developed b} neighborhood traffic
management researchers in ~~e United states and England, and serves
as a reference tool for judqing the anticipated eftect of changes in
traffic volumes, in reliltion to current experie.nce with existing
traffic volumes.
An increase of 0.1 in the TIRE index, equatinq to an increase in daily
traffic volume of 20-30 percent, Yas found to be the miniMum increase
that is noticeable to the average resident. A change of 0.2 or
qreater in the TIRE index, equating to an inc~ease in d.aily trafric
volume of 50 percent or greater, would definitely be noticed by
residents. Table 9~1 presents the TIRE indices for various levels of
daily ~raiiic volumes.
9.1. 2 Traffic Diversign yithout PAMf Expansion
Figures 9.1 and 9~2 illustrate the changes in daily traffic vol~~es,
due to the intermediate preferre~ plan (P) and the substitute plan
(5), assuming no changes in the PAMF.
The numbers and shaded bars in the large rectangles shown in Figures
9.1 and 9~2 are existing traffic volumes at locations where they were
~ctually measured in 1989 ana. 1990, plus the expecte.d approximate
changes due to plan P and plan s. Small rectangles are used at
locations where existinq traffic volume data is not available:
therefore, the numbers show only the expected changes in da.ily traffic
volWles.
The information in Figure 9.1 indicates that, in most locations north
of Embarcadero, the plan P 1s expected to cause substantially less
diversion of traffic than would plan S. This ig especially evident
in those blocks of Addison, waverley. Brfsnt, ana Ramona, which are
ne~~ the proposed location of the street closur~ associated ~ith plan
s (on Bryant between Channing and Acldison). The street closure
included in plan S would cause most of the existin9 traffic vol~e on
Bryant, between Channing a.nd Addison, to divert to nearby alternate
stroetl5..
No~~ of Embarcadero (Figure 9~1J, with either plan F or plan 5, the
daily traffic volume would decrea&;e in all of the blocks along Bryant,
and would inc:c;'ease. on Waverley. JCin!isley, Lincol~, Addison, and
Ramona. In most c~ses, the increases would not be noticeable to the
average resident, as the increase in the TIRE indeX remains less than
0.1. However, or. Addison, between Bryant and Ramona, the daily
traffic volume increase for plan S would be substantially higher than
plan P and would reach the minimum noticeable~
85
[
[
.-
-
... .~------.. -.--. • " ! 11 , , ~
~ .. , J 9.1 TABLE
~ TIRE INDEX TABLE
0 y~g,gj~ ll:lawd: b2 E[I2dlI~
Pn-E.mIm; Volom. aO.Ia-g. .. a 0.2 a..z.s. ..
BIIIEC rv .. '""'-w DiI!' TIB& [psi;; t!I,llR;;r~ Lla,m:e[ad~ "! , :5 lS 1..l • • 6 • IS
36 41 1.6 + i .. 20 n 4S 56 1,7 + 10 .. 2S
57 70 Li , 13 .. 12 .. 71 II!> 19 .. 17 .. H
!IO 110 2.0 • 21 , 52 J 111 1«l 21 • 29 .. 6.5
141 lBO 2.2 • 40 • 80 at 22IJ 1.3 .. 52 • 100
1'1 221 280 24 • 6S • 12S l1li 281 lSO 25 • 79 " 160
lSI (5!) U .. 94 .. ~
J 451 S60 27 • II' , 260
561 T.t) 2A .. 14() .. 33<J
711 890 29 .. 1"ltl .. '15 891 1,100 3.0 .. 220 .. 520 ~ 1,101 1.4()() 31 • m .. 6SO J 1,401 1,&00 3.2 .. 380 + 800
1,801 2,lIOO 33 • 500 .. I.ro:J
0 l,201 2,800 3.' + 6.50 .. 1.300 2,I!Ol 3,SOO 3S • &2S .. 1,100
3,501 c.soo 3.6 .. !Jl25 .. 2,lIOO ,,scI UOO 3.7 .. l,2SO .. 2,800 ~ 5.601 7,100 3.!1 • 1,500 .. 3,sco
7.101 1,900 3.9 .. 1,&00 .. '.lOO 8,901 ll,OOO '.0 .. 2.300 • S.lOO , 11,001 H,ooo 4.1 • 3,000 .. 6.500
14.001 1&,000 4.2 .. ';.00 + B,IlXl ..
18,001 22,000 4.3 .. 5,200 -+11).000
22,001 28,000 , ..
• 6,600 + 13,COJ I 2&,001 35.JXX) 4.S
• 8,lOO + 17,(XX)
3S.OO1 45.000 ... +-lO,(W .. 22,000
4S,(XU S6,DJO 4.7 .. 12,lIOO .. 28,000
C S6.001 7l,OOO 4.8 ... 14,800 + 3,S,(X)()
71,001 89,000 4.9 +l8.,CW + .(3,.:xxJ
j
Sourca: Goodrich T~af~ic Group, based on work by Donald Appleyard J
J So
-,
. j
• .5* _, -.-
" " ,
. -
\
t:llULCJ
J
hlmBj '"
s
.,.,1 ] i I J ll~
1 Ii f'--,. ___ J
]
J [~ 'r'rr'-C:]I
j~ 1 ~I~~I!~ J~::" f,
!XPECfEO OAIL" TRA.FFrC VOLUMES, NOATH OF I:MBA~CADEFtO ROAD
MY" ac:C,"CU: BLYO. -WITHOUT ,. ... IIIp: EX~AN$ION
FIGURE 9.1 EXPECTED DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
= = '-.
Legend:
E = Existinq
p = Preferr~d Plan
S = substitute PI
I
l
--
EX,.ECTED DA[L'f' 'fAAFFIC Yo\'UWES. SOUTH OF EMBARCAOEAO ROAD
WTTH I!ICVCI..E at-VD. -WITHOUT P ..... F EXPANSION
--
FIGU'IE 9.2 EXPECTED DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
•
--
·"' .
---
,
---
Le;end:
E EX"istinq
P Preferred Plan
S Substitute
-.' ,
.". ~" " .:;f:~!~?~;
-
on ~nal between Hemer and Lincolnl dally traffic volume increases
tor plan S would. exceed the .inilDWII noticeable level,_ with an increase
in the TZRE index of up toO O.3~ While the increase in daily traft'ic
volume on Ramona would be no qreater than that on Waverley, the
exi.ting daily traffic volume on Ramona is much lower than that on
Waverley I thereby, causinq a mor~ noticeable impact on Ramon~.
Sout.~'1 ot Embarcadero (Fiqure 9.2], plan P 'Would divert traffic from
Bryant to Waverley, whIle plan S would divert traffic from Waverley
to Bryant. The only instance in this area where there would be a
mintaum noticeable increase (0.1) in the TIRE index# is in the case
of plan P, on ](e11099 between waverley and Bryant. Tl-.ds increase
would be due primarily to castilleja School traffic, which nov uses
the Bryant/Embarcadero intersection fgr certain turns, but would end
up using the Waverley/Embarcadero Intersection because those turns
would be prohibited under the intermediate preferred plan.
9.1.3 troffic Diversion with fAKE ExpansioD
Fiqure& 9.3 and g.' illustrate the changes in daily traffic volumes
resulting from the two bicycle boulevard plans combined with the PAMF
expansion project.
The daily traffic volumes attributable to the PAKF expansion are based
on ditto contained in th6 PAKF Environ.aental Izpact Report: scaled down
to reflect the smaller 45,000 square-toot project approved by the. City
council. The daily tratfic volumes tor the PAMF e~nsion, for the
blocks between Addison and Embarcadero, were not contained in the EIR;
therefore, they have been estimated by city 5taf!~ For the larqe
r.ctangles with shaded bars (Figures 9.3 and 9.4), the sum CE.MJ of
existing CE) and PAHF expansion (M) daily traffic volumes. is used as
the basis for comparison. The small rectanqles indicate chanqes in
dally traffiC volW1les due only to t.."J.e bicycle boulevard plal1s~
Neither existinq ner PAKF expansion daily tratfic volumes are
available, or shown in the small rectanqles.
7iqures 943 and 9.4, when comp.ared to Figures 9.1 and 9.2 respec
tively, inc:lic.a"te, with only a fev exceptions, that the amount of
traffic diversion d:lJe to the bicycle boulevard plans is about tbe &ame
with# or without, the PAMF expa~sion project. The exceptions are on
Addison and Lincoln, bet'Ween W.verle:f and Ramona. .In those blo.:-Jc:s,
Fiqure 9.3 shows that daily traftic Volume increas~& attributable to
plan S would cause increases in the TIRE inde~ ranqing f~om 0.1 to
0.2, at and above the minim~ noticeable level.
South of Embarcadero (Figure 9.4). the effect ot the PAMF e~~ansion
project would. be minimal. The resultant overall effect is that the
Daily traffic volumes Bho~ in Figures 9.4 (with PAMF expansion) are
quite similar to those in Figure 942 (.ithout PAMF e~ansion)
89
•
-
... ---
UPECTEO DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES, HOATH OF flllBAFlCADERO ROotD
WITH BlC'fCI.E BLVO.· wrno: PAMF IEKPAN!lIO"
... -
FIGURE 9.3 EXPECTED DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
, <
\
".' --
'.
UPEcnD DArL'Y TRAFFrC YOlUMU, SOUTH OF EiIIrII ...... C ... DERO ROAD
WITH' BlCVCU: II..VD. -WTTH PAMF EXPANsrON
•
Legend:
E+M Existir.g+PAKP
p ~ Preferred Plan
S SUbstitute Plan
llY..TO NVMBfR$.
FOf" rach block W~I:'1: ul.ninl dal1y tJaffic ¥<IT\lrne:s (ADTs) are 'known, iarae tublnvtes:
cMlainir--J shaded bill"] ir>di~ .. ie tile rel.alr..c mllgJlhude of ADn for the enslin. wndH"ion
pha PaiD Allo Mediw Fr'lulldali<m {PAMF) tlp<onWl'. {E+M), 1M imp;!CI of the pttr~
plan (PJ, amj tl1e impact cf the substitute pia!! (5), a1 • SCilloe or G.3" = lace AOT. P1lJ1. (+)
;In.: minU$ (") numben irla~le the apettOll increue or decrease i<l APT for each biqde
bo<Jle .... 'd plil/\ \:ompareci 10 I~ E~M AOT. In (lIbel bTIX:lcs wh ___ rC: oilllin8 AnT is PO(
\rJQ>o"rJ, sman reeLangl1l!.! "iJB.\"c t.ecn piac~d ~n'~inillg piUli and minU'S nt.:mb<::rs, il1dicating the
cJ[rectcd irlClc.ue or d'"-cre<oJc in ADr d'LtC I.e the ph'rerrcc plan (P) arnf tile lU'M!ltl)ie,p1an
{S}. (In ioOmc locations, :heJ.e mLT1:ale.! ::u ckc_rl::il1e:S arc: ir. II<.lditiOti 10 inctcUClIi or
decrcl1.ll"! due f{' thl': PAMF ex~ruror;, lIIo'hi<:h arc 001 shO';\:ll.) FJ:amp~: On WhC.ley
b.::tWCEl1 Kcll~ 3t1d' a,l..Ifcf-.11~ CJI$!lng ADT ~IUJ ADT [;or.11.he PAMF ~~p;!nslOIl is
upe,led 10 be: 2725. Wjtb th~ prderrcd plolll, fr,i., ADT would lrlcrc.ue by 215 m mo..
With the $LJb~ti!LJ!c plan, Ill's AOT ",'OuI~ d::l:rea~e by 210 10 2jIS. en Bryant between
CClIC:!idg:: .and l.Dw::r<, c:.dslinl1 AnT is 1101 knowrt.. II WOl.'!d decrease by IHl vehicles-per
day wilh the fll~:rcnedpl.an. ~IJd would illcna~e. by 7:; ..... ilb the SLJbslitutc: ptan. In addition,
there rn~}' be ;J.n a(fditlorlJI inae.ue ',f decn .. ue in A.DT d'LJe fa the PAMF e:c~nsion.
FIGURE 9.4 EXPECTED DAILY TRAFFIC VOllJMES
--' ---' '!....-.. =
j
:J
1 ..
j
..,
J
•
"" .. ----------
Aa with the discussion in the preceding section (9.l.2), the daily
traffic voluae increase tor pl~ S vould be substantially hi9her than
the preferred plan, on selected street seqments nearest the proposed
location of the street closure; including Addison, Ramona, and
Wave.rley ..
9.1.4 Effect of Stop SigO Changes~raffic Volumes
The ohanqes in daily traffic volumes illustrated in Figures 9.1, 9~2,
9.3, and 9.4, are based on the stop sign confiquration included as
part of th. preferred plan, and the substitute plan (no stop siqns on
Bryant south of Channing). While the addition c! Dne or ~ore stop
signs along Bryant ~ould be expected to result in a limited amount of
additional traffic diversion from Bryant, developing a reasonably
BOun~ quantitative understanding of the amount of such incremental
traffic diversion, is probleetic; particularly when ot.he,t' significant
changes are also invQlved~
As a general indicator of the impact of stop sign changes (for plan
P and plan 5), the installation of a stop sign on Bryant at Lincol~
(creating a fOllr"w.ey stop) wcouleS be expected to result in a 2-)
percent reduction of traffic on Bryant, north of Embarcadero~ If the
diversion ~as all to Waverley, the increase on Waverley would amount
to 1. perOE:ilt: cOllIpared. to the nu:mbers shown in 1iqures 9:.1 lInc3 9.3.
South of" Embarcadero. for both plan P and plan S, It step sign on
Bryant at Churchill Ci.e., if the pr~sent four-way 5t~p were retained)
would be expected to rasult in an approximate 5 percent reduction of
traffic on Bryant, with ZI potential corresponding incr-ease of 1
percent in, traffic on Waverley: compared to th.e numbers shown ir ..
Figures 9.2 and 9.~.
9.2 REMO'IAL OF STOP S,!GNS
Apart from the traffic diversion effects of changes in stop Signs, as
they relate to the proposed e-xtension,. concern 'has been raised
regardinq excessive vehicular travel speeds along aryant~ and possible
conflicts between pedestrians crossing Bryant, and bicycles and
a~tomobiles traveling along ary~nt.
South of Embarcadero, tl.e reznoval of the
Churchill would result in an unimpeded
Embarca4ero to Lowell, of 1800 feet~
stop sign on Bryant at
travel distance, from
North ot Embarcadero, reversal of the stop signs from Bryant to
Xingsley, and removal of the stop signs or Bryant at Addison~ would
result in an unimpeded travel distance from Embarcadero to Channing
of 1100 feet. The te.xistin9 drainage dip in the pavement acros.s
Bryant~ near the Xinqsley intersection, effectively r~duces the
uni~peQed travel dista~ce to 1400 feet, Kingsley to Channing.
92
, ,
~, ,
~ _______ • ~ '._ --I.,
North of the dor.ontown bl.iainess distr-ict, the reversal of t.'le stop
siqn~ ~roz Bryant to Hawthorne and the removal of the step sign on
Bryant at Poe, in the northbound direction, 'Would re-sul t in an
unimpeded travel distance of 1800 feet.
Measurements of travel speedS on sGglIIents of streets with travel
~elated features and characteristics similar to those that would be
expected on 8ryant, if one or .ore stop signs were removed, are shown
below.
street unimpgded Street Segm~ Length
Speed (mph)
~_ v..tlLt.
Waverley street
cowper street
,Newell Street
Bryant Stre.et
Bryant Str-eet
Embarcadero to Lincoln
Embarcadero to Kingsley
Embarcadero to Cha~nin9
Lowell to California
Lincoln to Addison
(1,100 ft)
(1,000 tt)
(l,950 tt)
(2,400 f-c)
(850 tt)
28
26
29
26
27
32
32
32
31
J2
This limited data suggests that travel speed does not necessa:-ily
change due to the length of unimpeded travel distance, but rather is
related to a drivers perception of the f~atures of the roadway# and
characteris.tics of the adjacent area. While this does not "rove that
travel SpeeQ6 would not change on Bryant, with the removal of some
stop liiqns, it does imply that the presumption that travel speed would
Si~lificantly increase is dubious.
Ultimately~ the only way of determining with certainty what, if any,
changes lIIiqht occur with the removal of one or more stop signs on
Bryant, is to actually remove the siqns, and. monitor travel speeds for
a period of time ther~after.
"
9.3 ON-STREET PARKING
The. importance of llLaintalning existinq on-street parktng is one of the
few points about which there seems to be common a9ree~ent a~on9 the
diverse views e)..-pressed concerning the proposed. extension. The inter
mediate prefe=red plan includes the follo'Wing provisions z'eqarding on
street parking:
.~:
'--~""
·~:M
• No chanqe to existing on-street parking along the full
lenqth of Bryant, with the exception that the final design
for ~~~ traffic signal installation may need to incorporate
an on-street parkinq prohibition in th~ immediate vicinity
of the Embarcadero intersection. Parking 'Would be prohi
bited for a distance of up to 60 feet along each side of
each leg of Bryant, in order to facilitate right turns from
Bryant and left turns from Embarcadero.
93
.-'<\-
•
!1 ,I c
"!
" C
:J
~
~
~
~
:!
~
~ .,
iii
~
:l
J
"I
"" .,
.J
~
• Additional on-street parkinq (+13 spaces) viII be created
in the downtoYn business district along Waverley, between
Hamilton and Lytton, by converting existing parallel
parking to diagonal parkinq~
• Additional on-street parking alonq Waverley, between
Coleridqe and For~st.
• Additional on-street parking along one block of Churchill,
between Bryant and Waverley.
• Initiation of parkir.q res.trictions (7 a.m~ to 7 p.m.) on
one side of one block of Coleridge, between Waverley and
Bryant.
• Initiat:on of parking restrictions (7 a.m. to 7 p~m.) on
one side ot one block of Addison, between Waverley and
Bryant.
Daytime perking restrictions along the south side of the one block of
Addison will limit the use of 20 potential on-street parking spaces
to a only twelve hour overniqht period (7 p.m. to 7 a.m.). The 17
parking spaces on the north side of the street would be unaftected l
and remain availaklle for use throuqhout all hours of the day and
night.
The surrounding residential area is one of large, older houses with
relatively high levels of occupancy, a.nd limited garaqe size a.nd:
driveways for off-street parking. The area is also in close proximity
to facilities with major daytime parking needs. The ~omposite effect
of daytime employee parkinq and day/niqhttime resident parking is one
of ,.,e11 utilized on-street parking •
On a normal week day in October 1990, an on-street parking survey was
conducted 0:1 the one block of Addison where. parkinq is to be
restrioted. The inten~ of the survey was to assess the extent or non
residential parking in neighborhoods adjacent to the downtown. The
information collected indicates the following:
• At 6: 00 a.III., there vere 29
streett all of Which are
resid.ents.
vehicles parked on the
assu:I!ed to belonq to
• At s: 00 a .D., there .. ere 14 vehic~e.G parked on the
street, at least 13 or 'Which belonged to residents.
• At 10:00 a.m., there were 16 vehicles parked on the
street, at least 10 of which belonged tc residents~
• At 12:00 Noon, there ~ere 16 vehicles parked on the
street, at least 9 ot ~hich belonged to residents.
9'
I
I
, .,
--
=-'-'-<~---------<,,---'--'-'
The abo've data (albeit limited) indicates that even with parklng
restrictio!'l8 on the south aide of the block, sUfficient on-street
capacity may exist on the north side of the block during the dayti~~.
While this .ay generally be the case, some deficiency of spaces 1S
likely to occur durinq the period immediately following 7:00 a.m.,
prior to residents' departures, as well as a peri~ preceding 7:00
p.m., following the return of residE-rots. There .. ill also be the
inconvenience to some residents ~ho may, periodically, have to move
their car from the south Bide of the street, in order to comply vith
daytime parking restrictions.
A substantial 8.lJlount of additional on-street parking, will become
available, in the same iDmlsdiate areal 1ihen the bike lanes are removed.
from Waverley and unrestricte~ dayti=e parking is rcstore~.
Daytime parking restrictions along the south side of the one bl~=k of
Coleridge appear to be of somewhat less consequence since. the
residential area is not densely occupied, garage and driveway areas
for oft-street parking are qenerally substantial, and area iE not in
close proximity to facilities with major daytime parking needs.
RELATIONSHIP WITH PAKF EXPANSION PROJECT
The relationship between the Palo Alto Medical Foundation expansion
project, Which continues to proqress through various levels ot review
and approval, and the proposed extension of the bicycle boulevard
raises two important considerations. One concerns the compatibility
ot the two projects ..... hen both are completed and operational, the ct.'ler
concerns coord.ination of the two prcj ects durinq their respe<::tive
periods of illplemek\tation.
9.4.1 Cgmp~tibility with PanE Expansion Pkoie~t
The PAMF Specific Plan calls for Bryant, between Homer and Channing,
to remain open to all traffic, ~ith possibly the a~dition of a major
parking qarage access and/or major pedestrian access in this blOCk.
Bryant would be rQconstructed, with improved landscaping, pavement
features, and pedestrian ~menities.
The only specific desiqn features of the intermediate preferred plan
in the immediate vicinity of the PAKF are the additional stop signs
on Homer and Channing at their respective intersections vith Bryant.
If a street closure on Bryant vere to be included. in th~ bicycle
boulevard extension project, as indicated in the substitute plan, the
future use of the existinq urgent car~ Center site would ne~d to be
considered ..
There is no e ..... ident incompatibility bet ... een the bicycle
extension and the expansion of the PAME expansion project ..
coexist successfully with other major developments, and in
95
L
p ..
boulevard
Bikeways
areas of
,
-
-
'-' .. ._--
c
., ..
.. ..
i
.,
--
sub.t~ntial pedestrian and v~lcular ac~ivity, in .any areas of the
city. Nevertheless, tra.ffic volume. are projected to increase in the
tllock of 3ryant betveen Ramer and Cha.nning by 'approximately 400
vehicles per day with the full implementation of the PAMF p~oject~
This incre.ase, while not the optimum: situation for the bicycle
boulevard, can be addresse-i by incorporating design elements t.hat
minimize potential points of conflict betveen bicycle, vehicle and
pedestrj,an traffic on aryant and at any qarage and driveway ent:ries.
The specific manner in which the bicycle boulevard extension will best
be inteqrated with the design of th.e PAHF expansion is not defined at
this time, and will be examined as more specific design details are
developed for the PAME project. It is not unreasonable to anticipate
that a satisfactory design solution c~n be achieved~
9.4.2 ~inati9n with Implementation of PAMF Expansion project
The PAMF ~ansion is likely to be i~plemented in tvo phases, with a
maximum of ten years allowed for construction~ DUring that time,
Bryant will be the f~~s of major construction acti~ity, PQssibly tor
one to two years~ Given the turther requirements for des1qn, review
and approvals, it is likely that start of constr~ction for the PAMF
expansion project may be at least two to three years away~
TbB extension of the bicycle boulevard is proposed to be implemented
ouring this coming yea.r, with completion scheduled for September 19512.
Following-thim schedule, the bicycle boulevard extension project would
be completed ~nd cper-ational for a_ period of one to two years or more,
before the construction beqins on the PAMF expansion project.
The major consideration during the const~ction of the PAKF expansion
project would be the int&raction and required coordination hetwaen
PAKF construction activity in the one bclock of Bryant, and the. flo..,
of traftic in that block of Bryant.
EXisti!\9 and new bicycle traffic on Bryant.. as .ell as existing
vehicle traffic, voulc1 be expect~d to continue to flow on Bryant
Quring the .ajority of PAMF construction activity. ~~rinq most major
construction projects, the City normally requires that streets be kept
open to pedestrian, ~icy~le and motor vehjcle traffic, often with
appropriate restrictions that may include such measures as removal of
on-street parking f one-way tr~ffic flow and pedestrian passaqe on only
one 5i~e of the street. Such arrangements are relatively routine, ana
are bast dete~ineO when specific infermation and requirements are
readily aV3ilable.
The lenqth of the periods during Which Bryant would need to be totally
closed are dependent up¢n th.e type of 'Work that vill be going on, but
in any even~ a~~ likely to be relatively brief in relation to the
overall ten year construction period for the PAMF. Tatal closure for
certain periods may be necessary for such activities as house moves,
underground excavation across Bryant, and the r~surtacinq of Bryant •
DUring these periods, :bicycle, pedestrian and v~hicular traffic would
96
:--, "
i
! i , --),
L __ _
\
f
I
j
I
[
l
i
I
•
i ,
),_~:~?:f: _~._.
~-."-'-;-----~-'~"""""-
be directed. to an established detour r':Jute utilizing a parallel
.treat, such as Ramona or Waverley. Again, this is not an unusual
experience &nd one tor which suitable solutions can readily be
developed when specific details are ~vailahle.
9 • .5 BRYANT STREET TURN RESTRICTIONS
In conjunction with the installation of a new traffic signal at the
inters'Ciction of Bryant. a.nd EaLbarcadero., the interlllediate plan includes
provision tor riqht turns only from Bryant. Thro~gh and left turns
movementa for motor vehicles would be prohibited for both the north
and !Couthbound Bryant traffic, by means of raised channelization
islands~ Drivers, c~rrently m~kinq these movaments, would be required
to seek other ways to cross or access Embarcadero.
These throuqh and lett turn restrictions support two pr1~ary qoals of
the bicycle boulevard extension. First is to reduce existin9 traffic
volume on Bryant, er, at least, keep it from increasing due to the
a~ded attrAction c! the new traffic signal~ second is to eliminate
or reduce automobilejbicycle conflicts at the i~tersection
principally le::t turning lIIotorists crossing the path of throu.gh
bicyclists.
In response to concerns that have been exp~essed, a variation of the
intermediate preferred plan, one that ~ould retain the through and
left turn. Jlovements. (or possibly cnly the left turn movement) for
automobiles in the northbound direction, was also con&idered~ Tbe
reason for considering this vllriation is to preserve and enhance
automobile access to E=Darcadaro And to the dOk~town area tor
rasidents living south of Embarcadero.
The primary disadvantage of allowing through and left turn movements
on Bryant in the northbound direction 'Would be the consequent increaoe
in automobile traf:fic on Bryant as well as incr-eased conflicts be.twean
bicrc::les and left turninq automobiles. As shv'loin belcY, the ne'if traffic
siqnal ae the intersection of Br}·ant and Embarcadero would attract a
additional traffic to the northbound throuqh and left turn movements
on Bryant, beyond ~at exists at the present time.
Throuqh movement tor
northbound Bryant Street
Lett turn lIove.ment tor
northbound Sryant Street
Total
OP.1 LX n" FF x s:: YOLUMEs
Existing Preferr~d Unrestricted
Condition ~ VarLation
H 0 250
174 0 305
215 Q 555
.It the removal of turninq restrictions ,,·ere. to be considered for
southbound as 'Well as northbcfun:3 tra:ffic on Bryant., then tht!
sUbstitute plan for this intersection loIould be recommended. The
sUbstitute plan for the intersection provides unrestrioted turning
moveaents trom Bryant., but also includes a streec closure on Bryant
97
,
-
...• -..... ;.., .. -.,,~--""""'""'~
"
. .;.
.,
oj
j ., -
-
north ot Embarcadero. The street closure is need.ed to reduce the
considerable 6dded traffic and the increa~e in potential conflicts
between bicycles and lett turninq vehicles, that vould be expected to
occur with th~ installation ot the ne~ traffic signal •
In addition to the added traffic volume and conflicts, there are
adcHtlonal difticilities 'With allowing lett and right turns tor
northbound Bryant automobile traffic. For example, some positive
~eans of discouraging t.'1rouqb auto tr-affic is needed --as a minimum,
channelization by means of lane striping, but preferably raised
islands.. However, neither lane stripinq or raised islands for
separate northbound lanes is physically p:-actical in the limited width
of Bryant, while still preserving suitable lane 'Width required for
turninq movements to and from Bryant. Therefore, signing and pavement
arrows would be the only means by which the through movement
restriction could be cOIl2!!l.unicated. However r signing and pavement
arrows are not believed to be sufficient to deter Qrivers from using
the green liqht to cr-css Embarcader-o and continue north on Bryant
without a high leval of police presence and enforcement.
Furthermore, allmrinq left a.nd riqht turns, or all movements, for
northbound Bryant automobile traffic 'Would also raquire additional
qreen time for Bryant r and correspondingly ~ore red time for
Embarcadero, as compared to the preferred plan. This would have an
adverse impact on traffic flow on Embarcadero 'Whjch is a key concern
of many members of the public.
In summary, there sr. several siqnificant disadvantaqes in permi~tin~
only left turns or both the left and: t.."tr-ough movements for northbound
Brya.""lt automobile traffic. These include: contradiction with two
basic goals (volume and conflicts) of the bicycle boulevard; increased
red time on EmbarCAdero; and lack of driver conformance with the use
of only regulatory signs. It felier restricte~ movements at the
intersection of Bryant and Embarcadero is a top priority, the
substitute plan (inclusive of a street closure) is recommended.
9.6 Pk~ ALTO HIGH/TOWN • COUNTRY TRAFFIC SIGNAL
The opinion bas been expressed that the installation of a new traffic
siqnal at the intersection of Bryant and Embarcadero will have an
adverse effect ,operationally and financially) and is a lover priority
than a new traffic siqnal at the location whera the Falo Alto High/
Town , county driveways intersect with Embarcadero.
From an operational perspective r the installation of a new traffic
liignal at the intersection of Bryant and Embarcadero wi 11 neither
~ea5urably enhance or detract from the possibility of installinq a
tr~ffic siqnal at the Palo Alto Hiqh/Town , Cou~try driveway~.
From a ~inancial perspective, the same tundinq sources (State
Transportation Development Act funds for Pedestrian/Bikeway Projects
and city of Palo Alto Utility Electric ~unds) from Which funds have
been approved for the Bryant traffic siqnal, could be considered fer
a traffic sigt'lal at the Palo Alto High/Town 'County drivevay
location~
98
~:
I
!
I
I
•
,~\!
,".
,
~
•
'.
\
A new traffic siqnal at the Palo Alto Hiqh/Tovn , country driveways
was, at one ti.e, included as a project in the city's 1987-88 Capital r
Improvement Program. Subsequent evaluation identified a number of
issues that would make such an installation problematic, and the
project vas deleted through the 1989-94 CIP approval process~
8riefly, the i:s~~; incl~de th~ followinq:
• Close prolCimity to.
Camino/Embarcadero
difficulty achieving
existing traffic sig't\al at 2.1
intersection and resultlnq
reason~le aoordin~tion.
• Additional delay and stops to Embarcade.ro traffic,
including half ct the westbound traffic on Embarcadero
havinq to stop at both signals.
• Coordination would also result in delays to drivers
and pedestrians waiting at the driveways to cros~ or
access Embarcadero.
• Westbound drivers tarninq riqht ~t El Camino Real may
take a Short-cut throuqh the shopping center, to avoid
further <1elay.
• Conflicts between d:riveway traffic and pedestrian
traffic would continue to occur.
• Number of OC'.currencea w-hen the student pedestrians
from palo Alto Hiqh would cross Embarcadero in a qap
in traffic and not 'Wait for an appropriate green
Signal, is likely to be high rather than loy.
• Experience with usinq 4 crossing quard to facilitate
pedestrians croas.ing .EoD.barcadero appears to 'Work quite.
wall.
In sum:mary, the Palo Alto Riqh/TOYn , Country drive'ifay location
represents & completely different set of conditions and objectives
from 'those at the Bryant intersection, and should be considered
independently on its own ~erits.
99
...
' ..
_ ,,_~-:._. ",",",.""",fG"~_'''· ... ,,'_ ....... _
~l g
1
T " 0 -, ,
I
J
J
,
~._'IH:.""!'_~'--,_. .',-.,.--
10.0
B4eoed upon iniqrmation developed throughout this stUQY process I a
recommended plan has been prepared tor the implementation of tile
extension to tne Bryant Bicycle Boulevard. The recomEended plan is
essentially the s.ame as the previously described and discussed
inte.r.ediate. preferred plan. The purpoe=e of this section is to
describe the recommended plan which 'Will serve as the ba.sis for
further review, comment and action.
The following paragraphs describe the recommended plan as illustrated
in Fiqure 10.1.
10.1 SEGKENT A
seqment A starts at Churchill and extends to, but does not include.
the Embarcadero intersection. At present, the existing initial segment
of the bicycle boulevard ends at Churchill and cyclists are d.irected
along Churchill to Waverley ",hich has marked bike lanes from Coleridge
to Lytton and a signed bike route from Lytton to San Francisquito
creek.
The recommended plan for Seqment A, as illUstrated in Figure 10.1,
includes the removal of the existing stop signs on Bryant at
Churchill. The removal of the stop signs on Bryant at Churchill is
important to help ~acilitate bicycle travel along the bicycle
boulevard and is not expected to cause .:.ny serious operational
problems. If actual experience indicates that conflicts, speeding or
other operational problems do occur, corrective measures, including
the possible reinstallation of the stop signs on 8ryant, would be
taken.
The existing stop siqns on Churchill, as well as those on Kellogg,
Coleridq8-j' and Lo'Well would remain as they are at the present time.
Driveway access to Castilleja School and on-street parking would also
remain as it is at the present ti~e.
10.2 SEGMENT B
segment B includes only the intersection of Bryant and Embarcadero.
The recommended pla.n for Segment B, as illustrated in Fiqures ~O~l lind
10.2, inclucles the install;eltion of a neW' tra.ffic signal at the
intersection in ~eneral conformance with Option II-A which includes
a new traffic signal, right tUrns only from Brya.nt (throuqh and left
turns prohibited), left turn pocKets on Emharcader-o and no street
closure Qn Bryant. In order to facilitate right turns from Bry&nt and
left turns trom Embarcadero, the final design for the traffic signal
installation Il!ly-incorporate on-street parkinq prohibition in the
immed.iate vicinity of the intersection for a distance of \.Ip to 50 to
60 feet from the crosswalk, along each side of each leg of Bryant.
100
•
,
l
l
l
l
l
i,
I
I
I
t
!
i
,IKE "OI/TE 510NS ,.NOYEO
sTI)f" StOt4S "E"'E~SE.D
f'ROM Mt""HT To HAtWlHOlitNE
5TOjl' SlaMS R('40'lED ON aRT .... NT
101
DIKE L.Ut£S "iEMO'JEO; "'RICINO RESTOREo
BIKE LANES EXTENDID; 81"« LAMe:: E.lrr£llJEO;
"ARK.flO RESTfll;:nONS ADD!D l"Allucn(o .sTlillenONS MOED
alICE U.t.lEs RE_OV£Q;
,,,,gl(tNQ fl:ES'TOIltCD
I " , I
1 'I
I I! I . I
" ;!
I--~
I'
l;~~~~~~~j~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Jd.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:t~~~~~~~~~~~~-"~~{~~~ ''''''d' ""n"!"~
STOp SIOH 0\00(;:0
ON ~OMEI'I
S'l'O' SIGNS ItEVEHSED
• __ A • ___ • __ ._~
He;,," SIA~ ADD£D Tft.",,,te SKi"'",\.. ADDED
ON CHANNING
RIGHT fUIiIN ONLY '110,", BRYANT
STOP SfCl"'S REHOVEO ON .R ..... 41 NO HEW STAIiEf CLOSURE
.. "',,,.. I;~f---l.,,· ...... !----1 ~
l~-' "
I IT ,r--jUj
s'l'o" !>tGNS "'(MOVED
OM 8R ..... 1
'~: !"~i I·! !.o:!
!~' ,,--;1 in! I'd I.r:! ,0,:, ::: is!
iSi I:
FIGI)RE 10.1
RECOMMEIIItlEO PLAN
'.
~
!
•
.,
"
'j
3
0
...
iJ
!'l ...
1'1 .., Em~a.rc .. dero
----
j ------------
-To EI Camino Real
D
jll:l, .. rj To Waverley -
~'" DIU. 'f .....
DRECOMMENDED PLAN,
.,
< • ...
"" J
1 -.,
r ...
...,
-----,
Castilleja
Sc!\od
FIGURE 10.2
BRYANT IE MeAR CAoe RO IN TERSECTION
RECOMMENDED PLAN
I , I
i '-,
~
-~~;j:,;?:~;'~ ~'; .-
,-~.-;;;-.."'"
~I~',
illt~~r~_~ ----".--~-"--'."<~
The recommended plan would facilitatE ~icycle and pedestrian crossing
of Embarcadero with little negative consequence to Embarcadero traffic
flow (stops, delay) and air quality. The recommended plan would also
limit th~ diversion of Elrya!"lt vehicular traffic to .:It:her area streets,
would be 1es$ costly to implement, and is likely to be less disruptive
to the neighborhood than a solution that included a street closure.
It ~~e recommended pl~n proves to be unacceptable, a substitute plan,
as illustrated in Figure 10.3, CQuid be to install a neW' traffic
signal at the intersection in general conformance with option I-C
which includes a new traffic signal, all through and turning 1II0VemEJ;nts
peraitted, left turn pockets on Embarcadero and a street closure on
Bryant north o[ Embarca~ero.
:f the installation of I!! new traffic signal proves to be unacceptable,
then the implementation of the extension o~ the Bryant Bicycle
Boulevard should not be pursued. A non-siqnal~zed improvement would
be one that tends to encourage and concentrate bicyclists and
pedestrians in the middle of Embarcadero with two lanes of tra£fic
passing :by on both sides. S'lJch a situation, .. hile theoretically
possible, is p~a~matically unwise.
10.3 SEGKDtT C
Seqment C starts at Embarcadero (excluding the inter-section) and
extends up to Forest.
The recommended plan tor Segment C, as illustrated in Figure 10.1,
includes the reversal of the stop signs at Kingsley, removal of the
Qxisting stop signs on Bryant at Addison, and place~ent of additional
stop signs on Doth Channing and HOQers at their respective
intersections with Bryant. The removal of the stop signs on Bryant at
Kingsley and Addison is important to help facilitate bicycle travel
along the bicycle boulevarci and is not expected to cause any serious
operational problems. If actual experience indicates that conflicts,
speedinq or other operational proble~s do occur, corrective measures,
includinq the possible reinsta1lation of the stop signs en Bryant,
would be taken.
Placement o£ add.itional stop signs on Channing at Bl"}'ant and on Homer
at Bryant would not only £acilitate travel for bicyclists :but would
also addr-ess some existing vehicular and pedestrian safety related
issues at these two intersections.
The existing stop signs on Lincoln, Addison and Forest as well as the
existing' stop signs on Bryant at Channing. Ho:mer and Fores!. 'Would
remain as they are at the ~resent time. On-street parking would also
r~main as it is at t~e present time. Access to the current and/or
future 'Urlient Care services at the PAM}' would reMain essentially
lJnchanged, with the. exception that non-emergency vehicle traffic \;...Juld
not be able to cross Embarcade.ro at Bryant.
103
•
r -
,
I J
r
i D ~
f ~ w ., ..
J ., .. .,
J
.,
:
~ -< ;
I ...
... , I -
:J , ...
"l
J
i .. • oJ
.,
... -, ..
Street cIosura ~twsen
Channing &. Uncoln_?'~! .... ~'-
Embarcadero
_ To EI Camino Real
SUBSTITUTE PLAN
Casti"lIeja
School
FIG URE 10.3
BRYANT/EMBARCADERO INTERSECTION
SUBSTITUTE PLAN
.
To waverley -
104
!
While the recommended plan does not contemplate a street closure, if
the substitute plan# which includes a street closure is favored, the
prqposed. location for the street c:lo5ure is in the block bEtween
Channing ~~d Addi~on at the boundary of the residential neighborhood
(Location A). .If this proposed location of the street closure is
unacc-..!ptable, a1 ternative sites at the intersection of Bryant and
Adljiaon (Location BJ and the inter'Section of Sryant and Lincoln
(Location 0) are equally effectiv~ and suItable.
10.4 SEGKElrf 0
segment 0 starts at Forest and extends through the downtown business
district to Lytton.
The recommended plan for segment 0, as illustrated in Figure 10.1, is
to make no changes from existing conditions. The ~xisting on-street
diagonal parking elonq Bryant as vell as the exi5tinq traffic signal
t1!1l1n9 would remain as it is at the present time.
Experience in Palo Alto s .... qqests that existing on-street diaqonal
parkinq within ~he downtown business district cr~ates no inherently
more severe or less safe environment tor bicyclists. Therefore, the
potential lOES of 19 on-street p~rkinq spaces, that would result fro~
the conversion o~ diagonal parking-to parallel parJcinq, is not
warranted.
Also, the existing traffic I!dqnal timing 1s an inteqral part of a more
extensive downtown coordinated traffic signal system that is set in
a manner tha.t favors traffi-c flov along Hamilton, University and
Lyttons over traffic flow on the cross stree.ts. The retiming of
traffic signals to facilitate bicycle travel alonq Bryant, through the
downtown business district, is prohlematic and would create
unacceptahle consequences on vehicular traffic flow in the east-west
d.irection4
10.5 SEGI'.ENT E
Segment E starts at Lytton ana extends along Bryant to Palo Alto l and
then proceeds along a one block section of Palo Alto to the existing
bicycle/pedestrian bri~ge crossing san Prancisquit~ Creek.
The recommended plan fer Se.qment E, &s illustrated in Piqure 1041"
includes the reversal of the stop siqns at Hawthorne and re~oval of
an existing stop sign on Bryant at Poe 4 The removal of the stop signs
on Bryant at Hawthorne and Poe is important to help facilitate bicycle
travel alonq the bicycle boulevard and is not ~xpected to cause any
serious operational prohlems. If actual experience indicates that
conflicts, speeding or other operational prohlems do occur~ correctiVe
measures, including the possible reinstallation of the stop signs on
Bryant, would be taken.
105
..
.J
~ g .,
t.J ,
4
I g I ,
!
C
~
0
~
:J
0
~
!'i
ill
0
• J
~
.J
i ..
J ., ,
.J
~
.J
~ • <
/
The existinq atep signa on Everett, Poe and Palo Alto Avenue would
remain •• they are 4t the presant time. On-street parking would also
reaain .a it is at the present ti~e.
10.6 SEGMI:IIT F
Segment F represents all related changes on ~treet6 adjacent to the
proposed extension of the Bryant Bicycle Boulevard, including changes
to bike lanes and on-street parking alonq Waverley I Addison, Church.ill
and Coleridge~
The recommended plan tor Segment F, as illustrated in Figure 10.1,
includes the following:
Waverley
• Removal of existinq bike lanes between Lytton and
Coleridge (Waverley from Lytton to the
bicycle/pedestrian bridge at San Francisquito Creek is
I! siqned bike. route but does not have marked bike
lanes).
• Restoration of on-street parking between Embarcadero
and Forest.
• Conversion of exist!nq on-street parallel parking to
diagonal parking a"=. selective locations along Waverley
bet~een Forest and Lytton, vith the ccncomitant gain
of 13 on-st~eet parking spaces.
Addison A.venue
• Extension of existing bike lanes for one block from
Waverley to Bryant.
• Initiation of parking restricticns (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.)
on the south side of c:;e block of Addison (between
Waverley and Bryants) to accommodate bike lanes.
Churchill Avenue
• Removal of existing bike 1 anes betwee;] Bryant and
Waverley.
• Cessation of e~isting parking restrictions (7 a.m. to
, p.m.) on one side of one block of Churchill (between
Bryant and Waverley) .
Coleridge Avenue
• Extension of existing bike lanes for one block from
Waverley to Bryant.
• Initiation of parking restrictions (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.)
on the south side of one block of Coleridge (between
Waverley and Bryant) to accommodate bike lanes .
106
ct~.~~"'-·-~-~-~"---"--
<):" •
"
, ..
:J
J
11.0
This section of the report provides information re9ardinq estimated
costs plus potential sources for funding the exteneion of the Bryant
Bicycle Boulevard project, as 'Well as the identification of the
remai~1nq steps ~or Council consideration and action and a sc~sdule
for implementation.
lLl COST ESTIMATE
As part ot this current study pr-ocess, • preliminary cost estimate was
prepared for th.e LDp~ementation of the extension of the Bryant Bicycle
BoUlevard. Tbe total cost for imple~~ntation of the extension of the
sryant Bicycle Boulevard is estimated to be $ 228~OOO. Table 11.1
presents a summary of the project costs.
Tbe coat figures in Table 11.1 reflect a project that a&sume~ that a
new traftic signal, at the intersection of Bryant and Embarcadero,
will be built without a street. closure (Option II-A). If a substitute
plan with a street closure is contStructed (Option I-C), the total
project cost wrould increase by $3,000 to $13,000.. This. is: the
difference between the ac:tcHtional cost for-the stre2t closure C$lS,OOO
to $25., 000) and the elllBil'lation of the. cost tor raised concrete
islands ($.12 .. 000) at the Embarc-ade.ro intersection.
FUNDING
potential :funding sources fer implementation of the extension of tne
Bryant Bicycle BoUlevard, ~s shoWt'\ in Table 11.2, include the
following:
(al previously approved -
• State Transportation Oevelop~ent Act qrant funds and
• City o! Palo Alto Utility FUnd,
(b) as well as yet to be considered and app~oved -
• future State Transportation Development Act qrant
funds.
107
•
TABLE 11.1
COST ESTIXATE FOR f:XTENSION OF BICYCLE BOULEVARil
Seqment It.
-Reaove/relocate/install
signs and pavement .arkinqs
Seqment I!
-Remove/relocate/install
siqns a.nll pavement markings
-Install handicapped ramps
-Construct raised concrete islands
-Restricted york hours cost increment
-Install new traffic s!qnal
~~ftlc signal int.rconnection
SegJUInt C
-Remove/relocate/install
siqns and pavement markinqs
Seqaent 0
-Install signs
SegJUInt E
-ReJraov./reloc.~_ t:.e/ inst '111
s1qn£ and pavement aarkings
Se91lent F
waverley Street
-Rezaove siqns/paveae.nt aarkings and.
install new centerline and loops
Addison Avenue
-Install &iqn~ and pavement markings
Churchill Avenue
-Reaove sings and pavement Barkings
Coleridge Avenue
-Install siqns and pavement markings
$ 2,000
Subtotal IA) $
$ 6,000
$ 6,000
$ 12,000
$ 6,.. 000
$ 120,000
$ 24,000
Subtotal (B) ,174,000
$ 4,000
sUbtotal IC) • 4 .. 0.00
$ 1 .. 000
SUbtotal (D) • 1 1 000
$ 3.000
SUbtotal I.) • 3,000
$ 36,000
$ 3,000
$ . 2.000
$ J, 000
8Ubtotu (~) • u.ooo
~AL (A+B+C+D+Z+P) • 228,000
108
'""
,-
;".
,.. ;.
~ .~;:
,...
'-
~
,..
L.
,..
I I ..
C I
f
I ""--, .. _«"-*--------"MI , war
.-:-
II ~ ~ " I iii
D
o
o
I n 'iii
-• 1
..l
'.-,<
xt~
-. .
/
TABLE 11.2
FUNDING SOURCES FOR EXTENSION OF BICYCLE BOULEVARD
as t PreyiQus.ly Approyed
1990-1991 State Transportation Development Act
funds for Pedestrian/Bikeway Projects
Signal $ 75,000
1990-1995 city of Palo Alte capital Improvement
Program (utility Electric Fund)
B. Hot CUrrently Approved
Signal
Interconnect
$ 75,000
$ 24,000
Subtotal (A)
State Transportation Development Act tun~s for
Pedeatrian/Bikeway Projects
Signs/markinqa $ 54,000
Subtotal (8)
roTAL (UB)
lVNpING SOURCE StlMMbEY
state TDA Funds
CPA Utility Funj5
TOTAL
$ 129,000
99,000
(57t)
(4Jt)
$ 228,000 (loot)
109
• 174,000
$ 54,000
f 228,000
-
•
11.2 CITY COUNCIL REVIEW ~~D APPROVAL
The procedure &ntictpated for rGview and consideration by the city L
council ut the 1.plementation of L~e extension of the Bryant Bicycle
Boulevard includes the fol1o~in9 steps: r
step 1
step 2
step 3
Step ,
Step 5
Step 6
Forward study report to City Council \dth
recommendation for referral to Po!ic.y and Services
ccmmittee ter review and recommendation back to
Council.
Policy and Services Committee review and disclJssion
(with opportunity for public comments} and formula.tion
of a recommendation to the City Council.
Council consideration and discussion of the Policy ant!
Services Cc=mittee's recommendation (with opportunity
for public comments) and approval (or. disapproval) to
proceed with the implementation of thQ extension of
the Bryant Bicycle Boulevard.
council authorization to apply for additional 'I'DA
funds to help fund the project.
Council approval ot an amended Capital Improvement
Project providing funds needed to complete the
project.
Council aYard of contract tor installation of traffic
signal and other project elements.
11.4 SCHEDULE
The schedule tor the implementation of the proposed extension of
the Bryant Bicycle Soul.vard is as follows:
• Report to Council fo::-referral to Policy and Services
Committee (September 1991}.
• Policy and Services committee review and recommendation tc
Council (October 1991).
• Final Council approval (disapproval) of project
(November 1991) ..
• Council approval (disapprovalJ of supplemental funding for
project (December 1991).
• Preparation of desiqn plans and documents {December-March
1991) •
• Proj~ct bidding process (April -May 1992).
o construction of project (June -September 1992).
• Opening of extension of Bryant Bicycle Boulevard
{September, 1992J.
110
J
j
J
J
..,
..!
apPBBilIll:
Sketch8-& -of Preliminary Design Concepts for the
Intersection of Bryant street and Embarcadero Road
Ul
A
\
c ~
\
E
~
,...
r
\ \ ....
r-
FIGURE A.l '-
112
,...
L i
'PRELiMINARY DESIGN CONCEPT SKETCHES
... I i ... I
.-.•. ~ ..
•
. "
t ~ to; ~ ~J~
!'1
;,j .,
III
J .,
III .,
j,j
c
n
c ~' ,I
---,
j ~+\""D" ;;';'~..t' .....,..:.,... __ -+-.J4,..!dr.s.o .....
"! ~\ I ..
i .J --..,
J &,...1Io--.b.>"I' ., r...t..l~..l:fJ .. ':'O..l~ ............ ~~
"1
CC-!:'>1i\.~ ]
, -
FIGURE A.2
PRELIMINARY DESIG" CONCEPT SKETCHES
113
l-o.:.,:,.~~.:lo';......:1
t""l'Olfoi.-,.....WI.:J .. ) I<-,"':J Q-fl)
C c::;,,;, lie j~ I
M
-----< •
00 ""';;:''''L
~~ ----,....
(...,.. ~ ..................... ~-..t...~
-:;'''" --n.fto.l, -? ~ ~"')'
---
FIGURE 1..3
PRELIMINARY DESIGN CONCEPT SKETCHES
N
-
r
L..
roo
::
~
-,
L
114 C
iii.
•
-.-. < ~,-., ..
. /
-<~~ .
i :l :..
~ ..,
~ ;;,!
...
I
OJ
~
iJ
¥~terial Relat~d to the Initial Public Meetinq
J Public notice, age.r.da and handouts
Summary comments , ..
~ ...
~
oJ
~
iJ
~
~ .i ..
M ..
r; -IJ
J
I
J
0
n us
""! ,
.,
j
T.ansport.tf~ DI.lslon
(415)3U-2136
Oet .... r 5, Ino
U12 of Yalo fllto
P,O 101 10~~O
PA!O A.LTO, CA~ IfOt!:NI.., '.JO:l"
PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE. AGENDA
AND HANDOLIT MATERIALS
PLACE All! TI!!£.: Pl10 Alto SenIor Center, 450 Bryant Street
7:00 p •••• Thursday. October 25. 1990
SUBJECT: Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Exten,lon Study.
8Ag§!l0!J!!!l: The Brlant Street Bloycle Boulevard was eshbllshed In 1982 •• nd
currently extends I distance of two .,les fro. East ~ •• ~ow to Churchill Avenue.
The Bicycle 'oul.vlr~ Is a street .n whIch bicycles have precedenee; wIIere
direct. effl~l.nt bicycle travel Is enhanced by 11.'tlng the number of st.ps;
and wIIere confJ lets ,,'th ..,tIlr vehloles are .. Inl.hed. The Bryant Street BIcycle
Boulevard does not now eonneet to a,y .ajor Ictlvlty center. The lack of a
traffIc sl~a1 It t~~ IntersectIon .f Bryant Street and Bob,reldero hi. been a
.ajar lopedfoent to the .xtensl.n of the b". boulev.rd to downtown ,.10 Alto
Ind through t. the Ken1. 'ark cltl 11.lt.
In .:tun. tht CIty Council .ppr.ved funding for the lnst.llatlon of a traffic
signal It the Inte.sectlon .f Brlant Ind Embarcldero In the 1990-95 Capall
Ilprovement Pr.gr .. budg.t. Work on the de"g' Ind In5tallition of the traffic
signal will not proc ... untIl a roc...,n ••• plan f •• the exton,;on of the bIcycle
boulevard til downtown Is eompleted and prosent.~ to the City Council for review
an~ appro.a1. -
PURPOSE OF MEETIUG: The purpose of this IHtlng Is to provide an opportunity
for the publ1e ~ learn air. about t~t current stud,)' Ind eoamerlt on prel1IJina'!"")'
conceptual altern.tlv.s for the bloycle boulevard exten,lon. Tho,. conceptual
plans IdentIfy a .Ingo cf potential chong.s In e~lstlni conditions alor.~ Bryant
Street (potenti.l sites for I barrier to 'mpe6e vehicular trafflc. se'ect'~e
changes to step sisns Ind 'to on-street pari'ng 1n the d:owntOllTl); on Waverle.)l
Street (relay,l of exist1ng ~f[e lanes. resto~atfon of on-street pa~king)i and
It Bryant and OOlrcadero (alternatives fro. fu1 1 access to 1 illfted access
slpn.llzatlon). The .. etlng will follow a workshop fonsat Incl"ding • gen.ral
preJeritatf on , sIIal1 WDrki~~ groups for dfscussiah and eVlluatfor., and I per10d
for o.,.r. coament. Wr1tten cc.ae-nts are Ipproprhte before. It. Dr followi n51 the
... tlng. St.ff will use the cCllents frot thIs .. etlng In the e.alu'tlon .n~
further rEfinement of the b1c~'t boulevard extenston pll"~
Thh notice has been sent to all res'dents within I one·block r-ad'ius. of the stud'y
corridor. Miltbers of the Palo Alta Bf;:ycle Advtsory Coan1ttee Ind' other
fntefe£ted parties. A map of tne study corridor is provided on tne batk of this
notice.
GAYLE LlKEH5
Stentor Planner
-•
...,
-
1-
2.
J.
4.
5.
6.
7.
B.
/
City of Yalo ~tto
p 0 to.l: IO:2SC
"" .. 0 '-'LTO, CAUfORM... ,'30)
BRYAIft' STlIBI!'l'
BICYCJ.J! BOULEVARD EX'l'EJfSIOH S'l'UDY
POBLIC IIEB'l'IKG
7:00 PH Thursday
OCtober 25, 1~90
Palo Alto Senior Cen~er
450 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA
AGENDA
Openinq Comments
Presentation on Conceptual Alternatives
QtJes'tion& tor Clarification of Alterna.tives
Small Group Discussior.s
summary Report s from Small Groups
Open Per.1 Od. for Pulllie Co:rr:uaents
completion of Response Forms
Closing comments
(7: 00)
(7: 20)
(7:40)
(8:00)
(9:00)
(9:15)
(9:45 )
(9:55)
Handouts:
A. Summary of project background and current process.
B. Reference work sheets tor conceptcal alternatives.
Contact Person: Cayle Lik~s, Senior Planner, (415)329-2136
118
\
..,
HANDOUT A
BRYAIIT STRI!!l!T BICYCLE IIOCLI!VARIl BXl'EHSION STUOY
BOIOIARY OJ! PRO.nC'r BACitGROUlID AND ~ ~S
A~ PUrpose
rhe p~5e of t.)e bicycle boulevard i. to provide: (1) a
throuqhway upon which biQycles have precedence over automobiles;
(2) a direct route that reduces travel time f~r bicyclists, (J) a
.afe travel route that minimizes conflicts 1II'ith motor vehicle
traffic: and (4) a facility that promotes and facilitates the us.
ot bicycles as an alternative transportation mode.
The purpose of this study is to ~eyelop a recommended plan for the
extension gf the Bryant Street Bicycle B~ulevard from its present
ter1D.inus at Churchill Avenue northward to and t11rol.lgh downtown Palo
Alto and on to the eXisting bicycle/pedestrian bridge across san
Francisquito Creek to Menlo Park.
E. PAlo Alto Cpungil PQ]ic'el
The Palo Alto Council has lonq-stan~ing policies, and e notable
record of actions and achievements, that emphasIze, encourage and
facilitate the use of alternativ~ modes to the automobile (walking,
bikinq, car/Vanpool., transit). These policies and actions over a
period of tiae have resul tee! in a bicycle sys'tea and related
~upport facilities and promotions that consistently place PalO Alto
in the top ranks of bicycle usaqe and user friendliness. Such
efforts to facilitate and e~couraqe the use of alternative
traTIsportation aedes will taJee on increasing importance as regional
and local efforts to reduce traffic conqestion and improve air
quality continue to escalate.
C. palo Alto Cgmnreb.~siye plon
The transportation elament Of the COlDprehensi ve Plan contains a
number of policy statements and related programs that strive to
reduce the usage of the automobile and encourage the use ot
alternative tra'\'el ~es. Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan
incluc1es Transportation Policy 12: ·PROMOTE BICYCLE USE-, along
with rel.t.~ programs to s~pport and achieve such a policy
inelu4ing:
Program 34 -Develop and implement a network of
throuqh bicycle boulevards, and
Proqraa 3S -Remove traffic control i_pedi.ents and
physical barriers ~o bicycle travel.
119
Gt .. -~ ..
•
I .. .
t~~:! ·
-
.'--.
The ex1atlnq Bry.nt street Bicycle Boulevard vas established in
1982 and extend'S a diliitance of two miles from East MeadoW' D:riv£ to
Churchill Avenue. Within that distance, there are thre~ locstions
that _peeifically per.it bicycle pass~ge and prohibit automobile
pas •• ge (a street closure at Lovell Avenue, II street closure at E1
V.r ... .,o AVRnlJ.e and II bridqe crossing at Kltedero Creek). Also.,! stop
81gns at a number of interaEctions alonq Bryant Street have been
located 50 as to t4vor bicycle travel along the Bryant Street
Bicycle Boulevard.
I. CApitol Improyemonts
In 1986. the narrow pedestrian bridge, where Bryant street meets
Matadero crt!ek, was replaced with two new structures; I!I wide
bicycle: bridge and II separate pedestrian bridge. This past summer.
the two temporary wooden barriers (street closures) on Bryant
Street were replaced with permanent raised and landscaped concrete
islands. Both projects were funded throuqh the City's capital
raprovement Pr~ra. with qrant funding in e~cess of $87,000 from
the State, thro~~h the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
F. Current Study Proce'l
Th. objective of the current study is to d~velop a recommen~ed plan
for the extenE,ion 1,)f the Bryant Street Bieycle Boulevard that is
consistent with the intended objectives of tbe bicycle boulevard
conceptI addresses the concerns of .~fected residents, and
:minimizes any real or perceived negative effects. The priRiIlry study
tasu include::
1. Define Project Goal
II. Data Collection' Analysis
III. Develop Conceptual Alternatives
IV~ community Revie~ and Comments
V. EValuation' conclusions
VI. Develop Preferred Alternative
V~I. Prepare Draft Study Report
~II. community Review and comments
IX. Final Report' Recommendation to City Cou~cil x. Impleaentation of Approved Plan
August
September
Septetmer
October
November
Nov~mber
Oecember
January
Febr-uary
Later
This current pu.t:llic aeetinq (Tas)t IV) to review conceptual
alternatives and. receive comments will be followed by another
p~l.1c aeeting 'Task VIII) in J'anuary to review a preferred
alternative and draft study report~
A final decision by the City council regarding the implementation
of the extension of the Bryant Street Bicycle BouleVard (including
8; traffic sigTlal at the intersection of Embarcadero Road and Bryant
Street) is scheduled to occur in February (TaSK IX}.
J 20
-:",.
r
l
-t ..
n •
'i oJ
•
HANDOUT 8
a • ~ ~ • • • C I • 0 a I: 8 •• ~ T • F 0 a
co_ C B • r U A L A L ~ I a _ A r I v I 8
III
--
'/ .'
10' ."
.~
",'
SEE FIVE iNfERSECTION
AL.fERNATIVeS
_-!-,L-_-I ~
_~_~_-J=
1--~_+~.L-1~
I---l"
1-_ ... :11
=
•
'\
I' ~
! :
~
l
I
l
1.' • A. ; \-.,,--
II '" ........ " ..... " • ., ...... ', ......... 118"" ............... t ........ !" 1 ....... H ... H1I ....... t1I' ...
""'ur".
ICMUOI.
I I
i
1
--
/
o o
N
=..: --
, , ,
I w
~ w
w ~
,j, '" 0 ~
f Q' ~
w w
~ ;:
0 0
i 0 ~
....
..J
% ..,
It
:>
% .,
:
~
=
I
D ..
iii
D
.,
J
/
~~--------"
SEGMENT 8
B • B a • caD Z • ~ lB. r a • ~
a L T Z R • a ~ I V Z 8
123
" ~ ~ '.!
I
j
I , Embarcadero
.--
~ To EI Camino Real
EX iSTlNG CONO mpN S
Castilleja
School
•
[
Embarcadero
A To Waverley -• legend: .
¢ traffic signal
1659 existing
volume ,..
-
.... --------.. --.... --.. ----.... ~--.. ----.... ----...... --.......... --.... --.... ~[
Embarcadero
---
---
-To EI Camino Real
ALTERNATIYE" t FULl. ACCESS SIGNAl.,
LEFT T\Jf\N POCKETS, BRYANT CLOSED
BETWEEN AOOSON AND UNCOlN
12)
Casijlleja
School
Embarcadero
io Waverley -
Legend;
¢ traffic
1659
signal
1274
new volume
-with
alter na tive
~ .,
I .-
~ J !
~I
; ..
"1 ... ., ..
~ , -.,
.I ., ...
"1 ...
1--1
~
...
J
l'l ..
rt
~
i
ri .. .,
« , ...
"" < ,
t
~
" .
Embarcadero
-To EI Camino Real
ALTERNATIVE 2; UMITED ACCESS SIGNAL
(NO< LEFT TURNS FROM EMBARCADERO),
llI'IYANT ClOSED BETWEEN AOOISON
AND UNCOLN
Embarcs.dero -------
To EI Camino Rear
Casllleja
Scnool
A!JEBNATlYE 3; UMITED ACCESS SIGNAl.
(RIGHT TURNS ONLY FROM BRYANT~
LEFT TURN POCKETS ON EMBARCADERO,
NO CLOSURE ON Bf;YANT
Cas~llej.
School
To Waverley -
o
!t1'WT To Waverley -
125
. ~
"
Embar~adero
To EI Camino Real
ALTERNATiVe: 4' UMITEO ACCESS SIGNAL
lRlGHT TURNS ONLY FROM BRYANT).
NO CLOSURE ON BRYANT
C •• tilleja
SchOOl
•
To Waverley -
.----------------------------------------... ------.. ------------.. ------------.... ~ :'
Embarcadero
To EI Camino Real
ALTERNAllyE 5; NO SIGNAL. UMtTED ACCESS
(NO LEFT TURNS FROM EMBARCADERO.
RIGHT TURNS ONLY FROM BRYANT~
NO ClOSURE ON BRYANT. REFUGE ISLAND
'. ~
Castilleja
School
I-foci '-"It wid"Hn:
To Wa veriey -
126
-,
,...
•. -.. ---. ---_ ....
•
----
•
".{ -.: " . ~ .;: ..
1-::.. .. ,
. I I I I I I liT nrr 1:C I
,
\
•
SEGMENT 0
WAV
FI.mo ... ~
rl.lore . mlthlB~~r ~"~"
. _ ........ -. _. T[~ffif"··········="""·~-·"""""···""""···"'''·''''''''''f''·l-_"L"·~W_"L"'JI!T"~LE...J"L.."L·"~"
ItDJ · __ ~_-II FlOREIIC[ OPTION L..,..",*= ...... .....d..-J
-r-r-h-r---lj : ,.
~~~L-~' .~~~~~~_ '~ ...................... ~ ................ ,"'" ....... u ...... " .. ,II.II ....... ~ .. U ••• "'"':-.~ .... OIl .... n ........ ltn .. u '" k---:-7':-:-i----.... .. .... '·a'fYANT .. • .. N "
~Ili. B !~I'i,' 11.000 El'rlr-rL-t:=:N
C-:J' nTIlr1 RAMONA! Irrwt~: !l llill 1:tttH6:~ l
Mfft1frwrn II 'II! I~ IjPl~?=1 ===' T,="=r==r=SOIl~1 1.1
-= --'
:,".
==::1== __ ... _ ..... _________ _
'-
SEGMENT E
1III111 t1 HII II H q III n ~
IlIPLING ST ~ ~
CITY Pl.""
[uNCi!YflOP'IEDI
o
II
•
•
o
•
, ...
SEGMENT F
o.
• % It • • 1 l' •
... ~VO oxi'tiD; bito lan.. bOtWOOD LyttOD ODd Colerid;_
... to~ o:-atr •• t pattiD;
lzteJld. bite lu. •• troa •• verley to Brya.l:lt
130
,
U
II , I
~
•
DlSCUSSION GROUP ASSIGNMENT
1)' The meeting facilitator will as~igll you to Ci discussion group.
2) Each group h as been assigne<l • Re<ord er.
The Recorder ~;
-Help your gooup get started.
~. 1:£q; II summary of your group'S discussion on the flipchart.
Remind you of time limits.,
Answer simple clarifying questions .-maIor teochnical
questions will be ;J.rt.S'"..vered by roving 5r~lf who can be
c.!led on by your group.
The Re~order should 11121:
-A1.ake decisions for YCUT group,
Insert his/her own opinions.
--Control the discussion. towards lIZ particular Outcome.
3) Select a Spokesperson. The Spokesperson is someone from your group -
but not a City Staff person -who ","ill present a summary of YO'.H group's
discussion to the entire meeting when it reassembles. The Spokesperson 1S
not to use his/her pos;tion to argue for his/h2f own positions.
4) For each segment:
a) Discuss the options for that segment, as neede{.::t urnil everybody in your
group understands the options.
b) On the flipchart, record all t.."ie iS5uesi arguments you believe people
should consider in evaluating t:"1.e options. The group as a whole doesn't
have to agree with each point -as long as someone in your group wants it
up there, write it down.
c) Move onto the next segment. Be sure to watch the timE:, or you may find
you've used up ali your time on only 1-2 segrr'.ents.
d) As soon as you are done .. asstst your Spokesperson in assembling flipchart
sheets and preparing to gi ve .a report.
5) The report-back procedure will be as foUows: All the Spokespersons will be
assembled at the front of the-room at the sa..--ne time. The meeting facilitator
""ill ask one Spokesper50!1 to take the Jead in presenting-all his/her group's
points regardIng one segment. Other Spok~persons will then be asked only
to add new pomlS that were not raised in the first group. A different
Spokesperson will be asked to take the lead on the next segment, etc.
J3!
•
-.
r
, -
., ..
1"\
W
j
U!lUCED IN SUE l"OP
PLPROQU~~ON PURPOSES
11C'fr.U -....n .. IXTDSJ.--nJUlAT,_ ,.
01 __ tI' 1M" _~ Doll_II.)
't!' ... J'I! ""' t'·~) r1 lilt .'Mlt .... Im=( M'nl*p. ".nau.,., ..... ' ..... _n·l...-.,.. u":""W:otpI<JI1
pi ........ "";-r"~I ..... lj_ .... ....,eu .. I "C" _ I .... _r.r -" .,-t1 ....... II_:j ...... I ~II ... ot>->
llIaol'~I'
.a..' .. 1_"'1,,, 11 ~I 'I.., IC) ..... QPtI_ 1.,." fl' -~I 1'''Il10 ... t ..... .-1_1 t.\\i ...... ...,.,.. ~\ ........ OW ..-..po: ... ', .1_ • ...,," ... "1I_1_.o.......,.'" ...... r""I_.
~\ Jll .. II)' __ ",.., II ...... ..,..., .,. ~I\! •
• '.'1 t_ .,lui ....... .,. U"" I(p ~ ~nl<
-
.11 2, ~l"f"JII_ .. r,.,.~ "-1~1 _ .,.........--.,1. ''YIM u .... ....-..,i_ "'UIII:.'~.
10111, ~""IIOf--'li_1 ,r'''1 '-<MIl' h_.~I, ,,,,. ,.....'.~bu, ... I ......... ~.
lill-: 110 11_1, lIalillil __ C .. II'fL _ I,.. .r-~. 1'11"1 ~ ..... , ~ ... 1<J'W't:I, ..
FI __ ... ,',.11 • .....r_ hltNI.
-
~"I ~j ... «), .~ ..... 11_ .., ~ltl_'",> .-.... 11_ ..... ..,.... II /oCIOI ..... _ ....
II ... WI .. ,~ _, _ ~' ... -" ~t,
'-",.., I, __ ...... , ........ ' ..... 5.,.....,.~ ... !.,..
""",I.., 2: r.." "'.tt,. ,_'_ •.•• ,_.,. • ...,....,I""~_.
","1'" .: ...... ." I •• "'" .. _ ... ",""",,. It '".,l.
-
c-.I:
In
" ..... 'r -
---_ ... _11 ......... *'.'lm ... ---·~-~"'--~·'
---
~ ... -.n-"'''''JIIL~
~t Iol&'lo [C)I ........... U .. '.11111 ....:11111_ .
.... II ~ 111 ..... 1 "";1,.. ,. ... '111'1,....1 ... ,
-
~"'i '1"" "" _ .~ •• 1_., ",,-..-. __ .... II .. ...,.~ .,_ .
• 1 .. I, ItMp I,. .. i_ ..... 1.,1". 11~.
--
~I 101.,. ft), ___ alnllll ,1..,.1. 1_ ..., _,., f_ lytl." 'U c.t ... , .. __ ~,_ ....
. II....-! ..... kl .... '"'"_ .-t_ .ic:.,.l. t_ t • ..--.., __ lui", ~ill .Ie,oe'" 1 ___ • .-,..or __ t.,. • .-1 .... tM...-, .. ~~l. t_ .I • ...,..,a.
IIpocIM... .. __ Milll ....... I"Y tlfpl:l. i_ •
... 1.,.2: .. _ ..... .".. ..... 1"-1 -,I ... _ K~'""I.I __ ..-.., .
.,.1.,,,, ... _ .. 1 .... _1_ 'lc,oKl 1_ U _I., .
• \ .. t, .. ~ ""-_rill,.. __ ilt .1..,..1. 1_ ~_ ~ ..., ~I.,.
-. .... " .. M1" _ taot ..... l .. "'co,o;l. 1_ ,. ..".,..
-
.... CitJl/Zi~
133
>''''', -,
""';;,
.;: ;.;~ ,
'\ • .),.i.-;
::--
r M .. ,-
!.I -\' J .. -. ,
.J
"1 ..;
'"' ...
-,
, , ...
,.,
w
~ ,
iJ
n
;,J
n
j
n
~
0 ..
J
.., ,
~ -
'f.
','. . f'l'· ','", "'10 Ja'~~-" I,. l, .. ,,-~ i.J • '. .
~::, \ --
Transportation DivIsion
P.O. Box 10250
94303-0862
250 Hamilton Aven~e
Sixth Floor
(415) 329-n36
PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY COMMENTS
December 7, 1990
S~bject: Bryant Street Bicycle Boulev~rd Study
Dear Meetinq Participant:
The purpose of this letter is to thank you for your
perticipation in the October 25th community meeting
regarding the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension
Study.
Enclosed tor your information~ c:;re summaries of the
comments received during the open forum and qroup
discussion 5eqments of the meetinq, as well as a summary
of the responses to the survey questionnaire.
The com=ents and input provid~d at the meeting will
assist staff in developinq a draft study report and
recommended implementation plan. We anticipate that the
report 'Will be presented for public review in January
1991.
Again" thank you for your intet"est and participation in
the Bicycle Boulevard Extension study process.
Sincerely,
~~ ~ns
Senior Planner, Transportation
Enclo:;.ures: Comments from October 25th Community Meeting
{aJ Group Discussion CommenTS
(b) Open Forum Comments
(e) summary of Evaluation Form Responses
13~
-:--........ 100 .... 7 ...... --... -~ .... "
•
1 ),
SlW.L YOU, COI8IEJITS
BRYANT STR.EET BICYCLE BOULEVARD mOOION STUOY
PllBllC "EErIN' -OCTOBER 25, 1990
srpDrr A; thurcb1 J 1 to EllbarcacltTo
J. The propo~ed stop sign changes are consistent with the objectives of the
bike boulevud.
2. Th. Waverley/Churchill intersectIon Is dangerous; remeving the bike lane
segment on Wayerley and installing bike lanes on Coleridge are good idea,.
3. Hone of the opt;cms 90 far enough··barr1el""s on Embarcadero shol.lld be
considered.
4. Conflicting opinions expressed abDut the exfsting conditions as being okay
and dangerous.
s. tonceT'Tl ;bout increa:sed volume and speed of traffic ,past Casti 1 Teja School
with 2-wlY stops; cars would ignore tnem.
6.
7.
8.
There is not ~ch speeding anyway ~n Bryant.
Removal of bike lanes on Churchl11 may be unsafe be.:ause of Palo A1tc High
School traffic.
What is traffic impact on Kellogg?
9. Ch~ck hedg~s on corners (ChurchIll/Bryant) to Improye sfte distance.
]O~ Visibility of ~xisting barriers is not very good. particularly .t night.
]]. Thoe jog fn the bi ke route 1n Sepent -AI" hilS .t greater impact on
plcycH,ts than the proposed jog It the nocto end (Segment 'D'),
therefore c extension cf Boulevard O~ 8ryant is suppoTt!d.
12. Crossing Embarcadero from thE! south h InOTe dangero'JS dOTing non-peale
hours from Waverley than from BrYint. Wa\lerTey has too many 1 anes (IO 'Ws.
6 for Bi"yant) and more turning l'lo\lements and conflicts. A signal at
Bryant wou1d allow res.!dents from tne south to acce-ss or cross E"mbarcadero
from Sr~ar.t (the less dangerous intersectton).
13. The existing jog to Waverley should be ma;ntiined because bicyclists ire
separated from the traffic (vii bike lanes).
14. Sike lanes present t~eir own nalird~: they often have debris and they
provide bicyclists with a fa1se sense of security. Many drivers actually
encroach on bike lanes.
IS. Bike lanes do present some hazards, but for young cilildren, they can
provide some sense Df direction ~nd aSSistance.
16. Approves of remov.al of Bryant Street stop signs at Churchnl to minimize
delay to bicyclists.
l35
•
..,
L
,-
n ....
.., .. ~ .. . , , ...
..,
to! ., ..
""I
'"'
'" . I
0.1
. ., ...
'"' ... ..
..!
.., . ....
....
I ..;
'" ~
i
.., .
;,J
... ,
-,
Small Group Comments ·z·
17. Should reaai" 4-w1lY stop. Disapproves of removal of Bryant Street stop
signs at Ch~rchn: because C~urchill is he3vil.1 tnveled, e:;p~c;al1.Y by
Palo Alto High students. Bryant Street troYelers should not haYe the
right-of-way ov~r the ch;ld~n w~o bike up Churchill. No stops on Bryant
would pre:;ent an increase in danger to these students. City should
recognize that children often do not obey stop signs .
]8. Cnurchil l/Bryant not dangerous because of stops em Bryant and barrier
further up •
IS. If stop signs are removed from Bryant at ChlJrchill, cons;der using an
idult crossing guard.
SEGMENT B: Bryant{~barcldero Intersection
1. There should be signs directing people to the Urgent Care Canter .
2. Alternatives with left-turn lanes on Embarcadero are dangerous because the
resulting traffic la"es are so narrow; wider tr.fffc lanes are safer for
automobiles and bi~ycles .
3. Since left-turn l.r.es on Embarcadero do not hetp bicyclists~ why are they
;ncluded in tne i,lternatives?
4. The intersection plans must tr1 to iccommodate everyone, but bIcyclists'
needs .re of foremost importance .
S. Co~r.ts on Iiternative t:
o A biTrie,:" at Addison ind lincoln would be disruptive to the
neighborhood. R~na Street, which is very narrow, ~ould receive
additional traffic that it canr.ot bandle .
D Tne barrier would only b10ck 2 l/l to 3 blocks. That is ridiculous
becau$! it means that motorists can travel cnl,)' a short d:stance
berere having to turn. Other barrier locations usually allow
motorists to travel a greater distance befere having to turn.
Barrier WCHJ.1d' also be teo close to Downtown. Barriers prevent
residents from simply being able to drlve around their own
neighborhood.
o Jf residents 0pp0s! ba!"'rier, consider incther alternative that would
be active onl~ part of the day, so residents a,e not preVented from
driving around their neighborhood.
o Determine whether road b.smps wou1d be a viable alternat1ve to a
barrier.
o Alternative] is a norm;a1~ naturil driving uperience. Alternati'o'Es
3, 4, , 5 are unusual ,weird) and create unexpected experiences for
drivers ind bicyclists, Ind, therefore, are less safe.
136
\
s.
o
Small Group Comments
-3-
Alternative 1 does not addr~ss the problems lsscci.ted with the mix
of rlght-turnin9 vehicles and b1~ycles -strip designated area for
bikes.
tom.ent$ on 61tgrnatlvt 2:
a This 11terniti~e is ·pra a~tomobtle·.
o Left t'J'!"'rtS from EmbarcaderD onto Brya.nt should be atl&lliled. Bryant
is too far froo [1 C .. ina for left turns to be prohibited intt the
neighborhoods on either side.
a Is qood because it reduee,s conflicts between bic-ycl ish and left
turning vehicles from Embarcadero.
6. Comments on Alternative 1:
7.
s.
D left turns from Embarcadero to Pry.nt would be difficult if concrete
barriers were instal1e-d on Br.yant i!'ld could be (onsidered' hazards to
DOtorists.
o Preferable because no barrier is proposed'.
Comments on Alternittves 4:
o
o
Barriers are effettlve 1n r~uc1n9 traffic on Bryant.
ihe birY1ers around the bike lane on Bryant wi11 protect bicyclists
from cars tur~ing off of Embaitadero.
Comments on Alternatjye 5:
o Thls is the most dangerous alternative fo~ thildren and bicyclists
D This is the least dangerDus alt~rnatiye for same two groups
o
o
o
The centeriine on Bryant ne~t tc the bike la~e shouid b~ a ra;sed
median.
Cyt11sts will dart across EmDarc~dero to the ~dian when only one
lane of traffiC stops ind the second does not
This alternative is iii cheap interim measure that could be test!d and
changed ;f it doesn't ~ork.
o YDung children try to run without a light; wit~ proposed islands
{Alternative S) there w'l\ be ~ fa1se s~n5e of safety.
Q Need to consider other t!pti.c.;,-~ .. rH~oU't a traffic. 1 ight. Alte.Y'nat've
S is i strawman(bad choice.
D "efuge island ~U$t be suffiCient to protect mu'ti~Te bicyclists at
ont time and bikes with trailers.
137
"-,
r , '
,... ,
.-
,-
., ... ..
J
..,
" ... .,
• ...
"l • ..
...
.J ..
W
.,
ioI
... •
"'! , -
o
o
.-,':
.o.:i.~_: __ .. _. _ .. ____ . .........-... ... __ " __ .
~11 Group Comments
-4-
left turns should be permitted 5.0 people are not pre"tented from
entering neighborhood toward Downtown .
The refuge fs1and provides protection for bikes without the need for
a traffic signal .
9. Embarc,dero should be only three lanes wide: ene lane of traffic in
ett~er direct;or. ind I center two-way left·turn lane.
HI. The exfsting triiffic Signal It Embaradero/Wa~02rley should be moved to
Bryant/Embarcadero.
11. The trafffc light shou1d be a steady 9feen for Embarcad~rQ that can only
be triggered by bicyclists on the side street.
ll. Traffic lfght is too costly and would cause pollution and noise.
13_ The lock of • tr.ffic light at Bryaot/Embarcadero mak .. the «xi,ting)
bike boulevard usel.ss.
14. The .afety issue at Town and Country Village (.,ross from P,ly High) is
greater than it BryantjEmbarcadero t so why ~rry about the latter?
is. AlternatiYes] and 2 are the l!ast conf~sing; Alternatives 3. 4, S w~vld
be confusing for ~otorists .
]6. The refuge island might be dangerous for bikes.
17. Alternatives that bl<lcK cr(lSS movement to/frail Downtown cause
inconvenience to drivers. Act~a11y all the alternatf~es (because of the
barrier) cause inconvenience to dr~vers.
18. The upqrading of tftis intersection would isprove the safety fer k.ids ~ofng
to/from Costilleja.
]9. Alternatives that restrict turning ~ovements at Embarcadero would cause
more tnffic to Lise nt!i~hborhood streets--especial1y due to Castilleja
dropoffs (.lts 2, 3, 4, 5).
ZOo Existing intersection (Embarc4dero and Bryant) is a ~ess for cars, b1kes
and pedestrians .
21. Traffic 1 ights mess up traffic; lights cannot be synchronized; countEr
productive to traffic flow on Embarcadero.
22. Bryant ~s the best through route for bicyclists.
23. Bicyclists will 19n(lre red light for Alternatives 1 -c.
24. Why not keep the ~tatus QUo~ ~r use WJverTey as the extension of the Bike
Bou'e~lrd'.
25. Concerned ilbout Palo A1t~ CliniC expanSion and effect on Brya.nti and
coordination with strEet closure in AlternatiVES 1 and 2.
138
"------~ ,"'--... ,-"----.'
! "
"l ..
':~~"'.
•
"
r I
-'
Small Group Comments
-5-
26. Wltll prohibition of left turns, concerned .""ut Increased troffic on
Kellogg, )Ong.l.y and other str.ets. This Impacts r.,ldent. of the
5urr6unding streets. Heed t~ analyze impact on surrounding streets before
presenting plan to City Council. -
27. Consfder t-eIIOval of ill few pnkin9 spaces on Bryant j{Jst north of
Embarcaoero in order t. facilitat. turns from and to E~barc.dero.
28. Conc .... t. islands In roadway. (Alternativ .. 3,. & 5) are "".xpected,
confusing for DOtorlsts and cre.te s.fety problems, particu'.rly at nfght.
29. All left· turn lane alternat;\I!$ provide safer ieft-turn mo.,ements from
Elaba.rt.adere _
30. Consider alternative thillt yould have signal f1uh yellow on embarcadtra
Ind rec on Bry.nt except when bfcycllsts or pedestrian would trigger a
narea' cycle of signa' t)perit;Ort.
11.
31.
11.
Wa1t-time on cr 055 streets {e.g. Waver1ey) s~culd be minimized. rather
than giving so ~~ch time to EmbarcaderQ~
Right turns should not trigger trifffc sf;n.l.
Malntiin on-street parking on Bryant.
Include I delay 5~nsor.
14. tonsid~r poss'b11ity of barrier in on1y one dir~,tion in ~rder to maintain
.ccess to ur-g:ent care centerj Dr lIaybe twc; one-.... ay barriers.
35. Consider road bumps instead of street clos~rt--I~though noise associated
~ith b~s is & concern~
l6. Move existing ma'1 box on Bryant 200 ftet f~rther aw~y from the
intersection. U-turns and blockige assocfated with ~sers of mail box is
particularly troub'esome at its present location.
37 ~ lh~ nLDllbtl-r of vehicles using EJIlb.;rcader!J compare-d to the number of
bicyclists 15 very very high. The numerous ~tori$ts usfng Embarcadero
shol.!ld not have to suffer (delays assocfated wI signa',) for the benefit of
the few bicyclists.
38. £icy,lists hive not been treated equally, in this town ~r in any othfr.
I4otorists, for example, would n!ver be reql.iested to l'1ake I; jog O~ one of
their arterials. Why should b,c~cliits?
39. Iin1 il s~gnal help or hindel" tnt. safet}' of the school children? More
children .ay be encouraged to cross tr.is street. Has Castil1eji school
ra's.c th,s as & concern?
40. A signal shou'd' ·ONLY'" be cCl'iSidned if staff tan assure that it wil1
f~ncticn in full coordination with Waver1ey.
4]. The quality of the loops and their maintenance is essential. Teo often,
they iTe not working~
1)'
, -
-
I.:
tl f: .,
" rt Ii
'<
:l
~ .,
d ,
•
:J
:l
0
J
a
~
~
:l
;
:J , ... .,
, I -
-:
s..11 Group Comments
-&-
.2. e"tering or crossing Eabarcatj'ero is not I: problem in the 1 :.te e~enfn9 or
.irT,lIOrnfng. Operation of .any signal should be 1 illiitec1 (perhaps bet,.ee:'l
7"", and ;pm) .
• 3. Question the noted 'lductlon (v.1ues) in troffic on Bryant for sever.1 of
the options (especially 3 I 4). Cert.inly, more of the W.verley traffic
would bo shifted onto Bryant for alter"atiy.s 3 I 4, than Is shown.
Options 3 & 4 should only be considered with I barrier in Segment ~[ •.
44. Any sign.1 should be bicyc1. and pedestrian sensitiye (actuated) .
45. Bryant. nortn of EmbarcadeT1l is hhtorica.T in charz;cter~ Opposed to i
Signal or Inything else thlt .;9ht hurt this.
46. Trlffic wi 11 inot:r-ease on Bryant due to the signal.
41~ A signal alrea~ exists at Waverley. Why 1n5ta11 another one at Bryant?
Sho~ld signal go at Bryant, the 5ignal at Waverley must be taken out.
SEGMENT c: tmbareaderG tq Forest
1. Adding stops t~ Homer ilnd Channing will s10w traffic and mak.e tt:~;;e
streets safer.
2. lspech111 north of Embart:adero there are many sfght impediments at
intersections where stop signs would be removed.
3. No use changing stop signs because bikes d~n't stop at them anyway.
4. Concern abo~t fire trucks being blocked by the barrier.
S. Ctlangfnq stop signs I!nakes it safer and quicker for bike tTiilfffc,
especia'~y at Homer and Channing.
6. The bike boulevard ~ould tend to increase safety bEcause people would see
.are bikes concentrited in one place. Thus, drivers' awareness of bikes
would increase, and vice ~ersa.
7.
s.
A barrier might antagonize people.
Concern a~ut effect of street closure {AJternat1v~s 1 & 2J en blockage
of access to Urgent Care Center.
9. Consider barrier ~ith Alternatives 3~ 4. & 5 also.
10. 1f st.op signs are added on Homer and !:hanning
removlng stl)P '!.ign at Wa\lerley/Homel'" and
Waverley/Channing .
at Bryant, consider
traffic signal at
11. Visibility exiting (rom Whitman Court to Wav!rTey is a prob1em .
12. Throughout the existing Bik~ Blvd .• homes are more desirable and property
val lies have increased. The same should be expected in Segment ·C·, if the
Bike Blvd. is extended.
-~'.>--
.,
50,11 Group Comments
·7·
13. Riding a bike on Bryant is preferred over Waverley. Bryant is a much
cal ... r street.
14. (Cl'''S~derlt1on to extending the Bike Bivd. is premature. The City still
his ~ny Palo Alto Medical Foundation questions. Strong desire to improve
the Clinic ·Campus'.
15. The Bi'~ Blvd. issue should not
Blvd. needs prfDrity over PAMF.
moves. out.
be held up on o<count of the PAMF. Bike
A barrier Is needed eve~ if the Clinic
16. Very concer~ed that on-street parking on Bryant will be eliminated. Tnere
are very few off· street pa~~king spaces in these oTd hous.es. All on-street
parking needs to te .. intalned.
17. Reduction In on·street parking Is also opposed by bicyclists. They feel
that the existing Bike Boulevard functions fir.e with parking.
lS. Consens~s that -bike lanes· net be pT3ced on Bryant Street.
19. Anything that slows traffic and reduces the number of vehicles can improve
the quality of life.
20. Stiff sholJld consider barrier just nort~ of Embarcadero. However, this may
pose i hazird for motorists turnfng off of Embarcadero.
21. Staff s~ould also consider more than ~ne barrier.
22. An,)' barrier should eoltpleeent tht architectural character of tne exi~ti1l9
lIistor1ca' neighborhood. It appeared to be a -group consensus tr,at the
existing b3rriers throughout the City would n21 be acceptable for this
loc.tlon.
23. Concerned about gettfng to Downtown. A .$ur.ey should be conducted to
determine the i~act.
24. There will be more conflicts It the barrier locat ion between b; kes and
i~tos due to traffic t~rning onto the side str!Ets.
25. Speeds will increase on Bryant due t<:l removal of th.s stop signs.
26. Design of th! barrier is ug'Y.
27. Conc:ern.ed Ibout ad'dir.g stop slgns on Channing and l1(u~er, which are
collector streets.
28. Barrier ~ill s~ift ~ore traffiC tc ~aver1ey ~icn already carries twice
the amount of traffic carr1ed by Bryant.
29. Concerntd' about adding mere bike ro~te si9ns on Bryant.
30. Stop signs should be added' at Horne~ to increase safety.
3]. Agree with removing Bryant stop signs it Kingsley.
[4,
•
L
,... , ..
-, ....
r
I.
.,
J
..
oJ
j
::l .,
...i
Small ;roup Co.mer.ts
-8-
SEGMENT Pj fgrest to lytton
1. ConfHcting opinions \lo1ced regirding whether diagona.l parking or ,tlartll!l
pa.rking ~s sifer or dangerous for bicyclists.
2. There is .. c.oncern that bikes will ride fn the center of the road,
especfill1 south of downtown, then continwe to ride in the center in the
downtawn arel whfch is busier and more dangerDus.
3. This section has the IlOst pot.nthl confHcts due to traffic volumes,
bi~es, parking, driveways, pedestrians and general activity.
4. Timing of three traffic Ti;hts should favor traffic on Bryant.
S. n~ rJowntOW':'l area 11read,Y has .. shortage of parking. If we change to
parallel spaces, we lose SDme needed spaces. Changing diagonal parting to
paralTeT would be contrary to the city policy of no net loss of parking in
the DowntOWrl_
6. If -bike lanes· on Waverley are r~moved, and diagonal par~1n9 instll1ed,
i net increase in parKing could result.
7. 8icyclist fe.ls that both diagonal and parallel parking are halardous to
riding. However, diagcnaT parking is the least acceptable. Where
parallel parking exists, a bicyclist simpl1 rides far enough away from the
cars to avoid I collision with an openfd door.
8. Oisagrt'l?ment by i non·cyclist. Parallel park.ing shou1d be more dangerous.
People open Clr doors without notice to bicycl ists. With diagona1
parking. at least you get SGme warning. ~ou Cin see a vehicles rev~rse
lights, Qr tneir break lights.
9. Trave1ing anywhere through Downtown presents problems and h~zards.
]0. Del ivery trucks for the dru9 stores !tften park on Bryant just soutn of
University Avenue where the street narrows.
11. Investigate conflict tlehfeen bikes and autes using tnE-CiviC (enter
garage.
SEGMENT E; Lytton tD San Francfsqu1tc Creek
I.
2 .
Consider the need for a barrier on Palo Alto Avenue and o~ Bryant in this
segme-nt.
Pil0 Alto Avoenue should be one-way (eastbound cnly-·conce-rned about
creekside preservation) .
3. The Bike Bouie~ar1 should be en ~a~erley from the creek to Cnurc~ill . .,
< C. Bikes going left from Pa10 Alto A~enu:e to Bry3.r.t hav! poer visibility
because of the t~isting read . -. ,
....i 142
--------.. -----
S~ll Group Comments
·9·
s. r~ortant that stop signs be reversed at H.wtnorne as proposed.
6. ViSibility is poor at Hawthorne and Bryant.
7. Considor using 2~way and c.-way s1gn indicators .at stop intersections.
B. No strong f.elings .bout tnese ch.nges one ",y or tne other.
9. Visibility at the bridge is poor approaching from Bryant.
~GHEgT F, Related Changes en Adiacent Street.
I. Moving bicyclist. off of Waverley is desirable.
2. City should consider extending the Bike Boulevard U£r! If • signa' at
~ircadero is not appro~ed~
3. If the bike bO\Jl-evilrd is extended~ removal of lanes {In Wallerle.v is
logic.l. If It Is not extended, bike lanes on Waverley would be useful.
4. Restoration of en-street park1ng on Waverley is I plus.
s. Concern about the removal of parking on Addison and Coleridge in order to
extend bike lanes from Waverley to BrYlnt.
iEl!ERAl C!!I!!!OOS
1. The 1I05t important objective is to create a througfn,j'ay for bicydes on
B~lant similar t~ Alma Street for ~ctDr ~en;cle5.
2. Thfrty years ago it was sife for children to bi~e in Palo Alto; now it
isn't because of intreased traffic.
3. Drutical1y inc:reasM police enforcement of tl'affic ... iolations by both
motorlsts and bicyclists is needed.
4. A ne~ dual m~ssage lraffic sign should be developed t~at reads: STOP for
autos and "fIElD for bicycl ists.
s. A signal would go in at Bryant/Embarcadero If a. chlid' were «; 1 led in an
accident--let's not wait.
6. If the Waverley biP.:e lines Ire removed and parking is restored. the
presence of parked cars on both sides of the street 'IIoul d' reduce the
overall speed of traffic.
7. Pre-loops should be insta1led on ar~ant in advance of the trafflc signal
at [mbarcade~D so bicyclists don't have to stop ~s 10ng at the
intersection.
8. What wili be the effect of the pro~osed street closure (Alternatives J &
2) on Stanford football troffi,.
143
4t--~~~ ~-:':
r .::/
'-
r
• -
r-
i ,-
r-
....
,....
".
C-
~
-
~
-
~
r
l
~ -
,....
-
r
,-
'?:
.:~>:,
t-i a Ii. n
" .-j
J
J ..
..I
~
~ ,
iii
J .,
ii
~
'" ..
.., ...
~
:J .,
J
J
"'l
...;
. -
Small Group Comme"ts
-10-
9_ City should '""" how bicyclists pick rout.s.
10 .. Hot illlportint to maint.in existing bike lanos 00 Waverley.
11.
12 .
13.
14.
15.
16.
17 .
IS.
19 .
20.
Traffit .nd parking are significant proble", Downtown, and getting people
out of voi!hic1es and onto bikes trould help alleviate those problems
considerably.
What is the cost/benefit ratio?
What Is the rel.tionship of this st"dJ to the P~~F study such ., volumes.
ICC~SS, cTos~re of Bry.nt etc.?
Divide the f"nds to put bike ficilitie, .11 aver t..., rather than
concentrate on Bryant.
On Waverley, th~re are St9PS every 200 meters. This S,~S cyclists and
causes delay in tra\'el time~ Motorists do not have to zig zag fr~ point
A to Band ha ... e no idea how time consuming ilnd diff; c\Ja it 15 for
cyclists ta travel fr ... one point ta another. The Bryant Street Bike
Bouleyard needs to be e~t~nded so cyc11stt can have a thoroughfare, just
1; te IDOtorists hi",e ".lSi and other streets.
Cyclists shol.l1d be concernlKi about the~r safety related to having tCt snare
• street with an emergency facility and vehicles.
There shou1d be nil traffic sign.1 fnstalled at Bryant and Embarcadero.
Not ~ecessar~ to have I ~fgnal. Signal .auld T!ad to f~rther congestion
on Embarcadero. Hot that man~ cyclIsts will be effected, and it may not
help cyclists.
ADproiching tn! bic),cl! bridg! to Menlo Park on Bryant Street is shorter
than froll Waver1ey. When approaching frOlTl Bryant a cyclist can see the
traffic on the bridge frog the opposite direction and does not have to
look for cross trlffic~ en Wayerley, a cyclists ~ust ~atch cross traffic
and Is f.ced .ith visibility problems .
Many of the aHernat hies offered are work;).};)' e.
A system (.\f barriers is necessary if Brjant is to work ~s a bike
boulevard.
H4
•
· ,
" l
--_v_"""''''' __ _
L
""---_ •. , ....
OPEN FOAl!!! C~OOS
BRYANT STREET BICYCLE BOULEV~ EXT~SION STUDY
PUBLIC MEETING -OCTOBER 25. 1110
Alternative S for th! BrYintjEmbarcadero inte~section cauld be imp1emented
on a trial basis, as a cost effectjve alternative to a traffic signal.
2. Opposed to the extension because it 'fIould create barriers to yenicu1c:r
traffic.
3. OJ>posed to project becau," of high cost.
•. Other factors need to bt ccnsidered, 1no:li.1dlng the tity's decis:on on the
Palo Alto Medical fOLIndatlon expansion and the impact of the GoTden
Triangle TDK Ord~nance.
S. Speaker feeh the opposition to the project is dup. to the potential
inc:ollvl!'n1ence to neighborhood residents. ·Progress" may sometimes
incDnvenience peeple.
6. The bicycle boulevard extensfon will ~ake it easier for cyclists tn travel
in and through Palo Alto.
7. [t woLlld be possible to implement the project and stilT maintain the
integrity of the neighborhood.
S. S~ifting tne bikt route ~p to Wa~erley means more lfft~hand turns, which
sa.e cyclists hi~e difficulty with.
S. Speaker hu. a phi1osophical opposition to another traffic signal and would
prefer til non-signalized .alternative it Bryant/Embarcadero.
10. Concern expresse-d' that the SryantjEllbarcadero signal would be too close to
the Wilve,,1ey signal and drivers would stop at both l'ights ellen if the
si9r\als 'We" coordinated. (Sripns submitted to substantiate th~,s
tand us I on) ~
IJ. Tne Cfty has I committment tn the Professor~ille neighborhood, a! well as
to the bicyde boule~ard. This neighborMod need's to be protected.
Speaker support5 idea of a traffic barrler in the neighborhood if it is
sensithe1,)' duigned and will stop future increases 1T'! trafflc. Important
thlt on-street parking be retained.
12. Cit.)' Ru:st tab long-range approach to this; Hue. Some interests haile nClt
be!'rt represtnted ilt the meeting. including Oownt<r ... n merchants, l<mg-haul
bth co.uters~
13. City s"ould ~ol1ed biK~ counts on other parallel streets. C.ity's goal
should be t~~ ~~ement of people.
14. Wayerley is ;ess desirable because of bus traffic, obstacles in the bike
line5, etc.
14S
L
r
o.~_. __ _
" "--';:
--
!IOClE 8{;Ut[~AJlO U'E.NSf(»j STuor
SlJlPfl,lrl or £Valuatl"" Fo"'s
$[,"o'r A
ConCll!ptlJll !lf4ln: ~MI;) .. e stop signs on 8rYUlt at Oum::~l1T
Opt~ell L tun ulst'~ r.,lIr-'IIII:t stop Sf9f'1~ at ~r,ant/
CtlLlrchi 11
____________ ~s~'~'~r~' ____________________ _
1I1tf'Nldhl! I: run aCTUS ~lgl1411. left hlNl P<ldet.s.
Bryll1t closed bl!bttl!rI MdIsOll " Lil'lcoln
AHeMl.tl .... ~; U.lted a~cf'U ligrnT (rul left turl1S rrG*
[libarcadua), Brl41l1t CIIlSM b/w .-ddlsCltl l lincoln
Altem .. th! 3: lhllted' Keen (rfght turnl onls rrCMil BrIll'll),
left tun: p«hl$. lIa closure (In ~rli.nt
AlteJ'ftlthe ~: 1111Hfd Reus Sl9M1 (d9'~t turns anl1 rro.
tr11nt), no cloSIl,. 01'1 Briant
AUernathe 5: ~ slgl1411, ljllHtd ICCI!!$~ [r.o left tlJrns ff"Olll
[lIbare~dl!ro, right films onl, frMl Brylnt), no
elC1Slire on Bry4lnt, refoge' hhntJ
_________ -Ir""!fL ,
CanCl!pt\!!.l "L..,: \l.l!nrSI! 1t09 "9T'I1 I.t !l;rll1ntf'(lngs11!1' rl!ttOve
$109 sfgn~ (In Sri .. nt 41t A.:kIhon, .dod ~top s19'1s
an bot.h Koeer and Chll'lnlng d aryant
IJIltioct I: (~JI stop signs as nhlirog It SrJll1t/k11l9slt'1
OptjOft l: ~p Ul$ling foul".w4l1 sto, sf9"rtS tt !lr),.lnt,lAddhcHl
Opth." l: oa. not ad'; 1top s11)r.s 0fI f\O!!\er 0'" th.a~niI19 tl BrY4l"t
~tlon 4: CI,""u BrJant betwe~11 Mdl.on Irfc/ lhcaln
T
SHttftGl.Y
;;U~pQ@T
'1 ,
•
"
]
5
•
"
]
1
10
-
{NlI1Bfli Of
Sltef'OflT
]
.. ~ •..
--
R[SroffSES)
NEUTRAL
•
]
,
1
•
•
5 ,
-
OPPOSE
•
•
•
--
SlJQIGll
orposr
l
10
7
•
1
•
15
10
11
9
!
,
~
., ..
:l .,
ioi
j
.,
..:
I
"1 ,w ..
APPENl)!:I c
Map of Stop Sign Loca-t--· .. lons
14 i
..
. " .. ' .
-".'i~-
. ~~; j,\
•...
-----_.:... .. ----,.
FIGURE C.l
MAP OF STOP SIGN LOCATIONS
148
•
----~" ,, ,-
r . ...
L
r:
L
-
j
... ,
,.j -.\ -.. ; ...
-" I ~
j
Map of Professorvill~ Historic District Boundary
149
••
,...
,...
I.. , .
r .. ,-~
~
,~
,..
'-
~ , -
~
.~
-,...
;..
~:
•••••••• IiI •• District Boun d ary
FIG URE 0.1
PR OFESSORVILL E HI STORIC DISTA I CT BOU N DAR Y '-1 so
-"
'-' i ~~:~. ;to
,
r D ,
~ .. APPENDIX l!
~
i.1
'+ ~ Material Related to the Second Public Meeting
..
J Public notice and agenda
,
oJ
li '"
U
PI
U
!"! ..
j
D
II"
J
I
a
~
j ..
• ... 1;' 1 ... , ....
I
May 23,1991
NOTICE OF PUBliC MF.ETING
Jon",1991
PLACE AND TIME' Palo Alto Senior Ceoter, 450 Bryant Street
7:00 p.m., Thursday, June 6, 1991
SUBJECT: Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard E..ctension Study.
BACKGROUND: Last September, City staff began a study with the objective of developing
• recommended plan for the extension of the Bryant Slree! Bicycle Boulevard from its
present terminus at Churchill Avenue nortlrward to and through downtown PaJo Alto, and
on t<> the existing bicyclelpede>trian bridge across San Francisquito Creek into Menlo Park.
Last October 25th, an initial pubbc meeting was held to provide an opportunity for the
public to learn more about the .study and comment 00 preliminary conceptual alternatives
for the bicycJ.e boulevard utCll$lOn.
Since October, City staff has completed fuMber inve,tigation and analysis of a variety of
Bhernatives and issues, including those that surfaced at the initial pubbc meeting. A DRAFT
report has beeo prepared, documenling the information and process that has comprised the
Oludy to date, including the preparation of an lNTERMEDIA TE PREFERRED PlAN.
PURPOSE OF MEETING: The pmpose of this second public meeting is 10 share
information regarding the lNTERMEDIA TE PREFERRED PLAN, answer questions, and
receive further comments. The public meeting will include a general presentation,
di.scussion, questions and answen,. and a period af open comments. Written comments are
IpprOpr1&tc befoTe, at, or !oD~U\g the meeting. Staff will -use the comments from the
mC'.eol'l£ in fuT1her ~\'aluating, refi.'"ling and deveioprn.g.'! Final Rccommend~d Plan for futur~
presentation to the City CounciL
A one page sumrary and related map of the INTERMEDIATE PREFERRED PlAN is
cncIDsed for your mformation and reference. A copy of the DRAFT report is available for
reference in the TransportatiOll Divi5.ion, I\th F'1t>or, City HaD.. 250 Hamilton Avenue and the
Downl","" Library at 270 ForC$t Avenue. A copy of the DRAFT repan ",11 be mailed to
anyone upon requesl
1ltis notice has been sent to aD residents 'Within a one block radius of the study corridor,
members of the Palo A1to Bicycle Ad~.sory Committee, and other in terested panie5. A rna p
of the corridor and the 10"'....ation of the public meeting is provided on the back ofthls notice.
cor .... rACT PERSON: Gayle Likens, Senior Planner, (415) 329-2136
152
....
.-
,-
-
,
\.
I
I ;
g
I
! C
~
0
0
PO
il
D
'" OJ
~ ..
ioI
j
I
a
...
J
j
~ , ... .,
...l
City of )'a10 !11to
BRYANT STREET
BICYCLE BOULEVARD EXTENSION STUDY
PUBUC MEETING
7:00 I'm Thursday
June 6, 1991
Palo Alto Senior Center
450 BfYlInt Street
Palo Alto, CA
AGENDA
1. Introductions and Opening Comments
2. General Presentation on Policy and Process
3. C>.erview of the InteiIllediate Preferred Plan
4. Presentation & Discussion of Intermediate
Preferred Plan
a. Segment Presentation
b. Clarification Questions
c. Group Discussions
d. Group Respo!\SeS
5. Opec Period fo< Public Comments
6. Closing Comments
Handouts:
A. I>escription &nd map of Intenne:diare Preferred Plan
(Olapter 7 of draft repan)
Copy of fun draft repun is available
Contact Person: Gayle Likens, Senior Planner, (415)329·1236
"-,
(7:00)
(7:10)
(7:20)
(7:30)
(9:30)
(9:55)
1';3
•