HomeMy WebLinkAbout0495.091,
« -
i;,
--_ .... _------_. "" .. ~-,,'-.".~-... -"-----,-----_ ...... -'-
November 1(, 1991
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Falo Alto, California
R~COMMENDATION CONCERN!NG THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXTENSION OF
THE BRYANT STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD
Members of the Co~ncil:
REPORT IN BRIEF
The purpos~ of this re~ort is to present supplemental information
following the October B, 1991 Policy and Services committee
discussion of the proposed extension of the Bryant street Bicycle
Boulevard. Sta~f's present recommendation is that Council:
(1) approve the staff recommended plan {Plan Rj for the extension
of the Bryant Street Bicycle BoUlevard, (2) approve the revised
Negative Declaration prepared for the project. and (3) authorize
staff to proceed with the r.ecessary design, installatiorl, and
funding procedures to implement the extension project.
SUMMARY OF THE ocroBER 8TH POLICY _AND __ SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETJ:NG
The disc~ssion of the Policy and Services Committee focused on the
staff recommended plan for extending the bicycle boulevard, as
described in CMR:429:91 (9/~6/91: Pages 6-10), as ~ell as Chapter
10 of the companion Bryant Street Bicycle aoulevard Extension
Report (study Report). Minutes from the Policy and Services
committee, included separately in this Council packet, reflect the
issues and concerns raised by pub13c comments and discussion by
Committee members.
The committee voted 3 to 1 to recommend that Council (l) approve
the ·substitute" plan (rather than the staff ~recorr~ended" plan)
and (2) authorize staff to proceed ..... ith the necess3ry design,
installation, and fundinq procedures to implement the extension
project.
CKR:495:91
t,.. ,
I I'
,
AlI/hZ ....
PLNl AUCE"RHAT IVES
For the purpose of further discussion and, hopefully,
clarification, the following designation has been established:
~lan R = Recommended Plan
Plan R, illustrated in Exhibit 1 and described in Attachmen~ A, is
the same pl~n previously referred to as the recommenced plan in
CK;::429:91 {9J26/91; pages -5-10) and in ~hapter Hl of the study
Report..
£lAn s = Substitute Plan
~lan 5, illustrated in EXhihit 2, is the same as Plan R in all but
two, albeit siqnific3nt, aspects. Whereas Plan R includes certain
turn restrictions at the Bryant/Embarcadero intersection through
the use of raised concrete islands and does not include a full
stre.et closure, Plan S does include a full street closure on
5ryant, bue does not include any turn restrictions at the
intersection. Plan 5, preyiously referred to as the Substitute
Plan, was evaluated as part of the study p::-ocess and is fully
discussed throuqbout the St·.ldy Report~ Furthermore, the
designations ·SA· and "SO III are used to represent Plan S with a
street closur~ at locations A end D, respectively~
Plan C -Combined Plan
Plan C, illustrated in Exhibit 3, is the same as Plan R and Plan 5
in all but one aspect. Plan C includes both turn restrictions at
the Bryant/Embarcadero intersection (similar to Plan R) and a full
street closure on Bryant street (similar to Plan S)~ Plan C was
not specifically discussed in the Study Report, but is nov included
as a point of reference and PQs~ible consideration for implemen
tation. The designations "CA-and :"leo" are used to represent
Plan C with a street closure at location As and D, respectively~
LOCATION OF STREET CLOSURE
A full street closure on Bryant street, north of Embarcadero Read
is an integral part of both Plan S and Plan C. Chapter 6 (Section
6.3.3, Page 50) of the study Report discusses factors related to
the location of a street closure, and assesses five possible
locations for placement of a street closure on Bryant between
Channinq and Embarcadero. Exhibit 4 illustrates the five
alternative locations for the street closure.
CMR:495:91 11/14/91
Paqe 2
•
~:-
--,,-'~.~.
0
* ... a::
• w ;r;
& Z
~ ~ :z: < • ~ • >< ..J
~ & '" ..
~ • e ~ ~
Q fi! e w
Q ~ Co Q W
~ • ~ ~
~ e z • • " ~ w w ~ W &
" • w ~ :5 0 z !: • J • W • w Ii ~ .. «
1Ii 0 • ;;
& < ~
>-
!
:i! >-J &
~ " • •
" J Z • W • g
> 0 0
w • • •
& " " ..
• 0 .. !;
z >-.. • s >-• 0
• ! I! z .. !!. 0 • >-
1ft • >-
!
"
0 i w
Q
Q • ~ •
< w 1\ • Q l! • ..
z e •
• " • ~
e ;;
• ~ • w z • " 0 ~ w ~ • >-• z w z
> e ~ w • &
• >-•
z • ! " ~ " • 0
~ ~ !l
• • ~ ..
• • " •
" ~
0 • w •
"' ~
! z
;;; ~
~ II;
"' ~ • i ffi ~
I M ..
w
3 i ..
M ,.
" R
i
& :
" l!:
~ .. ..
z ~ e ;;; ~
~
z
" "
~
~
~
0 ~ .. • ..
" " ~ .. ~ 0 .. C ~
W Z
> !! •
w rs ..
~
..
"' •
Z Z
" ~ !
;;; .. • " ..
~ .. I ..
"' ~ ..
•
•
"
i:I
ii
;,;
I • .. ;
~
l
~ ~ ..
!
~ r
~ • ~
C :
r
~ ~ .. : • ~ ~
~ .. i • ;; L
~
" ~ • w
~ • ~
:;, = z
!; " ~
~
..,
• • «
.... 0
~ "
iii
% • ~ ;'!
r z
~
x <
J w D..
• ~
l! ! •
• " • z
" ~
~ ~ • .. • c
" " ~
~ l ~ c
~ %
~
> l!
z
w ~ .. •
~ " m • ~ ~ z
" .. c
i it
" .. ~
• z
" •
•
•
. : I,
~ BillE --11 I rr-I I I i I CH...... I ~ tl LlI\ t=rU ifrr Y-~ ~ ~~--c I
... , ..... , ........................... ·toO······· ...... :. . ...... ''''00 •••••• •••• • •••••••••• 01 lOCI ••••••• ••••• • ••••••• '.00< IDC •••••••••••••••••••••
" j J... =1 c.-= I -r-
POU> "'-TO I:::: I -7
-+ ""'''""-_nco + cor s l=-
-1 ' ~ ~h ri;i ~ ~ ---i _--J~
~ W I ~~ ~ 'I ;'1 f--r:~-' I ~ ~ l~ n I r--1111II I I II ! III 1:~tL c ~~mmra~lllllfj~i I g ~ ~
j;u:oJj~OIIIIEgl III f I I 13 T-~ i} r i ~'--
T ~ . z c 0 {:c"t" > J~H I I~DD W~IIIIIIIII~II II" ) '%J I ~~
0 Location A: Zone bcundary between Channing and Addison
0 Location B: Bry&nt/Ac:ldison, north side of Addison
0 Location c: Bryant/Addison, south side of Add.ison
0 Location 0: Bryant/Lincoln, north side of Lincoln
0 Locatign E: Bryant/Lincoln, south side of Lincoln
eXHIBIT 4
LOCATIONS FOR POSSiBLE STREET CLOSURE
-------.. -. ----________ w_ •• _
.,
, ~,"_i. ,,:-~t
-
-
Subsequent to the Polic)" and Services Committee meeting. staff ::net
with a group of seven individuals (including five residents of
Bryant street), to dis.cuss possible locations for a strE.et clost1re.
While there lias no evident consensus f there seemed to be some
general preference for Plan R (hc .... ever, without the remC"v.a1 of stop
siqns at Kinqsley and Addison), rather than 3 plan that includes a
street closur-e (Plan S a.nd Plan C). They also expressed interest
in a sixth possible location .tor the full street closurl? (at
Embarcadero;, and provided comments on each of the five proposed
locations.
From thes2 discussions and consideration of other infot"l!la!tion
presented in the study report, staff has concluded: {l} there is n.o
optimal location for a street clos~re) as each location has both
positive and negative attributes; a!nd (2) locations A and 0 are the
most suitable tor a street Closure, if one is to be included in the
bicycle boulevard implemen.tation plan. While locations B~.C, and
E are possibilities, they otfer no distinct advantages and haVE:
some less favorable attributes.
The location of a full str~et closure on Bryant at Embarcadero Road
would divert essentially all Brya~t traffic to Waverley Street, and
pla.ce an unnecessary burden on WaverlEY and t!le adjacent resid~r.ts.
One of the objectives of the bicycle boulevard extension study was
to not create any increase in automobile t~affic on Bryant street,
but at t~e same time not cause any unnec~ssary decrease in existing
traffic on Bryant Street because of its consequent impact on other
streets.
TRAfFIC DIVERSION
Exhibits 5 and 6 illustrate the existing and expected daily traffic
volume, at a number of locations throughout the surrounding area!,
associated with each of the three plan alternatives (Plans R, S,
and C), including two possible locations (A ar::d DJ for 3. full
street closure. From a general overvie ... ~ these traffic volume
number~ indicate the follo~ing:
o Plan R results in lo~er traffic diversion from Bryant~ less
traffic impact on other streets, and more dispersion of
diverted traffic, comparad to Plan S and Plan C
c Plan S results in more traffic diVersion from Bryant.
greater impact on other streets, and more concentration of
diverted traffic, compared to Plan R.
o Plan C results in greater traffic diversion from Bryant,
great.er impact on Waverley I and some~hat less impact on
other streets, compared to Plan S.
CHR:H5: 91 11/14/91
Page 3
"-__ "'_',"",0 __ _
1 ,{,,,Ii
... ,,"':.\'~~ " ::",'. ,~-'), '
I' .~\," ~"',A ,\,.,
.':,", " ,
" r ·'
f ,
I ~ , .,
1
p C
r
[III~ f-
".vr;.ftlET
. '"'Q E+M t42H
E+M.R ~27{l
E+M+SA. "50~
E+M+CA 4515
E+I"'H~[) .uoo
E+M+CD 4470
sf"
E
E+M
E+M+R
E+M.·SA,
F+M+CA
EH.hSD
E+M+ClJ
s,
-.
"" l~Q_\
.!.~1-\
'''''' 212~. ....
210' I ,
111~1I
j
.
F' ~U -R~' .. E+M 4210 E+M 4'l.{l F.+M It?O
F,+",j+R. 4m E+M+R "~6() E+M+R 9'/)
E~ M+SA 48M E+M+SA 4150 E+M+SA 110'\
E+M+CI\ 4lIJj E+M+CA 4R5S f.M+CA IIJQ!I
P+M+SIl 45110 E+M+Sll 509'; E+M+SD 142~
F.q.f+CO 466~ \ E+M+('O ~JQ() E+M+Co 1J'iIO
E ... E 471!i
E+M ... E+M 50lS
E+M+l( '''' E+M+lt 5310
E+M+SA ~4j E+M+SA 4V15
E+~+CA 6" E+M+CA 5380
E+M+SD "" E+M+SD 491S
E+M+Cf) >. E+M+C[) S~80
E
J-'+M
F:-... M+!l
io-+M+SA
fi ... M+C"I.
E+M+S[)
E+M+CU
"1,
1410
1:135
l".+M+-k 1J7(l
E+M+SA lM.'i
E+M+CA
E+"'4+Sf)
E+'-H-Cr)
'''''
i61~
117/)
"
"
E '"'"
~I,~L
~ HOO·
E+M lli75
E.-M+R. l"~
~"'M"'SA. I'm
E"'M"'CA J!")
E+M"'S[) III~
E+M+ClJ I~
£+M 87" E+M+R 87" i U E+M+SA 1070
F+M+CA 'J9j
E+M+SI) D~n
E+M+cn 12'I~
~
-' r.I
E+M
E+tI'l+R
I=+M~ SA
E.+M+CA
f_~M+SD
~ r:.",M+cn
~Q,r;.NQ
Numlw'n rrp1'''~nt " ... ",11(1" Olilily Ir~ffic vnhlm" (ADTI).
• -rllimllud APT
E .. [""'lng lytlll IW!.')
h4 • ~~,jlll(llf M"d,cftll"nunrilliion (I'AMF) lC,ll'JlrlllOh I'mj .... 1
""'. ~oo
~I{J
5H5 "", ," ,,'
R ~ Rtwn.mend"d rilln /18"'" Il" p, Proeftt .... tll'I.I1, in <,Ii'll Bike Rlvd
Repon, I"g '1.1),
1110
n ...
]J'JO
"1~
l3"',
"I~
t:()~
'.j
SA .. Sull'llmtITP rlml wuh e(,nure 10 t'll.lIl1un A {htl\ll 1\(1(1110n and O"mning)
(""IT,e AI S in yNI [Jik", Blvd 1«.1'(ln, fig '1,)\
('/I. ~ CuhltllHl'd rllm .... ,th '"'''''''r'' III Lo..'.IIIi<m A.
5D .. Suhsmme Pllm wnh "'''Iuft In lJJ<"lItion D (MIW Arl,li~'1l M<I UIlUJIIl).
ell '"' COIn hill"" PI~I'I ... nll rlu!;ure in LOClilllun D,
~MrI,Iili:' On Waverley he''IIn"r:n ChR~ninj!: IIhd Addison, n;.lm~ AnT il ,l770
If lit" I'AMF "lllHnlllJn _,r huilt, ADT "milk! ,"nul" 1U 47,lfl, It I'Olh Ihr
PI\MF ellp"Olion MOO th .. h'ryc\e 1 .... llln·/lrd Ulenllun Suh~tllule Pllin WIth
ri,oau", in [OQuinn A Weff hU111. AIJT wo"ld mrr~~.(' ~ll 48il~_
EXHIBIT 5 EXPECTED DAILY TRAFi',IC VOLUMES
~,<:-,
I
\ ,
I t
i
i'y
-1 ,
, I "\I'f-"~f';:'\: 1f~!"'\~;~;;;\,
, ,.\,~._ 't-;;', ";',', ,_ r
~ 1 -I I
J iF. 31110 "j / "'" 271.5
,<~;;;.,.... " ,.1"
t,
I ~I' I ~ HM
i E+M.R
j i E+'-h8A
I i-F.+M+CA
I i E+M+SD I-44S
.-------E+M"'CI) !nO
EHd nH
E."".1l, ~~60
E+hI-l--SA 2Q2Q
E+M-l--CA H1,'1
E+""+SD 2Q20
E+t.t+CTJ 15H
C"'.fI~~(~.
.tMOo~
~I ..
-I ' ..
I' i -I ~~'-----l.. i'--j 'I
II \~~~
: ~ j
E+M 501:1
E+M+R "'20
F+""+~A. HO
E+M+CA \WI
E+M+'>n HI)
E+"'" teD flNl
f' 57_~
E~M '"' f+"'HK 355 § E'M.S' "" ('T~+\'A )4~
1-+"",+51) KIO i [,~MfC[) ,\4~ j:
"" E.M 2280
E+M+R 2)1~
E+M+SA lm
-. E+M+CA 2,()O
E+~HSD L1I'
f4-~M+C[) 200
j I
~ 00
WAVERLEY ST
L_--l
.tr •• t "10.,,,1:".
II~
, .... , , =--->
WGUlIJ 1 1 I
N""mh .. ~ ~r)n'lornt .~rllilt !.lAity II.me ~nllln>el (ADTI).
• .. elllm.~" ADT
E .. E"tiJ,finll (Y"AI 1'1'10).
M .. <l5,WI If Medical i"nllll<JlIl!nn (PAPAF) 1'~J"'nIIlJl' V-mJ"rt.
R .. R"mmmrntJed Pilln (I.IJII' n r, P~J .. rreo1 Plan, in '1.-"J1 Bike ltMi
Report. fill 9.").
SA -Sub1mlllt 1'1,," with ~\II."rlt in lA><:.IiI'" A (bc!tw A,ldllitm .nd Chllnn,",:)
(lalnlllll'~ tn W'ill lIik~ n",.d R'!pllrt, FI,9.").
CA .. ('''rrhIMd PlAn wult rlnllln~ In I )"IIIIr.n ...
SI) -Sumlillllr PIBn WIth ell)'!"''' In LUGllhnn I) (b,l'I .... Add""n IIntl!.I""')!Il).
CO -('.),n/oln,,!.1 Plln Willi ~ln'lItt '" 1..01;1111,,1) D,
EII.QlltP.!§i' On W" .... rlty bctwp~n J{"II"tlIIlnJ CllurchiH, ""~IUIIII\[ff 1l11iOO If
tbe PAMI' "'p~nli(ln .... tf~ hUlll, Jl,1)T \I\1\IlI!.lI"Cll'lI'" ") 1125. If bOlh thl! --------------------------__ -'-__ ,.,..------11 PAMI' ... ·r~nliun "nil lite ]Hll'de ooulrurd ext"nliun Cnmblneti Pilln wilt!
_j ;;;. • cln~llrc in l"O:lIhun. A l'r D Wr!fl' hlllil. AnT ... ""Id 'ncr .. n~" In ~w~.
EXHIBIT 6 EXPECTED DAILY TRAFFIC VQLUMES
,;,o~,
.\.)
o
I
! , ,
~
r. ,
'I'"~
"
'--,'
•
r'
o
o Location A, for the street closure ... concentrates the primary
traffic impacts on the block.s of Channing and Addison
betwe~n waverley and Ramona, and the blocks of Ramona 3nd
waverley between Channing and Addison.
o Locatio!'!. 0, for the street closure, shifts the pri!ll.ary
traffic impacts one blcck south to the blocks o! Addison and
Lincoln between Waverley and Ramona, and the blocks of
Ramona and Waverley between Addison and Lincoln.
The revised Environmental
additional information and
traffic diversion.
REMOVAL OF STOP SIGNS
Assessment (Attach1cent B) provides
discussion concerning: the impacts ':If
One of the strong evident concerns from the public comments
provided at the Policy and Services committee meeting, as ,,"ell 8S
other meetings and communications, is the proposed removal of stop
siqns at ~inqsley and at Addison. This concern i3 b~sed upon the
perception that travel speeds will inc~ease along Bryant street,
due to the increased unimpeded travel distance created by remo~al
of the stop signe, thereby creating an unsafe situation.
Information prepared for this study, as documented in Chapter 9
(Section 9.2, Page 92) of the Study Report, as well as other speed
related studies, indicates that travel speed is related to a
driver's perception of the fea~ures of the road~ay and the
characteristics of the adjacent area. The info~ation does not
support the presUlllption that travel speed would significantly
increase., a.s a result of a longer unimpeded travel distance.
Furthermore, the existing drainage dip in the pavement across
Bryant at the Xingsley intersection would serve ef~ectively as a
speed deterrent.
Since the removal of stc,p signs is important to help facilitate
'bicycle travel along the bicycle boulevard, but the concerns about
their re:moval are eq'..lally important, staff proposes to monitor
actual conditions (speeds, volumes, conflicts, etc., on Bryant at
the locations where stop signs have been removed, and will
specifically report back to the Council following an initial six
month period, or earlier, as conditions warrant. In that manner i
problems 7 if they develop, are assured of being recognized,
identified and resolved.
REMOVAL OF ON-STREET PARKING
Another important concern expressed by residents is the proposed
initiation of parking restrictions (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) on the south
side of one block of Addison (Waverley to Bryant), 'Which is
C>!R:495:91
-------,~-~,~-"'"
11/14/91
Page 4
.:~~:
,
necessary to accommodate a one block extension of the existing bike
lanes on Addison. All three plans include such a provision, which
is important for bic:r;]e system continuity and s1!.fety reasons,
particularly for children ~ho bike to school along Addison.
Information provided in Chapter 9 (Section 9.3, page 9)J ot the
study report ind.icates that even "'ith parkinq restrictions en the
south aide of the block, there viII, generally, be sufficient on
street capacity on the north side of the block d~ring the daytime.
Survey da.ta collected in 1990 indicat.es that the number of vehicles
parked on-street du~inq the morning hours {a.tter 7 a.m.) does not
exceed the 17 on-street parking spaci2s that .... ill rema.i..n available,
on the north side of the street, throughout the daytime hours~
Also,. a substantial amount of additional on-st.reet parking will
become available in the same immediate area, ~hen the bike lanes
are r-emoved from Waverley, and unrestricted daytime parldnq is
restored ..
IMPACT ON puBLIC SERVICE
A street closure (Plan S a.nd Plan C) on Bryant vould adversely
affect the delivery of police and fire services to the area between
the closu.re and Embarcadero Road. It. would also result in
increased landscape Maintenance and s~reet s~eeping. ~y contrast,
the ohannalization islands, included in Plan R, result in little or
no impediment to police and fire services and no landscaping
:ma:intenance~ For these reasons, the Police, Fire, and Publ io Works
Departments prefer Plan R, because it does not include a street
closure~ Additional discussion of these impacts is provide on
pages 13-14 of the Environmental Assessment (Attachment 5).
The esti~ated
documented in
Report.
cost of
Chapter 11
implementing Plan R is
(Sec1;.ion 11.1, page 107)
$228,000, as
of the Study
The estimated cost of implementing Pl~n S is also $228,000, if the
street closure utilized the same basic design as the recently
installed permanent street closure on the existing portion of the
bicycle boulevard, at Lowell. If a more substantial design was
developed, the cost of the street closure could increase by up to
$13,000 or more, for a total project cost cf $241,000.
The estimated cost of implementing Plan C is a minimum of $240,000,
it the basic street closure design is utilized; and $253,000, if a
higher type desiqn vas developed.
CMR:495:91 11/14/91
Page 5
.,t
o
EXisting approved funds, in the amount of $174,000, ~re presently
available for the project; $75,000 from 1990-91 State
Transport&tion DevelC'pment Act (TDA) funds and '$99,000 from the
1990-511 City of Palo Alto (',spital Improvement Program {Utility
Electric Fund). If Council approves an i~plementation plan for the
bicycle boulevard extension, staff will prepare a Budqet Amendment
Ordinance for council approval in December; adding the additional
increment of required funding.
The funding source will be ShO~l as a transfer of street Improve
ment Fund aavinqs trom a.n existing 1989-90 CIP project (Minor
Intersection Improvements, crp #19072), with full reimbursement
from 1992-93 TOA funds.. Also, in December, staff will request
council authorization to apply for 1992-93 TDA funds for the
bicycle boulevard extension p~oject. Statf expects that the city
will receive sufficient 1992-9) TDA fun~s to cover the additional
increment of required funding. However l in any event. Council will
not be asked to award the actual construction contract until such
time that the City has receiVed formal notification of the 1992-93
TDA grant approval and the precise amount thereof.
EXISTING BICYCLE BOULEVARD -EVALUATION REpoRT
The existinq section of the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard
(Churchill Avenue to Hr.;adow Drive) was first implemented in May
1982, as a six month demonstration project. Included as Attachment
D is a copy of a staff report (CMR:580:2: DecemlJer 3, 1982)
documenting the evaluation of the bicycle boulevard, following the
demonstration period. Council, subsequently, designated Bryant
street, bet'<IIeen Chu'l'chill Avenue and MeadoW' Drive, as a permanent
bike boulevard ~ithin the framework of Palo Alto's adopted Bikeways
Master Plan.
The evaluation report concluded that:
c the bicycle boulevard developed a substantial level of bike
ridership;
o problems anticipated prior to the demon5tratior failed to
materialize; ar.d
a a predominately stop-free bikeway, on a less traveled local
residential street. can be an Attractive and effective route
for bicyclists.
CONCWS!ONS
1. A project to implement the extension of the Bryant Street
Bicycle Boulevard is both feasible and practical.
CMR:49S:91 11/14/91
Page 6
o
2. Anyone of the three pl&ns would yell serve the objectives of
the bicycle boulevard; although Plan C r ~ith its lo~er traffic
volumes on Bryant and redllced turning conflicts at Emb"lrcadero,
would best serve bicyclists.
J. Either Location A or D could serve as a location for a street
closure (Plan S and Plan C). Location A has the advantaqes of
locating the closul'e, and the resultarot prima!.""1 traffic
impacts, more on the periphery atJd less internal to tne
neighborhood. Location D has the advantages of more
effectively addressing the perception that a speeding problem
will develop, and has less impact on actual daytime use of on
stL"eet parking.
". Plan R achieves the best balance among the variety of competing
interests and concerns, including: the smalle5~ i;npact trom
traffic diversion: the least interference with Police, Fire,
Public Works, and other service delivery; and little or no
visual intrusion or separation vithin the designated historic
district. It is also the leas~ costly and least complex to
implement.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENZ
A revised initial study (91-EIA-28}--which includes Plan RI Plan 5,
and Plan c, ana recommends a Negative Declaration--has been
completed, ana i5 included as Attachment B.
RECOMMENPATION'
staff recommends that Council:
1. Approve Plan R (recommended plan) for t_he extension of the
Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard;
2. Approve the revised Neg~tive Declaration prepar.ed for the
project:
3. Authorize staff to proceed lIiith the necessary desiqn,
installation, and funding procedures to implement the
extension project, including the following items Which will
require future Council approval:
CMR,49S,91
a. TDA grant application,
b. CIP budget amendment ordinance,
c. Resolution amending the stop Sign system Map,
d. Resolution establishing parkinq restrictions,
e~ A~ard of contract for installation,
f. Resolution amending the Bikeway Ma~ter Plan; and
11/14/91
Page 7
,....----,....----.. --.-.---.....
o
4. Direct sta~f to monitor actual conditions {speed, volumes,
conflicts, etc.) on Bryant street at the locations .. here
s~op signs are removed, on a periodic basis, and report back
to the Council following an initial six month period; or
earlier, as conditions warrant.
Respectfully submitted,
.A/ J/" 1/ '/
,"<1C/:a/( ;:{ /d'i:!c"/"'!7
Official
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Attachlllents: A. Descriptjoh cf Plan R (Recommended Plan)
e. Revised Environmental Assessment (91-EIA-28)
C. CMR:429:91~ September 26, 1991
D. CMR:5BO~2; December 9. 1982
cc: Palo Alto Planning commission
Arch1tectu~al Review Soard
Historical Resources Board
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory committee
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
City of Menlo Park
Stanford University
June 6th Public M~etinq participants
October 8th Policy and Services Committee speakers
NOTE: Copies of the. -Bryant street Bicycle Boulevard
Extension Report-(Stud.:.-" Report), September 199L have
been previously distributed and are available in the
Transportation Division office, Sixth floor, City Hall,
250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 or by calling
(415) 329-2520.
CMR:495:91 11/14/91
Page 8
" c~:,,·
,
"
?i;'
... : ~;
o ATT~CHMENT A
DESCRIPTION OF PLAN R
Plan R for the extension of the Bryant street Bicycle :eoulevard
from its present terminus at churchill Avenue northward to the
existing bicycle/pedestrian bridge across San Francisquito ex'eex
includes the following items:
o Remove existing stop signs on Bryant at Churchill:
o Install a neW' traffic signal at the intersection of
Brya.nt and Embarcadero 'With some tra .... el movement
rest~ictions (only bicycles and pedestrians will be able
to cross Embarcadero, automobiles ~ill only be permitted
to make riCJht tUrns from Bryant, and all turns from
EDbarcadero vill be permitted);
o Reverse existing stop signs from Eryant to Kingsley;
o Remove existinq stop signs on Bryant at Addison:
o Install a new stop sign on Channing at Bryant;
o Install a new stop sign on Homer at Bryantj
o Reverse existing stop signs from Bryant t~ Hawthorne;
o Remove existing stop sign on Bryant at Poe;
o Remove existing bike signs and pavemerlt mark.ings along
waverley, including restoratio~, of on-street parking and
conversion to diagonal parking in the downtow"n area;
0 Extend existing bike lanes and related parking
restrictionE along one block of Addison;
0 Remove ~xistin9 bike lanes and. related parking
restrictions along one block of Churchill; and
0 Extend existing bike lanes and related parking
restrictions along one block of Coleridge~
.'
\
/
o AT1:ACHMENT B
Environmental Doc~ments -lity of Pa10 Alta
[Ni1RONM£N1Al ASSESSMENT
Proj!ct DescriptioJn/Title; irrant Stre-et Bicycl~ BOlJle'olard Extension Pro'ect:~
Rec~mmended, Substitytt. and Combined Plans. and ~arja~ion5
locat f-on/Address: B~nt and Waverley Streoets b~tween Church] 11 Avenue and
~~ntisquito Cregk; and Addison. C~~~hi\l, !~d Coleridge A~enu~s_between
Sryant iDd WaverleY Str~et$.
Sponsor ;ng Age,cy/Applicant: City of Pale ~.-,-l-"to,,-____________ _
Address and Telephone of Applicant: 150 HamiJjQn Avenue. Palo Alto, CA 9430~_
illll..119-,"15",5~1 ________ " _______ _
Application for: Road lmDrov@ments
(e.g.~ zoning than9~, subdivision of property, arChitectural review, use
permit)
Zoning at Project Location: n/a Fee Receipt No.: .-.nL.!..-__
NOTICE OF DETERMINATIO~
Based upon review of the project files, the undersigned member of the Fl~nnjng
Department has cDncluded~
I!I Neg.t; •• DeclaratIon: Tne project n., no s'gnific.nt environment.l
impact. No Environmental Impact Report is required. The reasons for a
Negative Declar~tion are:
in the attached Ir1ithl Study. which cOilc1ud!!s: that theTI:!_ ire no sign; f
icant environmental imPacts. This document 1~vailable for review at
the Palo AHo Tnnspqrtation DiYisf~ixth Floor. City Hall. _Z __ 5-~
Hamillol'! Avenue, 8 AM -11 nQ_oJLand I PM - 5 PM. Monday ___ =Frid_a"y", ___ _
1=1 Tne project m.y hav, • significant ,n,ironment.l impact, An
[r;'JirOnmentll Impac.t Report ... ~ 11 be pY'epared..
Planning Department Official: (..".J dft:#-.t_"Jx .... r~&-j'~
Plannfng Director: )rfs".!ii;£.,_$c~ Date: _.-!12/i4?/~1
The project has been approved.
The project has been denied.
Date:
Date:
File No.: i!,J!~
ElANDD 90-EIA-1B
ReVised 10/28/91 1
..
~.'---
""" ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS'""'PA10 ALTO
I. Froj~ct iitl e/f,ddress: Bryant Street BJ<;:J:.~Je Boulevard [xtennsJ.QJl.:....: __ _
Recorrmended. Substitute. ar.d _C_q!ll~Jned Plans. tind Variations:
II. Proj.:.-ct Descrfptfcn: Extend the present bicycle-bou1evard from its
~t tert!1i1'lIJs it Church; 1 1 Ayenut. noxthward, through downtown Pilla
Alto, to the existing bic'r'cJgipedestrian bridge ac.ross San Fral'1clsauito
Creak. The Recommended. Suhstitute. and Combined Plans are eYal~ated in
this Initial Study. 'fith .. str.;~L(:J csu~'e lociLted on Bnant either
between Addison and lincoln. or between Channina and Addison. This _
Initial Study is valid for the existirlg H __ ~n locatiQns on 9~_
as well as for stop sigrl changes prcDose~ in the ~ecQmmended PT~r..
rII. E"nvironmel'1tal Setting: Urban residJ;!.!1tial areil~_~nto~JL~_I?_n.trj;lJ~_1dsi-__
ness district I(BDl. pav~ roads. substantia1 landscaping and trees in
the residential 3rea. urban traffi~ noise. especially in (BO and Embarc
adero/Brral'1t intersection.
IV. Environmentil Impa-ct Checklist (Explanation of all "yes· answers are in
Section V)
I. £irtn. Will the proposal result in:
i. Unstable earth conditions or changes
in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions. displac~ments. c~mpac
tion or overcovering of the 5011
c. Change in topography or ground
surface relief features?
d. The d~structionJ covering or modi
fication of a~y unique geologic or
Physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion
cf soils, either on or off the site?
f. Exposure of people or prop~rty to
geologic hazards such as earthQuakes~
landslides. ~udslides, ground failure
or similar hazards?
g. Changes in Siltation, deposition, or
erosion which may ~odify the channel
of a river ~r the bed of a ~ay or
inlet?
VES
• Adapted from Appendix I I California {;uidel ines for Implementation of
CEQA~ December 14~ 1976 .
•• Updated ~ay 1982, June 1983
[lACKI
Re,ised 10/28/91
'~<'." -t 0.--,
_x_
_x_
•
II
z.
o
Air. Will the proposal resu~t in:
I. Substantial air emissions cr de
terio~ation of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air mo~em~nt. moisture
temperature, or any change in cli
mate, eith2r locally or regional?
3. Water. Will the p4"oposal result in;
iI. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rdte and amnunt of
s~rface water runoff!
t. Alterations to the course or flOW of
flood lIlaters?
c. Discharge int~ surface waters, or in
any aiteration of surface water
quality. including but not limited to
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity?
d. Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of ground waters?
e. (xposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood
ing or tidal wavE?
f. Change in the quantity of ground
~aters, either through direct
additions or .ithdrawa1s. or thro~gh
interce~t ior:s of an aquif~r by cuts
or excaVations?
4. Plant lifg.. ~i11 He proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
number of any species of plants (in
cluding tre~s~ shrubs, grass, crops,
microflcra and aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction of the n~mbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
cf phfltS?
c. lntroduction of new species of
ill
[IACKI 90· EIA·28
Reyl sed 10/28/91 Z
_x_
_1_
_1_
_x_
, ,
trACK I
/
o
Dlants into an area, or in i ~arrfer
to the normal repl€nishment of
eXisti"9 speci€s?
d. Reduction,n acrea9~ of any
agric~'tural crop?
s. Animal Life. Will the proposal )+esuH in:
i. Change in the diversity of 5pec;es~
or of any species of ani~als (birds,
land animals inc1uding reptiles.
fisn and s~~11fish, benthic organisms,
insects or microfauna)?
b. Reductf~n of the numbers of .ny
unique, rare or endangered species
of i!nimals?
c. Introduction of nelli species of
animals into an area, or result in
a barrier to the migration or mQ¥e
ment of animals?
d. Deterioration in existing fish ijr
wildlif. habitat?
6. NoiSE. Will the proposal result in:
7.
B.
I. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of peop1e to severe noise
levels?
light and ilm. Wil1 tile proposal
produce new light g1ir~?
land Use. Will the proposal result in
a s~bsta~tial alteration of the present
or planned 1and use of an area?
9. Ene-'rgy/Natural Resources. Will the
propc~a1 result in:
I. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
OT energy:
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing SQurces of energy. or
Revised 10/28/91
o
ill
90·£IA·28
3
.L
_x_
,
•
HACKl
10.
d.
o
require the de .... elopment of new
sources Of energy?
lncrease in the rate of use of any
natu~a' resources?
Substantial dep1etion of any non~e
newable natural re~ource?
Risk of Upse~. Does the rrcposal
involve a ri$k of a~ explosion ar the
releas2 of hazardous sUbstances (in
cluding. but not limited to, oil.
pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in
the ev~nt of ~n accident or upset?
1 I. .f.QQ.yJ at ; on/Haus i "9 .
i. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution~ density, O~ growth rate
of the ~uman popu1ation of an area?
b. ~i11 the proposal effect e~ist;ng
housing, or create a demand for
additional ~ousing?
12. Transpo.rtatiQn/Circulation. IIj11 the
proposal result in:
i. Generation of substantfal additional
vehIcular movement? ___ X ___
b. Eff~cts on existing parking facili-
ties, or dema~d for ne~ parking? __ 1 __
c. Alterations to present patterns of
Circulation or movement of people
and/er gnods~ ~
d. fncreasE in traffic hazards to metor
vehicles. bicycl i sts or pedestri ans? ~
13. Public Services. Will the proposal have
an effect upon, or rEsult fn a need for ne~
or altered governmental services in any of
the following areas;
1. Fire protect ion?
Re,ised 10/28/91
90DA-28
4
.~.
flACKI
o
b. Polic~ protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recr!ationa1
hen Hies?
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including rOods?
f. Other gQvern~ental services?
14. Utilities. Will tne p:""oposal result in a
ne~ for new systems, or substar.ti.l
alterations to the follo_jog utilities:
•• Power or natural 9 .. 5 1
b. COrmllJl'tications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tank? .. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposaH
is. Human Health. Will the proposal result
in;
a. Creation of any neaTth hazard or
poter.tlal health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
h. Exposure of people to potentla1
heal tn hazards?
16. Aesthetics. Will the prop~sal res~lt
in tne obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public., or will the
proposal result in the cr!atian of an
aesthetically ~ffens;ve site open tG
public: view?
17. Re-creation. Inn the proposal result
in an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreatiQnal opportunit!e~?
Revised 10/28/91
--."
......., ..... '
YES
_X_
..!...
MMBE I!Q
..!...
...L
--L
_1_
_x_
90-EIA-28
5
4.
\ . . ""', -
->
-",C.'
o
18. Cy1tural ~esQYrce~.
iI. Wi 11 the proposal result in the
alteration of/or the de~truction
of i prehistoric or historic
archaeo1ogicai site?
b. Wi 11 the proposal result in ad
verse physical or aesthetic effects
to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure; or object?
c. Does the proposal ~ave the potential
to cause a physica1 diange which
would affect unlque cultural values?
cL Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potentia' impact ar€a?
19_ Mandatory findings of Significance.
i. Does thE project have the potential t~
degrade the quality of the environment,
s~bstantial1y reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
or wildlife population to drop be10w
self-sustaining l~~els, t~reaten to
~limlnate a plant or animal community)
reduce the number or restrict the
rangE of a rar~ or endangered plant Dr
animal or eliminate important examples
of the ~ajor periods of {alifornia
history or pre~istory~
b. Does the project have t~e potential
to ach ieve short-term, to the di"S
advantagE of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a
re1ativeiy brief, definitive period
of time while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.,
c. Does the project ~a~e impacts which
are individually limfted, but
cumulati¥ely considerable? (A pro
ject may impact on two or mere
separate resources where the impact
[lACK! 90·[IA-28
Rev i sed ! 0/28/9! 5
,. t 'M
_x_
_1_
..
on each resource Is relatively
sma)l, b~t ~here the effect nf the
tot.l of those imp.cts On the
environment is significant.)
d. Does the pl'oject ~a"e environmenta'
effects ~hic~ vill cause sub5!ant~'1
adverse effects ~n human ~ir.9s,
either directly or indirectly?
o
V. Exp1anatlon of ·yes· anS'flIIfrs irt environmenta1 checklist.
Se •• tliched.
£lACKI
Re,isod 10/28/91 ~t'-El~'28
7
___ <l ... ·"ii!'"'" __ ~' ____ ~ .
o
Purpose of the Picycle Boulevard _(xte~rQject
The pur:pl)se of this project ;s to extend th~ existing bicycle boule\lard by
"pproximately 1.3 miles. The purpose of a bicycle boulevard ;s to provide a
direct route that r~duces trayel time for bicyclists and minimizes conflicts
between b'icyc:1es and mctQr vehlcles. The Me),ele boulevard thus promotes t~e
use of bicycles as an alternative transporhtion mode for an trave1 purposes.
Use of the bicyc1e as an alternative transportation mode will take on
increasing ;mportan~e as a ~ay to meet the requirements of new State and
regional regulations which attempt to improve air quality and decrease traffic
congestion ..
Bicycle Boulevard ExtenSion Phns Evaluated in U,is r_nitiaJ St:.Jdy
This Ir.itial Study is based on the !valuation of the ~ecammended. Substitute,
and Combined PTans, with a street closure located on Bryant either between
Addison and lincoln~ or between Cnanning and Addison. T~e Combined Plan
inc1udes tne £mbarcadero/Bryant intersection configuration as ~escribed in tne
Recommended Plan (i.e .• traffic light, left tur~ pockets, channelization
islands. and turn restrictions). plus the street closure as described in the
Substitute PTan. The Recommended, Substitute, and Combined Plans are
identical at all locations except for the Embarcadero/Bryant intersection and
the street closure. This Initial Study ;$ valjd for the existing stop sign
lOCations on Bryant, as well as for stop sign changes proposed in the
Recommended Plan; th~ impact of stop sign changes does not materially change
this analysis.
Worst Case E~aiuation
This fnHill Study is based on a ·worst case· analysis. The greatest impact
at a specific locat inn attributable to any of the Bitycl e Boulevard Extensi Oil
plans was lJsed in this Initial Study. Actual impacts 'Wculd not be as great as
described herein, because no single plan r~presents the worst case at all
locations. The discussion in the next section of Items 12a, b, C, and d
(Transportation/Circulation), and Items 13a, b. e, and f (Public Ser~ices)
includes tne traffic generated by the propo!ed expansion of the Palo Alto
Medical Foundation (PAMF)~ Thus. the discussion of th€'5e items is based on
t~e cumulative impacts of both the PAMF €xpa~sion a~d the Bicycle Scu1evard
ExtenSion pians. If the PAMF expanslon is not built, the traffic impacts
described b~1o'W would be less. O~ly tnose as~ects of the PAMF expansion that
would add to t~e lMpacts of the 8icycle Bo~levard Extension pl~ns are included
in thls discussion. Other impacts of the PAMF expansion project are described
in the Environmental Impact Report for that project.
Explanation of Checklist Items
In the following paragraphs, all check1ist ltems marked ~Maybe· and ~Yes~, as
well as some marked ·N~·, are explained, Section and figure references below
refer to the Bnant StreeUJcycle Boule'liard Extension Re_port, City of Palo
Alto Transportation Division. September 1991. This report is a~ailable as
described in the Environmental Assessment. The Recommended and Substitute
[IACKI
Revised 10/28/91
--"-:--.--~.
90-ErA-2S e
,
,
,,_" •••• "' __ ._--.:-·~' __ K' •• ,~~~_ .......... "'-"--
Plans are descr~bed in Section 10 of the report.
descTibed above.
The Combined Pl.u .... as
Item 2(a) Air This item was mar~ed -no.-A study of the estimated emissio~s
It the Bryant/Embarcadero intersection for unsignallzed (existing) and
signalized conditions was conducted in June 1989 (signalized conditions were
based on the -worst case·--unrestricted use of the int,ersect;on by all
~ehicles). City staff pro~id€d t~e traffic dati, and the emissions
calculiti{lns were prepa!'"ed by Michael Kim of tf)e Bay Area Air Quality
Manayement ~istrict. The results of tne emissions ,alculations are a;
fol iO'lls:
Before signal;zation
After signalization
Increase
Emissions (tons/day}
.05
.05 o
ilm.~
!1o!'loxide
.34
.49
.15
NitrogEn
Oxide
.05
.05
o
The increase in emissions of carbon monoxide of olS tons/d~y is below the
threshold level (If .275 tons/day considered to be significant by the Bay Area
Air Quality Manageme~t District. as defined in Table VIII-A·l of ~iT Q~al~ty
and Urban Development: Guide1ine$ for Assessing lm..pJlcts of Project il_nd Plans,
BAAQMD, NO\l~mbel" 1985. Since June 1989, traffic volumes at Bryant/Embarcadero
have increased by about 2 perc~nt, which does not materially affect this ~ir
quality analysis.
A st~dy of the estimated emissions was conducted for the proposed new st~p
signs on ~omer and Channing at Bryant. The increase in emissions was found to
be below the State standards for Hydrocarb(Jns, Carbon Monoxide and Nitrogen
Oxide. This analysis is available in the Transportation DiviSion is described
in the Envlronm!ntil Assess~nt.
Items 12{a. h. c. d)' Transpgrtation/CircuhJion
Vehicul&.r MOl;ement. The Substitute and Combined' Plans would close Bryant
Street to all motor vehicle tr~fffc (except emergency vehlcles) between
Channing a~d Lincoln Avenues {i.e., at locations A, B. C, or D as shown in
Figure 6.6 of the Extension Report}, by m~ans of a permanent street closure.
The Recommended and Combined PTans would pro~ibit certain motor vehicle
turning movements at the Embarcadero/Bryant intersection. These features
would cause existing and future Bryant Street traffic to use other ro~t~5.
The increase in vehicle-mnes tral;~l 1 ed due to the street closure and the
turning prohibltions, as i percentage of total vehic1e-miles travelled for any
given trip, is Expected to be minimal, as drivers arE expected to use
alterfl.ate routes which are no longer, or only \lp to three blocks longer, than
the d1rect Bryant Street route. Refer to tne lir"J:Lth.t~o..o. sectior. below for a
discussion of the impacts of these di~erted tTips~
ElACKJ
Revised 10/28/91
90-ErA-28
9
---~-----_.---:..-,-
..
Parking Impacts qf Street Closure. ~one of tMe Bicycle BouleviTd fxte~siJ~
plans would ca~se a demand fer new parking. To th~ degree that th~ extension
causes a shift from automobile drivipg to bicycling for non-recreatfonal
trips~ the demand for automobile par~in9 will decrease. A street c10sure
located on Sryant between Channing and linceln A~enues would displace
approximate11 two on-street parking spaces on each s;~e of Bryar.t, for a total
loss of 4 on-~treet parking ~paces. On-street parking on Bryant between
Channing and Addison is we11-ut~1ized during the day, primarily by employees
~f the Palo Alto Medical Clinic and other downtown businesses. Thus, the loss
of four parking spaces in this block would create a demand for four parKing
spaces elsewhere, presumably firtner into the neighborhood where parking
spaces are iv~ilable. This additional demand t when dispersed over several
other blvcks, lS not expected to cause a significant impact on the
neighborhood, eve-n in the block. of Addison Street between Waverley and Bryant,
as discussed in the next paragraph. The impact of losing four parking spaces
on Br.,;.'ant bet~een Addis:';)n and lincoTn is less than the above case, because day
time on-str.ee-t parKing south of Addison is not fully occupied.
P~rk;n9 ]mpacts on Addison and Coleridge Avenues. All of the Bicyc1e
Boulevaid Extension phns would result in the prohibitfon of parking between 7
AM and 7 PM on one sfde of one block of both Coler~dge and Addison Avenues
between Waverley and Bryantt resulting in the loss of about 2Q spaces in each
bl~ck during daytime ~ours. As documented in Section 9.3 of the ~eport. this
lOss may cr~ate some deficiency of spaces on P,ddison Avenue d~ring the periods
immediately following 7 AM and immediately preceding 7 PM, as well as
incollve';1rence to some Addison Avenue residents:; however. these impacts are not
considered to be Significant. Parking demand on Ca1eridge is low. so the loss
of daytime parking on Coleridge ~ili not have a significant impact.
Parking Jmpac1;s Near Castilleja School. The channeliz.ation islands at the
Bryant/Embarcadero triffic s;gna1, aS50ci ated 'IIi t~. the Recommended and
Combined Plans, would require that two to three on-street parking spaces be
removed on each side of Bryant immediately north and south of fmbarcadero~ for
a total loss of 8 to 12 on-street parking spaces. Half of this loss wou1d
occur south of Embarcadero and would be noticeable when Castilleja School is
in operation, as. most on-street par'ldng spaces in that bTock are in use during
school hours. especially on the Castilleja side of Bryant. Other unoccupied
on-street parking is available during these hours in the blocks of Kellogg
Avenue and Emerson Street borderfn9 Cistiljeja~ on the Castill~ja side af tMe
streets, so this loss of parking spaces is not considered to be a significant
impact.
Parking lmpacts on Ramona Street. The Substitute and' Combined Plans, with i
5treet closure on Bryant betWeen Channing and Addison, could cause average
daily trafflc \loTume (ADT} on Ramona bebeen Channing and Addison to inc.rease
to a leyel such that removal of parking on one side of Ramona bet'~een CManning
and Addison might nee~ to be considered. On Ramona between Homer and
Channing, parking on the east side of Ramona has been prohibited for many
years. This is becaus~ Ramona is 30 feet wide, which is considered to be too
narrow to comfortably accommodate fully occupied parking on both sides of the
street and two lanes of traffic ~ith an AOT in the range of 1200-]400
EIACKI
Revised 10/28/91
'ft~~~,
~-' . ,-
9Q-EIA-28
10
,
'j
I
1
• ~
t
i
4
I
,
I
I
I
l
vehichs. Non! of the Bicycle Boulevard £Xtens1nn pla~s recolMlends removal cf
parking 011 Ramona because the anticipated worst case traffic volume might not
dev~iop, in part, because p.arldng on both Sides of Ramona cou1d act is a
deterrent to drivers ~ho might consider using this street.
Should it ever be advisable to prohibit parking an Ra~na after the street
closur~ "ad been installed, it is probable tnat the prohibition ~ould only be
on the east side of Ramona between Channing and Addison during normal working
hours. Park.ing il'l this block. is usually funy utiHzed dur'ing the diY, but is
relatively Ifght at other tirnes, illS indic.ated by a parl::.ing survey conducted on
a we~k day in October 199n. (The intent of the survey was to assess the
extent of nen-residential parking in neighborhoods surrounding dOlfllnto'.-'n. The
survey indicat€J that, at 6 AM, 7 vehicles ~ere parked in this black. all of
which were assumed to belong to reSidents. At 8 AM, t~ere were 28 vehic1es
parked, wit~ 6 belonging to residents. At 10 AM, there were 29 vehicles
parked, with 2 belonging to residents.) The possible parking prohibition
wO'...l1d entail a loss of approximately 14 parking spaces for the weekday day
time period. This loss wou1d not be expected to cause signifjcant
inconv~nienc~ to the reSidents of that block~ as the number of r2sidents who
pc:rk in t~e street during the day is relatively small. Tiles!! reSidents cOl,jld
compete witn employees for parking on the west side of the street, and/or
utllize their dri~ewdys. About half of the empl~yees who park on Ramona
during the day ~ould need to find parking spaces elsewher~ in tMe
neighborhood. Ho't!Ver, all the Bicycle Boulevard E.xtension pians would re:;ult
in a large gain of on-street spates on Waverley. as discussed in the next
paragraph, which would more t~an offset a loss of employee parking in the
general area.
parking fmpad on Waverley. All the Bicycle Boule~'ard Extension pl ans would
result in a gain of approximately 170 on-street porking spaces zs a result of
the removal of bike lanes and reinstatement of parking on portions of Waverle)
Streel and Churc~il1 Avence+ This includes 13 new spaces on Waverley in the
downtown area.
Circylation_ The Substitute and Combined Plans would alter present patterns
of circulation to a greater degree than the Recommended Plan, because the
first two plans include a street closure. In gEneral, three aspects of the
plans would alter circulation patt€rns: the new traffic sigr'lal at Embarc
adery/Bryant. the street clos~re on Bryant, and changes in stop signs O~
Bryant and crGSS streets. for the Substitute and R8commended Plans, tr.ese
cnanges are documented in detail in Section 9.1 of the Extension Report (refer
especially to Figures 9.3 and 9.~ in that report). Similar figures
illustr.ating circulation patterns for the Combined Plan have been prepared,
and are availab1e in the Transportation Di~ision ~s described in the
bwironmental Assessment. The traditional grid street pattern predominant in
this area will help to diffuse the impact of changes in traffic patterns. All
plans would also affect the circulation patter~s of emergency ~ehicles ~nd
City service vehicles, as described below under item 13.
The combined impact of tne PItMf" expansio1'1 and tne Bic.,ycle Boulevard Extension
plans would decrease the .average daily traffic volumes ,ADT} on Eryant Street
ElACKI
ReVised 10/28/91
90-EIA-2B
II
··:~i~,t'~lL •.....
-
'f,;'
.~~<
':,,'-'<. :c"~
•
bttween Chanolng and Embarcadero. which is an environmental be~ef;t to Bryant
Street. South of (mbarcaderiJ. the Reco1'mleflded arid Combined Pl ans would
decrease the ADT on Bryant, ~~jle the Substitute Plan wo~'d increase the ADT
on Bryant. On Waveriey street north of Embarcadero, the combined impact (If
the PAMF expansion and the Bicycle Boulev~rd Extension p1ans would increase
AOT on W~verley. South of Embar,adero~ the Recommended and Combined P1a~s
would increase ADT or. Waverley. while the S~bstitute Plan would decrelse the
AD! on Waverl~y. The comhfned impact of the PAMF expans;~n and the Bicycle
Boul!vard Extension plans would increase ADTs on all cross streets from Homer
to lowell, hetween bet.een Waverley and Emerson.
As explalned in Secti~ns 9.1.1 and 9.1.2 of tne Extension RepQrt, the Traffic
InfUSion 1m Residential Enilironment (TIRE) Index is used to evaluate the size
of the AnT increases. In most cases, ADTs either decrease, or increase by an
amDtmt that is not expected to be nDticeable to tfle-average resident (i.e, the
change in Hie T!RE index is less than 0.1). 1n S(lme blocks, listed below? the
Increase in the TiRE Index is expected to exceed this minimum noticeable
level. The increase in the TIRE Index listed below represents the ·werst
case-for that location; l.e., it is the hignest increase at that location fer
any of the plans. No ~ingle plan would cause all the worst case increases
1 ist'2d below.
LOCATIONS WHERE CHANGE IN TIRE INDEX WOULD EXCEED .01 FOR ANY PLAN
waver\ey frOll! Chami ....... to A.dCi:;;on
lleW1"ley fro. Addi:!liOl"l to Lincoln
Br)'W1t fl'OIII ('!"l toss to ChUTc1!; I 1
.~ frc. Ch ...... irlg to Addi$On
1iI~ f:-a. AcilcHsM to tir.;oln
.-GcIiaon frDl ioIkrYeriey to Bryant
~;SM frOll Bryv.t te RanIC)NI
line-el.., fr_ W1Iverley to BirylWlt
L inr;o{n fNWI Sryw,t to ~¥"o:Wla:
1C1ng:s.!cy fro. WoIwrley to Bryant
I{eoU~ fr-o. w...erley to Bl"Y&"t
(est) .. estillate
l22!l
Existing IIDT
377' 'Ilila (~5.0
'" 63C
6()O ell'St)
1410
"" 92"
900 (est)
4&)
}Oe: (~.5t)
Io'urst_C::.iS:! ACT with
f'Mf + aike-BlV\? ...,
51'" '10 , 16~ ,"" ,865 ,"'"
"" 13S0
700 ...
Wo ... u Ca~€' Incr'!"a$t"
I", 1l1~ l",rl:'"
-" _IS
-" -" .2S
_15
-" -" -20 -" _15
-l:-.:.llhs c:tldIfrll:!d i~et of f>~F expon:>ion ..-d Bieyc.le iOlJte ... ard' iExtMSion p:er!S. Ff\jlJn~:5. liued ere the
l.r5leSt IrIC:rea~es ~., AIll <Ire! HltE rrdex .ttrfb .. ltable tc.rT)' of the pll1ns. ~C' i.iT .... L~ pla:'l ~ld l'1,ave ,ILl th'!"
ir.c:ru .. es listed.
The Ci ty of Palo Al to h~,s not establ ished numerical standards regarding
acceptable traffic volumes on residentia1 streets or acceptable increases in
the TIRE lndex. Increases in traffic volumes and the TIRE Index are useful in
describing traffic impatts, but they cannot be used to establish the paint at
wtlfch a traffic impact becomes emdronrne~tally s~gnificant. For this purpose,
level Df service (lOS) impacts at intersections {t~e points of th~ network
with the most constrai~ed capacity) are us~1 as the inditatcrs of traffic
impacts on the network, including residential streets. The City ~as a well
estahlished procedure for determining traffic impacts at intersections, using
HACKl
Revised 10/28/91
------.... _, ....... ".'~
90-0A-28
11
<
~-,
o
standa.rds tnat are cOlllll'!Kln among most cit;~s. Accordi:lg1y, interset:.tion
ltvels of service (lOS) ~ere determined for all intersections on the street
segments '1steO' fro the abo .... e table. At all intersecttcns, 1ndlld:ng
Wav~r1eY/Embarcadero and BrYlnt/Embarcadero, ~ith any of the Bicycle 8~u1evard
Extension plans and the PAMF expansion project, ind with any street clos~re
location between Channing and tincoln, leve1s of service were determined to be
lOS A, B or C, 'wni en ne (onsidt!red to be wet 1 within the acceptable range a~
any lQcation in the (ity. Therefore, there are no significant negati .... e
cum~lat1ve impacts on traffic circulation due to any of t~e 81cyc1e Boulevard
~~t~nsfon plans, combined ~;th the PAMF expansion.
[mpact on Castnleja Schoo1. Castilleja School is located {II] the southwest
corner of the Bryant/Embarcadero intersect ion. The channel iZltie."! i sl ands at
the Bryant/Embarcadero traffic signal assoc1ated with th! Recommended and
Combined Pla"s will prohibit ~tor vehicle left turns from Bryant to
Embarcadero and the through mo\'ement across Embartadero. This wn 1 not affect
l!1a!''I,Y driyers approaching the schoel, but will cause some drillers leaving the
school to use alternate routes. As described above, dri~ers' use of alternat~
routes (which includes drillers originating at Castilleja School)~ wili not
have a significant impact. The primary reaSOM that the TIRE index increases
by .15 on Kellogg between Waverley and Bryant is due to drivers. leallit'19
Castilleja School using Kellogg to reach the Waverley/Embarcadero intersection
in order to turn left onto. or cross, Embarcad~ro. As stated above, tnis
impact is not conSidered to be significant. loss of 4-6 on-:treet parking
spaces during school hours was discussed above under Patrjng lmpact Near
Castilleja School, and was not considered to be a signifjcant impact.
Traffic Hazards. In the checklist, this item ~as checke~ ~noR. In order for
the Bicycle Boulevard to be extended as prop~sed, a traffic slgnal must b!
instilled at the Bryant/Embarr:adero intersection. nis signal would' provide a
safer crossing of Embarcadero Road, a major ~rterfal street~ f~r bicyclists
and pedestrians. Cyclists and pedestrians who curr!ntly USE Bryant Street
must _ait for gaps in the flow of traffic en Embarcadero, which is heavy
during the peak commut! periods. As documented in Section 9.2 of tne
Extension Report, removal of stop signs on Bryant Street is not expected to
resul t in increased motor vehicl e speeds on that street. As stated in
Sections 10.] and 10.3 of the report, if actual experience indicated that
conflkts, speeding~ or other operational proble:ms were occ'Jring as a ri?sult
of stop sign removals, corrective measures, ir.cluding p05sible re i nsta11ation
of sto~ signs, wo~ld be takan.
Items Bfa, b. e, fL Public Servjces
Police and fire. The channelization islands it the Bryant/Embarcadero traffiC
signal associated with the Recommended and Combined Plans would impede right
turns from Bryant to Embarcadero for lIery la~e trucks. and would impede left
turns from Bryant to (mbarcadero and the through movement across Embarcadero
for all vehicles. However, police and fire lIehicles (including fire trucks),
operating in emergency conaitions, would be able to bypass the islands by
drilling to the laft of tnem. Police and fire vehic12s occasionally have to
ElACKI
Revised ID/Z8/!1
-. ~';'''''~~ •. li::lc!"''' •. -:.-' ___ .... .,., ..... ' ... ·.6~._·.·_·~-··
>~_,.;~:~: t"',,C_~{'"
<';;,"
!O-EIA-Z8
11
•
use the left sides of intersect~ons in o"r'der to bypass queues of vehic1es.
Effects on emergency response time would nat be ~easurable.
A street closure an Bryant between Channing and li~co1n wculd moderately
affect the del iVery of pel ice services to t.he area bebeen the c10sJJre and
Embarcadero Road, especially en or in the vicinity of Bryant Street. Police
officers leaving th~ Police St~tion garage would !xit th! garage cn Ramona
Street (Bryant Street is an entrance on1yJ. rn generil, from Ramona, an
officer would choose a route to reach Bryant or Embarcadero that would not
involve a detot.:r around t.~e c-losJJr-e. Officers would need to remember tt)e
location of the closure when choosing their routes into and through the area.
In the specific case of an officer destined for ,n aadress in ine actua1 bl~ck
where the closure js located, the offic~r could possibly end up on the wrong
side of the closure from the intended destination, and thus be del~yed in
reaching that destination. The Police Department believes that the overall
dehy in response time C:ue to the street closlJre is not significant enoug~ to
require mitigation, but tne Department prefers the Recommended Plan because it
does not include a street closure.
A street closure would extend the tir'i1€ necessary for the Fire Department to
respond to emergencies in the area of the closure. The Fire Department has
responded to the Palo Alto Urg~nt Cafe Clinic and the Palo Alto Nursing
Center, both ~n Bryant near C~anning, for medical aid calls an average of
about 7 times per month during the past tnree years. The fire Department also
prefers the Recommended Plan because it does not inclt,;.de a street closure.
Jf a street tlosure 'Were to be ~nstal led anywhere bet",'een Char.nin9 and
EmbarCadero, the Fire Department has requested that a low toncrete b10CK be
installed in Ue center of t~e closure instead ef the locked bcllard !.hat has
been used in the City1s most recent permanent street closures. The concrete
block would give paramedic vans and other emergency ~e~icles, which have high
undercarriage clearan,e, unrestricted emergency access to the above t'Wo
facilities. The concrete block would be similar to that used in the temporary
Bicycle Boulevard street closures at lowell and El Verano Aver.ues, and in the
recently constructed permanent street closure on C1emo Avenue at Maybell
Avenue.
Maintenanc~ of Public facllititi, All Bicycle Boulevard ExtenSion plans would
result in in~reased maintenance for one or more of the new capital e1ements of
the plans: the new traffiC Signal, the associated channelization islands.
and/or tne street closure. This increased maintenance wo~ld be offset by the
removal of bike lane lines on portions of Waverley and Churcnill~ which would
result in elimination of the periodic repainting of bike lane lines. There
would be no slsnificant negative impacts on maintenance ~f public facilities.
Govenmental Ser~ices. The channe11zation islands at the Bryant/Embarcadero
intersection and/or the street Closure may cause alteration of routes for th~
Postal Serwice, Pale Alto Sanitation Company, City )treet sweepers, and other
occasional governmental services. The impacts on these services are not
expected to be signiflcant.
cs
[IACKI
Re.ised IOi28/91
""'.
90-EJA-28
14
•
\
September 26, 1991
HQNORAIH..E C!'i'Y COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
AttentiohZ Policy ~d ServiQ8S committe.
" AT"rACHMENT C
RECOMMEFDATTQN CONCEBNING THE IMPUMENTb,TION OF THE EXT.EN~ION OF
THE BRYANT STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD
Members of the cou~cil:
REpoRT IN BRIEF
The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council (1) approve
a recommended plan for the extension of the B~ant street Bicycle
Boulevard l (2) approve the Negative Declaration prepared for the
project and (3) authorize staff to proceed with the necessary
design, installation and funding procedures to implement the
extension project.
During t:he past year, sta.ff 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 acrC5~ San Francisquito Creek into Menlo
Parx. Exhibit 1 illustrates the location of the proposed ~xtension
relative to the existing section of the bicycle boulevard.
The effort to development a recommended plan for t~e extension of
the Bryant Street-Bicycle Boulevard is one part of an overall
process that: (a) began vith a City Council decision, a decade ago
to establish the existing Bryant street Bicycle Boulevard} {b)
builds upon long standing Council policies, actions and
achievements that support non-drive alone modes of travel, as well
as approval of capital iIDprovement projects related to the bicycle
boulevard~ ~~~ (c) continues ~ith this study and a subsequent city
Council decision regarding the extension of the bicycle boulevard.
'I'he overall process is illustrated in Exhibit 2.
CMR: 429: 91
•
o
The stu~y has now been compl~ted and a recommended plan fer the
extension of the bicycle boulevard has been developed. 'the
recommen~ed plan, as illustrated in Exhibit J, includes: (a)
instal14tion of a new traffic signal at the intersection of Bryant
Street and Embarcadero Road, with certain turn r~st".rictions; ~}:I)
lIIodific.e;tions to stop slgns at selective locations alonq Bryant
Street; (c) removal of existing bike lanes on Waverley street
between Lytton Avenue and Coleridge Avenue, ~,nd on Churchill .1,.venue
between Waverley Street and Brya:l.t Streeti and (d) extension of
existing bike lan~s on Addison Avenue and Coleridqe Avenue from
Wave.r-le:r~ street to Bryant street. The total cost of the project is
$228,000 with the source of funds being State TOA funds (57\) and
City of Palo Alto Utility Funds (43\), The project ~ould take nine
months to fully implement.
staff recommends that council refer this report to the Policy and
Services Committee for review, discussion and a recommendation to
the council.
BACXGROUNP
The city of Palo Alto has long-standing policies, and a not~~le
record of actions and achievements, that emphasize, encourage and
facilitate the use of alternative. transportation :mode.s to the
automobile (walking, biking, car/vanpools. transit). These
policies and actions, carefully and consiste.ntly applied over an
extended period of time, have made a favorable difference in the
utilization of several transport ~omponents, including a bicycle
system and related support facilities that consistently place Palo
Alto in the top ranks of bicycle usaqe and user {riendliness
throughout the nation.
~ehensive Plan
The transportation elerr,ent of the Compref"o.ensive Plan contains a
n\llDber of policy statements and relat.:d programs that strive to
reduce the usage of the automobile and encourage the use of
alternative travel modes. Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan
il\~ludes Transportation Policy 12: "PROMOTE BICYCLE USE·, along
~ith related programs to support and achieve such a policy
including:
Program 34 -Develop and implement a net~ork of
through bicycle boulevards, and
Program 35 -Remove traffic control impediments and
physical barriers to bicycle travel.
9/26/91
Page 2
•
•
('\ ! , ,
!
,.
'"
o
The objectives of these pol:'cies and progl"ams is to proMote,
encourage and facilitate bicycle travel throughout Palo Alto and
its environs, for all aqe groups, and for all trip purposes
including recreational travel, shopping trips, travel to school,
commute to 'Woric trips, business tr-avel and other reasons for which
people travel.
Traffic Congestion' Air Quality
Efforts to facilitate a~d encourage the use cf alternatiVe
transportation modes, including the use of bicycles, will continue
to taxe on increasing importance as the effects ot Congestion
Management Aqency requirements, reqional implications of State air
quality requlations, and the city's recently enacted Transportation
Demand Ma.nagement {TOM) ordinance become more evident. In f.act,
many of the policies and actions to encouraqe and facilitate the
use ot alternative modes to the automobile, which Palo Alto has
voluntarily pursued during the past two decades, are now becoming
ins~itutionalized with applicability to the entire Say Area as part
of continuing leqislatlve and judicial efforts to address and
resDlve the issues ot traffic conqe~tion and air pollution. While
no single action or strategy is goi~g to solve the existing and
projected traffic congestion and air pollution problems, it is
increasingly evident that any and all measures that offer potential
benefit in terms of reduced \1se of the private automobile are
likely to become increasinqly important during the next several
years ..
Purpose of Bicyole Bouley~rd
The purpose of the bicycle boulevard is to provide: {l) a
throughway upon which bicycles have precedence over automcbiles;
(2) a direct route that reduces travel tiroe for bicyclists; (3) a
safe travel route that minimizes conflicts with motor vehicle
traffic; ana (4, a facility that promotes and facilitates the use
of bicycles as an alternative transportation mode for all purposes
of travel.
Existing Bicvcle Bouleva~g
The existing initial segment of the Bryant street Bicycle Boulevard
'Was established in 1982 and involved street closures at two
locations and chanqes in stop signs ~t several intersections. It
extends a dist;::,~:.=e of two miles along Bryant Street, from East
Meadow 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.
CMR:429: 91 9/26/91
Page )
•
Within the E:xisting initial two mile seq!nent, there are three
locationg that specifically perm! t bicycle passage and prohibit
automobil. passage (a street closu~e at Lowell Avenue, a street
closure at El Verano Avenlle~ and. a bridge crossing at Matadero
Creek). Ii'l additiorl. stop signs at a number of intersections alon,]
Bryant Street have been located so as to favor bicycle travel along
the Bryant street Bicycle Boulevard. In all other respect~. the
bicycle boulevard appe~rs and functions as a normal local city
street providing autc~obile access to residences, on-street parkinq
and unrers:tricted local area traveL Initially, some complaints
were recsived about the visual ~ppearance of the tempvrarf stre~~
closures. These have recently been replaced 'With permanent
lanc1sc,!ped closures. arid city staff has not received any other
complaints from residents ~ho live ~n or near the existing initial
seqment of the bicycle bouleva~d.
Capital Improvements
The City has made a substantial investment in upgrading the bicycle
boulevard since its initial implementation in 1982. In 1986. a
narrow pedest.rian ~ridqe, where Bryant Street meets Hatadero Creek,
was replaced with two neW" structures; ·a wide bicycle bridgl2! ~nd a
separate pedestrian bridge at a cost ot $82,OOa. In 1990. the two
temporary wooden st~eet closures (barriers) on Bry~nt street were
replaced with permanent raised and landscaped concrete islands at
a cost of $22,400. Both projects were funded thro~qh the City's
Capital Improvement Program with grant funding in excess of $71~OOO
from the State of Cl)llfornia. through the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission ($47~700 for the t~o bridges and $~2~400
for the concrete islands).
In January 1989, Council authorized staff to tile a grant
application for 1989-1990 TraJ""sportation Development Act (TDA)
funds for pedestrian/BiKeway Projects (CMR:101:9) which included
fundinq for a traffic signal at Embarcadero Read and Bryant Street
as part of the anticipated extension of the bicycle boUlevard. Tbe
grant application was approved and an amount of $75,000 is
available to the City for this specific project for a period of up
to three years begi14~ing July l~ 1990.
In 1990, as part of the 1990-1995 Capital Improvement Program (page
107j, Council approved a project with fundinq for the installation
of a traffic signal at the intersection of Embarcadero Road and
Bryant street. ~he total cost of the traffic signal installation
was estimated to be $150,000 plus $24,000 for integration into the
City's computerized, traffic signal coordination system. The
remaining costs for the traffic signal installation and
integration, after use of the $75.000 TDA Grant, i& designated to
come trem the city's Electric Fund.
CMR,429'91 9/26/91
Page 4
F
I
I
!
o
At the time that council approved the 1990-19'i5 CIP project for
installation of a traffic signal at Embarcadero Road and Bryant
street, it was with the clear ur-derstandi~ that no funds ':a"ere to
be sppnt for design nnQ construction of a traffic signal until the
bicycle boulevard extension study is completed and staff returns to
Council with a recommended plan tor COllncil discussion and
approval.
BICYCLE: BOULEVARD ~SION STUDY
The purpose of the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension StUdy
was to develop a recommended plan for the extension of the existing
bicycle. boulevard frolll 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
Parle.
The study considered alternative means for-extendjnq the existing
bicycle bolllevard further-northlriard along Bryant Street to San
Francisquito Creek. A.."\ alternative aligr-.ment along Waverlcj' street.
from Churchill Avenue to San Francisquito Creck, is not suitable
Cor the ek.tension of th.a bicrcle boulevard for a number of reasons
including: (a} W~verley Street is a desiqnated collector stre~t in
the Palo Alto street network, (b) traffic volumes along Waverley
street are in excess of 4,000 to 6,000 Vehicles per day, {cJ the
impact of traffic diversion froa Waverley street to other streets
within adjacent neighborhood ~reas, due to any measures that 'Would
reduce v~~icular volume, and (d) the presence of buses traveling
and malting stops alonq Waverley Street.
The study report documents the information gathering, alternatives
evaluation, public review arid comments, and development of a
recommended plan for the implementation of a project to extend the
existinq bicycle boulevard. The study report describe~ (a) existing
conditions; (b) a set of conceptual alternatives, including an
initial concept plan; (c) the first round of community review and
comments; (d) an evaluation of alterrl.:!tives; (e) the development of
an intermediate preferred plan; (f) a second round of community
revieW' and comments; {g) additional evaluation and (h) a final
recommended plan, including costs, funding and an implementation
schedule. A copy of the complete final report is included as
Attachlnent 2.
CMR:429:91 9/26/91
Page 5
,
[j
f , !
N , ,
'j
>.
~-...
REOOMKENDEP PLAN FOR BICYCLE BOULEVARP EXTENSION
The recommended plan for implementation of the extension to the
Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard, as illustrated in Exhibit 3, is
based upon staff's analysis and evaluation ot all the information
developed throughout the study process, as documented in the study
report. The recommended plan is described as follows:
Sagment A
Segaent A starts at Churchill Avenue and extends to, but does not
include, the Embarcadero Road intersection~ At present, the
existinq initial segment of the bicycle boulevard ends at Churchill
Avenue and cyclists are directed along Churchill Avenue to Waverley
Str~et which has marked bike lanes from Coleridqe Avenua to Lytton
Avenue and a siqned bike route from Lytton Avenue to san
Francisquito Creek~
The recommended plan for Segment A includes the re~oval of the
existing stop signs on Bryant street at Churchill Avenue.
Tne removal of the stop siqns on Bryant street at Churchill Avenue
is important to h,elp facilitata i::Iicycle travel along the bicycle
boulevard and is not expected to cause any serious operational
problems. If actual experience indicates that conflicts, speeding
or ether operational problems do occur, corrective measures,
includinq the possible reinstallation of the step sisns on B~ant
Street, can be taken.
The exis~in9 stop signs on Churchill Avenue, as well as ~~ose on
Xelloqq Avenue, Coleridqe Avenue, and Lowell Avenue would remain as
they are at the present time. Driveway ~ccess to Castilleja School
and on-street parkinq would also remain as it is at the p~esent
time.
Segment B
Segment B includes only the intersection of Bryant Street and
Embarcadero Road4
The recommended pla~ for segment B includes the installation of
a new traffic signal eat the intersection in general conformance
with option II-A 'Which includ~s a ne'W traffic signal, right
turns only from Bryant Street (through and left tUrns
prohibited), left turn pockets on Embarcadero Road and no
street clo5ure on Bryant Street.
CKR:429:91 9/26/91
Page 6
.'.,.
-
o
The reco.mended plan would f~cilitate bicycle and pedestrian
crossing of Embarcadero Road with little negative conse~~e~ce to
2mb&:cadero RO·:ld traffic flow (stops, delay) and air quality
because the traffic signal a.t this location "'ill be coordinated
with the existing traffic signal at Waverley Street. The study
report indicates that it 'Would reslJlt in an increase ot' only one
additional car stopping per cycle on an a\~erage throughout the
entire day. The recommended plan would also limit the diversion of
Bryant Street vehicul~r traffic to other area streets, would he
less costly to implement, and is likely to be less disruptive to
the neighborhood than a s.olu'cion that included a street closure.
Segment C
Segme.nt C starts at embarcadero Road (excluding the intersection)
and extends up to Forest Avenue.
The recomm~nded plan for Se9lllel'l.t C includes the reversal of the
stop signs at Kingsley Avenue, removal of the existin<; stop
signs on Bryant Street at Addison ",venue, and placement of
a.dditional stop signs on both Channing and Homer Avenues at
their respective intersections ~ith Bryant Street.
~he removal of the stop signs on Bryant Street at Xinqsley Avenue
and Addison Avenue is important to help facilitate bicycle travel
along the bicycle boulevard and is not expected to cause any
serious operational problems. If actual experi~nce 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.
Placement of additional stop signs O!l. Channing Avenue at Bryant
Street and on Homer Avenue at Bryant Strel5!t would not. only
facilitate travel for bicyclists by providing gaps in traffic on
the collector streets but would also address some existing concerns
related to high pedestrian usage and driver behavior at these t~o
intersections. (Observations indicate that many drivers ~top on
Homer and Channing even in the absence of stop signs.)
The existinq stop signs on Lincoln Avenue, Addison Avenue and
Forest Avenue as 'Well as the existing stop signs en Br)'ant Street
at Cha~inq Avenue, Homer Avenue and Forest Avenue would remain as
they are at the present time. On-street parking would also remain
85 it is at the present time. Access to the current and/or future
Urgent Care services at the Palo Alto Medical Clinic would re~ain
essentially unchanged, with the exception that non-e~ergency
CMR:429:91 9/26/91
Page 7
•
..
---'
vehicle traffic 'WoUld not be able to cross Embarcadero Road at
Bryant Street.
Segment D
segment 0 starts at, Forest Avenue a.nd extends through the ciowntown
business district to L}~ton Avenue~
The recommended plan tor Segment 0 is to make no chanqes from
~xistinq conditions. Th~ existing on-street diagonal parking
along Brya.nt Street as well as the existing traffic signal
timinq would remain as it is at the present time.
Experience in Palo Alto suggests that e~isting or.-street diaqonal
parkinq within the downtown business district creates no inherently
more severe or less safe enviror~ent for bicyclists. Therefore, the
potential loss ot 19 on-street parkinq spaces, that would result
from the conversion of diagonal parking to parallel parking, is not
'Warranted.
AI.o, the existing traffic signal timing is an integral part of a
more extensive downtown coor~inated traffic signal system that is
set in a manner that favors traffic flow along Hamilton, University
and Lytton Avenues over traffic flow on the cross streets. The re
timill9 of traffic signals to facilitate bicycle travel along Bryant
street, through the downtown business district, is problematic and
'Would crea.te unacceptable consequences on vehicular traffic flow in
the east-'West direction.
segment E
seqment E starts at Lytton Avenue and extends along Eryant Street
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.
The recommended plan for Segment E includes the reversal of the
stop Signs at Hawthorne Avenue and removal of an existing stop
siqn on Bryant Street at ~oe Street.
The removal of the stop signs on Bryant street at Hawthorne Avenue
and PDe street is important to help facilitate bicycle travel along
the bicycle boulevard and is not expected to cause any serious
operational problems. If actual experience indicates that
conflicts, speedinq or other operational problems do occur,
CKR:429:91 9/26/91
Page B
....
U~n
o
co~rective measures, includinq the possible reinetallation of the
stop signs on Bryant St~eet, C.!.1'1 be taken.
The existinq stop signs on Everett Avenue, Poe street and Palo Alto
Avenue would remain as they are at the present time~ On-street
parking would also remain as it is at the present time.
Se.gment F
Segment F represents all related changes on streets adjacent to the
proposed extension of tha Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevarj,
including changes t~ bike lanes and on-street parxing along
Waverley street, Addison Avenue, Churchill AVenue Qnd Coleridge
Avenue.
The recommended plan for Segment F includes the following:
Waverley Street
o Removal of existing marked bike lanes between Lytton Avenue
and Coleridge Avenue (Waverley Street fro~ Lytton Avenue to
the bicycle/pedestTian bridge at San Francisquito Creek is
a signed bik~ route but does not have marked bike lanes).
o Restoration of on-street parking betw~en Embarcadero Road
and Forest Avenue.
o Conversion of existing on-street parallel parking to
diaqonal parking on the ea3t side of Waverley street bet~een
Lytton Avenue and University Avenue, and on the vest side of
Waverley street between Unive,sity Avenue and Hamilton
Avenue, with the concomitant qai~ of 13 on-street parking
spaces~
As1sii..'5on A .... enue
o Extensiol'l of existing bikp.-lanes for one block from Waverley
Street to B~ant Street.
o Initiation of parkinq restrictions (7 AM to 7 PM) on one
side of one block of Addison Avenue (between Waverley and
Bryant streets) to ~ccommodate bike lanes.
Churchill Ayenue
o Removal of existing bike lanes bet'a'een Br~rant Street and
Waverley Street.
CKR.:429:91 9/26/91
Page 9
•
\
,-, , ,-
I->
, 0 Cessation of eXistinq par~ing restrictions (7 ~~ to 7 PM) on
one side of one block ot Churchill Avenue (between Bryant
St~eet and waverley street).
Co16ridge Ayenue
o EXtension of existing bike lanes for one block from Waverley
Street to Br~ant street.
o Initiation of parking restrictions ,7 AM to i PM) on onE
side of one block of Coleriaqe Avenue (between Waverley and
Bryant Streets) to accommodate bike lanes.
COST ANP FUNDING FOR EXTENSION PROJECT
As part of the study procEss, a cost estimate was prepared for the
implementation of the reco::nmended plan for the extension of the
Bryant Stree.t Bicycle Boulevard. The total project cost is
estimated to be $ 228,000. Exhibit 4 presents a summary of the
proj.ect costs.
~otential funding sources for implementation of the extension of
the Bryant street Bicycle Boulevard, as shown in Exhibit 5, include
previously approved. funds (state Transportation Developnent Act
grant funds and City of Palo Alto Utility Fund) as well as yet to
be considered and approved future State Transportation Development
Act grant funds.
sCKtPUI.Yi POR IMPLEMENTATION OF EXTENSION PROJ~
A schedule proposed ror the implementation of the extension of the
Sryant Street Bicycle Boulevard is illustrated in Exhibit 6 and
includes the following:
o Study repcrt ~ith recommendation to Council for referral to
Policy and services Committee (October 7, 1991).
o Policy and Services committee reviev and reco~~endation to
Council (October 8, 1991).
o Final Council approval (disapproval) of project
(November 1991).
o Council approval (disapproval) of supplemental funding for
project (December 1991).
CJ'R: 429: 91 9/26/91
page 10
...
~
1
i •
I
:j
j
~1
o
o Preparation ~t design plans and documents (December -March
1~91).
o Project bidding process (~pril -May 1992).
o Construction of project ,June -September 1991).
o Ope.nlnq ot extensio-:'1 of Bryant street Bicycle Boulevard
(September, 1992).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASStSSMENt
An initial study recommending a Negative Declaration has been
completed and is included as Attachment 1.
RECOMMWDATIQN
staff recommends that council:
1 ~ Approve the recommended plan for the. extension of the Bryant
Street Bicycle Boulevard,
2. Approv.e the Negative Declaration prepared {or the project,
.nd
3. Authorize staff to proceed 'With the necessary design,
installation and funding procedures to implement the
extension project, including the following items 'Which will
r9quire future council approval:
8~ TOA grant application,
b. elP budqet amendment ordinance,
c~ Resolution amending the Stop Sign System Map,
d. Resolution establishing parking restrictions~
e. A~ard of contract for installation, and
f. Resolution amending the Bike.·ay Master Plan
If Council approves the hicycle bouleVard extension project and
following its full implementation, staff ~ill ~onitor actual
conditions (speeds, VOlumes, conflicts, etc.) on Bryant Street at
the locations where stop signs have been removed, on a periodic
basis; and will report back to the Council following an initial six
month period, or earlier~ as co~ditions ~arrant~
CHR:429:91 9/26/91
page 11
'1
I
1
Staff further recommends that Council refer this staff report to
the Policy an(j services Committee for reviE'w~ discussion and a
recommendation to the council.
~espectfully submitted,
MARVIN L. OVERWAY
Chief Transportation Official
fiLL JLUTUJI'1J
JUNE FLEKING
Assistant City Manager
~~ d7/...?~ ie; / . /-t /1L,j~?~-£'/-t A. fi~-7
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
community Environment
Attachments: 1. Environmental As~essment (91-EIA-28}
2. Sryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension
Report~ September 1991
cc: Palo Alto Planning Commission
Archit~ctural Review Board
Historical Resources Board
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory committee
Palo Alto Chamber of COQ,erce
City of Menlo Park
Stanford university
June 6th Public Meeting participants (without attachment 2)
CMR:429:91 9/26/91
page 12
•
'\
..... ,"
-
o
EXHIBIT 1
LOCATION OF PROPOSED EXTENSION
IN RELATION TO
EXISTING BICYCLE BOULEVARD
EXISTING
BJKE BLVO,
(SOU," End)
,
BICYCLE BOULEVARD
EXTENSION STUDY
Project Goals
Data Collection
Cunceptual Alter4
Co~unity Review
Evalua.tion
PrE'.ferred Plan
Draft Report
Comm~~ity Review
Recom.mendation
Final Report:
D<P~ ltft£llS10li or <
1IltUlft ft1lEB1' <
BICYCLE B017LBVlllUl
EXHIBIT 2
PLAN DEVELOPMENT paOCESS
\
--;;, , ,
~~----~. " .....,._---
0 ~ sta • • , . ~.", ~ ,
AT~CHMENT 0
/
Deeernb<!. 9, \982
HOHORABl~ CITY COUNCIL
Pilo Alto, Collfornh
B1etcl. ~ul~vard Demonstrat~on Stud~ -Eva1ullt'on
Membe!"'s of ttl" Counel I:
On 'De-c:ember-14. 1981. Council approved a demonstration study of the -Sicyc1e
Boulevard-on Bryant Strut from O'II.IrcMll Avenue to Eut ~eadow Drive-.
Council sub~equently approved the spe~1ftc implementation plans on March 15,
1982. The demonstratIon per10d began in ""y and terminated October 31. 1982.
This report provides In aMITysfs and e"'I'~at1Dn of the dt~nstrltlon perf ad.
Staff recGml'llends that thl! !ryant Street B1cytle Boulevlrd be mad!' II p!'nMnent
part of the Palo Alto 6ikeway System. but th~t no physfe,l improvements ,i.e. I
permanent bl!lrr1er-s) be ftIolde .lor.-g ttle route ul'itfl the ne. Stlte lea1slatfon
regardf~g barriers 1s enacted.
I. ~EVIEW Of TME IMPLEMEHTAT:O~ PLANS
The implementation plan app~oye~ by Counc11 estab'fs~ed the b!eycle boule~ar~
d'emonstrlt1on .10ng Bryant St~eet from Chu~chi11 Avenue-to [1St Meldaw Ctive~
The corridor, prior to ~y 1982. co~tlfned 5t~ps .10n; Bryant It seyen
fntermed1'arl !ntersectfons. three of whfc.h were four ... way stops.
Upon ":mpTementltfon. of the b1h boulevard in May. stop sfgns were either remoye~
or reversed It most of t~e fntersectfons .long the demonst~lt'on route. leaving
only feur stops .10ng the ent're two m11e route. In .dditio"* two barriers were
installed Ilong Bryant in. order to di5sua~e 1"trease~ through tr.ffic and ,reate
a safer envfro~nt for b1cyc1lng.
Yo sunrnarize. the fol1owf~9 fs I list of the stop sign anc! blrrier 1nstalhtions
.10"; the demonstration route (re~er to ~xh1b1t III Citywide stop ~i9n map):
Intersection
ChurchIll/Bryant
L .... ll/Bry.nt
Callfornl./Bryant
L .... Verde/Bryant
El Ver.no/Bry.nt
ElSt ... adow
CI!R: 580:2
•
Statu, pr10' to May 1982
Stop' on Bryant only
stos>s on Bryant only
Stops on Bryant only
FDur-way stop
Four-WlY stop
Stop, on Bryant onl1
Demonstration Study
Implementation Plan
four-wlY stop
Barrier on BrYi!l~t.
stop ,Ig"' on L,..ll
F'our-w.y stop
Four-way 5tOP {no
change)
Barrier on Br}lnt
Stop s.igns on n Vera~o
4-Wl1 stop (no ch.nge)
,
·~--·"""-~~"""'''''Q'''d_.''' ___ '''''_'''''
."""'\ l"i
Add1t1onl' eltllen.ts Ort'ht-demt)nstrlt1on I"'out~ 1":lu4~irect1oru' $1gn1ng to
8ry.nt Street .10ng other bft. route •• n~ •• e ... -ted bile route .outh of East
Me.dow to Son Antoni •• 'ong r.sldentl.l str .. t ••
II. DATA COllftTIO~ ~THDDOlOGY
. I. the Do,ember 10, 1981 report to Countll tonce.nlng the Blcycl. 8ou'e •• rd
,Study ••• lultlon erito.h (OO:5~5:11, st,ff lndfcated th.t ,,"luapon datI
,,"uld be eoll.cted In twc prImary arelS (1) blcyc'. count. on Bry.nt Ind (Zl
"hf cultt tount. on B'ront Ind selected p",l1.1 .nd cross str.ets. StIff hIS
Ih. (OIIII>lled I ... f •• of the .ttfdent Mstory .Ionil eryon~ Street.
Complr.tl •• bicycle counts were t.ten It thr •• IOtltlons on Brylnt and It thr ••
other 10<.tlon, prfor t. ,nd during the blk. boulevord study. Count. wer. t.'.n
dudn9 I t..,h. hour ~erlod (7:00 •••• -7:00 D'''') on mid we., d., •• Ba ••
counts wer. tllen fn May 1981 Ind April 198Z; count. It the.e 10c.tlon. wor.
tlten Ig.in fn October 1382.
T-.oty.fo.r •• hfc.l" tt.fflc count. wer. ta'" ,t .Ight ••• loe.tfan, .long the
blk. boul.vard corridor. TIl ... couots Ine1udod 10Cltlon •• 1ong Brylnt IS .. 11
IS perallel and cross streets ~ere ch.nges 1n traffic p~ttfr"s were
,ntftfp.t.d. Ba •• tOunts wer. t.k •• fn May 1981 In4 1982; count. we,. tlk.n
agafn fn October 198Z.
The reSUlts ~f these before end after vehicular 1"4 bicy,', tr.tf1c co~~t5 are
shown fn Exhfblt #Z, p"j.ct locltlon "p, Ind In £.hfbft 3, d.t, toll.ctlon
....... ry.
1I1. fINDINGS
1. 91eytl. t.,fflc en 9ry.ot hI. fncr •••• d d •• m.tfC'll~ durIng tho
demon~tr6tlon period. Res~'ts gf the befQr~!lfttr~ke counts show that the
rate of lntrease-rnlSite trafffc on 8rya~t e~ceeds t~et sh~ on other
str •• t.; ton •• r •• ly, bft. trlfflc d.clin.d .lon9 Midd'efl.ld lod Alma
Str •• t. (.s .e •• ur.d.t Me.dow Drf •• ), durin9 he •• rne perod.
8r.l'.nt/Chu"M 11
en. Br,)'lfit
en Churchill
Bry.ot/Ctllfornl.
on 8ry,nt
on Churchi11
Middl.fl.ld/Ke.dow
on Middlefl.1d
on Meldow
Al ""/Me.d ..
on AI ..
on Meldow
CIIR:SBD:t
12 Hour Bicyc'. Count.
(7 AM • 1 ~
~ After
240 4n
460 SB9
290 536
!ill 1009
451 210
449 J62
JU '4 757 856
11 /Z4/8Z
·Z-
......
The hfghest bike counts .long BrYlnt -.ere reC:9rdeod .t tp'l! Lowen Street
blrrlor (725 bltes/dIY). Tho h.a,lest uSlgo of Bryaot occurs during the
.. ,.Ing coomuto hours of 1:00 •••• -g:OO •••• The p,erlomln.nt flow Is
"ort~~ound In the DO,.1"9' Students c~tlng to PlIo Alto High "couot f'r
a sfgntf.(lnt portion of t~e total. In the evening tne predominant 'low is
south~GUnd •• 1t"ough the counts do not ttx,",fbH the same cOl'WftlJtr ·peak r-51"ce
school Ind >ork coomute hours f'll withl. different time p.rl~s.
While this ,tu~ dId not ~compas$ I 5urvey 01 t~e cyc1'sts USing the ~oute,
~t .ppears. nev~rthe'"ss. that riders hive grav1tlted to BrIant fr~ other
Idjace~t "ef~hb~rhood streets 1ncluding Waverley and Emerson. and from t~e
DOr. congested Irterill. [Middlefield. AI .. ). .
Althoug~ b1ke ridership hiS thus increased ~rkedly .long th~ route~ some
welYing t~roug~ ne1ghborhoods and use of tdjaeent st~eets sttl1 occurs~ Tne
~rsonnel hired to conduct 'he October blk. counts speclfl,.lly 'oted t~.t
.. oy cyclists heading toward Palo Alto Hlph turned off of Bryant after the
Lowell barrier. and 1!'1tersected Churdt111 at Emerson rather than It BryerJt ~
l. The Bryan!. Street Bike-BOl,;~evar'd no~ car-r~es \lolumlP.s of bicycles comparabie
to ~ther welt established blte routes Within PI10 A\to's blle-way system.
Tne list city-wfde h1cy,1e co~nt5 wer! take~ ~n the Sp~i~g of 19}8. At th~t
time I number of st~eet5 carried +500;cycl1sts I day. Bryant Street. w~ich
now tl,.rfes 475-72S bfke.s I da1'. depend'ing upon the locati on. 1.5 tlurly on
I par wit" ether Njor bUe ,,"outes.
Count Loclti on 12 Hour Bile Counts
1982 Bry~nt Street rat C locatt ons) 475·715
1978 Arlst~ldero at Coulombe 5130
Park Boulelf'ard at Fern~"do ;87
North CalifornIa at Newell 793
Middlefield It [mbarclder. 495
Wlllo~!~.n Matee Orl,. Bridge 587
3. Trafffc volumes w1thin the o'll!r.11 tine bOiJlev~rd corridor have ,.em.&il'Jed
fairly c~n5tlnt. All of the streets counted except Bryant (south of
~reg~n)1 COlorado, and W3verley carry traffic volumes of con5fdera~ly less
than 1,000 ye~icle5Jday. These] im1ts a~e well .nthfn the acceptab'~ range
for locel residential streets.
Traffic O~ Bryant 1n tne v1cfnfty of e-ach of the barriers ~as declined by
Ippro,l .. t.ly fifty percent (from 953 to 457 vehicles/day n •• r lowell
barrfers, from 481 to 110 vehlcle-s/d!y near th~ El Verano b~rr1er). ~e
fnstalhtton of t~le two barrters on Bry~nt hu. ~Dwever. forc!d motorists
continuing to use Bryant.Stre!t to detour from Bryant bet.een Ten"y$o~ ~nd
LG~l1 Ind betMeen Ca~esino and E1 Verina. At paeh of these t~ locations
only one of tne cross streets exhibited a ma~led incr~ase in trlff1c~
CMR:580:2 IIJ2~/~2
-3·
!
-I
1'"\ -,"""
·~.I '_'
Tennyson/Lowell Cfwerston: Trlffft Dn 'rllnt south af T~nnys~n dec'1ned by
500 ... Mtle, per dlY (953/45J) ...... lnlng trofflt forced to detour It the
."" cu' -de-u< h .. been 41strl buted hi rly equally to the he l<!joeeot
blocks Df T.~~son, e.ch of wh1~h now c.~rfes +800 veh1c'~s/d'YI I volume
otl11 less th.n Bry.nt carried b.fore the d ... ",'stratlon projott. The two
corrup""cHng blor.l<, of tow1l exhibIted only 1Ifr..r fluttultions In tr.ffic
yol_. Trlfflt .01_5 on "" •• rl.y .nd Emerson I. tho blDtk pa"llel to
tht BrYlnt clo.ur. h ••• r ... lned con.tlnt. '
Brfont/Compesln. Dlvl.lon: Trlfflt on 8ryant oout~ of Lema Yerde detllned
by 300 .ehl;les dlY (01/110). Intru .. d trlfflt lIos been dIstributed to
tht Idjl .. nt blocks of Camposlno and RI .. onl. Elth of tho.e stroets has
born. In fntr •••• of IpproxlMAtely 100+ •• hltles/dlY. Tr.fflt on the two
bloets of [1 Y.rl" clos.st to the bo'rler ha. slgnlflc.ntly declined.
4. The PolIce Do~.rtment ""cords Indfclt. thlt the number of report.d Ittldents
Ilon, tn~ 15-tOCk eorridor of ~he demonstrat1on route has rema!ned It a low
le¥e aver the ~'it three years. In 1980 there were flY! rtported
ICc1dents. 111n¥olvinS ~WD weh1cTes. tau,!S for the accfdents were stop
sIgn 6nd rlght-of_y ylohtlons, or drunk drhlng.
In 1981 th.re ... re three report.d 1«lde.ts. T"" of the.e Involved bl,ycl~s
and IIOtorhts, In which the IIOtorhts filled to yl.ld the right-of-way.
To date In 1982 there hive be.n four r'ported .,cldents, three of ~Ich
occurred Ifter the demonstrltlon period beg.n. T .. of the .. In,olved I
bIcyclist .10n.. (Th. fIrst Iccldent oCturred at I aldblock lo,.tlon on
Bryant .... th of Seol.; the .. to,d otturred It the "'tldero Creet Bridge.)
[n each tlse tke cyclist Tost contra' of ~T, b1ke where no other Y~hfc'es
.. re pr.s.nt. Tne third Ic,ldent In,ol.ed • IIOtorlst and cyclist, with the
fOMler foiling to yl.ld tho rl'lht-of_y.
No accidents .. r. reported In tho ylclnlty of tho t .. trlfflc barriers.
IY. PUBLIC .ESPOKst
At the begInning of the d_nstrotlon study. staff unt • letter to ,11
res~del'tt$ W\th1ft I. on!" block rilldh,s of the Bite Boulevl~c! r~te. .An we-re
encDurlged to rei.y their t~nts to the Transportlt{on D1vfs1o~ during tnt
eours! Df t~e study. To date 'tiff has ieceT~ed ,omments from e1gnteen
lodl.ldulls. A ."""",r1 of the ",""nents re"lved Is sh""" .n ;:xhlMt '4.
PrIor to the Implement.tlon of the domonstratlon .tudy. staff held. public
eeet1ng w1th fnterested ne~ghbDrhood residents. who expresst~ comments fn four
ge:ner.1 .reas or c.oncern:
1.
the study ..
CMR:S80:2
on Th. Police
beglnnfng of
1 It dur1"9 t ~ put reo., mont h$.
11/24/82
-4-
-0
2. Abusfv! behavior by bicyclists, _otorc (lists It sto signs. barrfers. ~tc.
Durlng tht course of the s u • res ents commen e t at t ere was an
1~,rea5~ f~ .aped tr.ffic Ilong the Bike 8ou1evard route. Giv!n thfs 1nput,
twe1v! ho~r tounts were tlken .t Matadero Creet Br1dge and .t t~e lo~11
Str.et blrrier. ~e results 'nd1clted that .uped I~d ~torcycle wfo'jtfo~s
Ir! .in1Nl:
21 mopeds o _orcycle,
58 .,oped,
.. lIotorc:ytl,"s
The behlvfor of bfcyc1tsts It the Cal1fornf./Bryant intersection was st~died
by Dawn Wilcox, • member of the ,.10 Alto Bicycl. AdviSOry Commltto€, on
October 19, 1932. Of the 300·400 cycll.t. observed during e.ch of the •.•.
Ind p.~. comr.ute ~~rSt most sCloned far cross trafffc IS they approached
the interseotlon (1771'.~~8/p.m.); some sc.oned and ,lo .. d down, and.
fe. (26) co .. to full stop. Only. ye., few wro09 .,y cyclists (7) ""r.
observed.
3. Hindered '(cess to residences. Staff ~15 rece1ved onTy one co~l.~nt of
tFih "dture from th-e public. Tne proble!ll occ~"'~d in tlte c.losed lowe" to
Tennyson block of Brll~t. where motorists wert observed turning around in
the cu1-de-Slc It the lowell barrieri lOCI' driver tra1n~ng schoo1s were
11'0 u,lng t~I, block IS • prictlce Ire. for student dri,ers. St.ff
subsequently contacted t~e locll driving ,c~ools who agreed to use other
routes. Th. PolIce end FIre Oep.HUntot, report th.t their abIlity to
respond to emergencfes has not bern seriously 1mplfred by the barrfers
dur109 the study perIod.
e. length of the study and 1.vel of ~onitor'ng. Public I'put Ind comments to
the lranspcr-ut1on Dhision and pelfc.e Department have been I1fllhnal dl.'r1ng
the demonstration perfo~i no requests for fncreased monftoring have been
forthcOlllng.
V. CONCLUSIONS
Durf"9 the COU~5e of the sfx moot~ dernonstratfon. the Bryant Street Si~E
Bou'e~ard has developed I su~stantfal level of b1k! rfdershfp that p1aces ft on
I level .nth other Dl6e~. we'l establ1shed routes within Palo Alto's network of
b1kew~s. The rate of growth in bike travel on B~ant eKceeds the rate of
growth on other bike routts ~e~ counts we~ taken.
Conyer5~11. the problems Intfcfpated prfor to the d~nstr.tfon ha~e actually
fafled to materialize. Accidents haye remafned It. low le~eli traffic has not
cr.ated a probl~ on adjacent streets; and neighborhood reactlon to the incon~
venfence of the barrfers. Ind bicyclist and motorfst behavior. has been at I
.1 n t II'UII.
Thi, test cf the bl,ycle bDulevlrd concept h.s shown th.t • predomln.tely
stop.fr!e b'keway corrfdor on a less traveled. local residentfal street can be an
CHR :580:2 III 24/82
.5.
"
.'"'\ . ...."
J.ttruthe and efreC-tf;e~CMJU: for b1cycHsts. Based' Dn t", ewfdt'nc:e ctl1lec-ted*
t~e Bryant $tr;!'et dnlOnstnHon routr has proven to be-I 'SiLlC-tess i Ind. there
fo'l, It shOtJTd belncorpornod Into '"1. Alto's 1.l$tlng bite~.y syst.."
At Its .otlng on Oc:tober 28, the PlIo .lto Bicycle Ad,Isory Committee (PABAC)
re,l ... d the (emonstrltfon studY (Indln9s Ind f.nouT.t.~ the follo.1nl
rec ..... nd.tI 011' ,
°In o.cember 1981, PABAC Identified I •• t of .,.Tuatlon erlterlo for the
blcycl. boul.vard .tudy. Of the trlterll .mich were studied, the committe,
finds 111 tho effect. of the aryont Street Bicycl! Bou1o.ard fa,,,.,l. and
thtrefore recommends 1t1 co~t1nultfon 41 I perman,nt feltu~e of the 'a10
Alto Bil .. IY Syste.. PAiAC further r.c~nd, that tho bite cro,slng of
Malod.ro Creet b. I",rov.d.o
Should CouncIl deslgnlte Brllnt IS • penoon.nt bike bouTe,"rd route, stiff would
propose the followfng course of Ictlon,
1. Since the out tOle of Fenaanent state leg1J~lt1on r~~ard1ng traffic bart~er5
Is still pending Ind the stltos and definitIon of ,n Iccept.bl. blrrier ~1
not be r!soTytd until January 1984. for th~s 1nterf~ perfod. the barriers
should be .. Intained in theIr pr •• ent fOnl and cor',gurat'on. Stiff would
r.tur. to Council with the fln,l d.,Ign pllns and cost estlmlte for the
p .... n.nt blrrle .. It the .arllest Ipproprlate ti ...
2. Pile Alto .hould ... te applicatIon to the lletropollt,n Trlnsportltlon Co,,,,1 s
slon for TM Artlcl. 3 funds to construct I new bieycl. brHge IcrOSS ~tI
dero Creek. jhf exist'ng ptdestrfan brfdge does not conform to stet! bile·
WI1 desfgn stlndards for brldges ~th shared pedestrfan/b1ke vse. The pre.
11 .. IOIr1 cost Htl"",to for I new t.n·fo~t wide bridge Is $Z~.OOO·JlO.OOO.
Staff ,",uld need to return to Council with I specific g.,nt propo .. ' prior
to .ubmlttlng In oppllc.tlor to MTC.
VI. DEVELOPMENT OF BICYCLE BOULEVARD IlETlIORK
Program 3~ of the Transportation [lement of the Comprehensive Plan reads
-Develop arid Implement I fRtwork of ThroU'gh B1cych: BO'J'evards-.
The-fint test of the concept. IS pr-DpoSfd' in Pr~grl/p: 34, hi!S bern tondlJcted'
w1th success on BrYlnt. Thfs street ~s se'eetrd IS the ~ost su1table
demonstrlt~Dn rout~ Ift~r lengt~ review I~d ,onsultltian with the ~ala Alta
Blcycl. Advl.ory CommItte.. A lon9 tena plln for a .~twork of pot ental bll.
bou1.vard routes WlS nat d'eveloped.
To d~volop ,"ch a p1,n, stiff will •• ed t. ""rt with PABAC to ...... the need
for .ddltlooal bIle boul~vlrd ro"t •• , to develop I prIorIty ll.tlng of the most
suitable bike 10clt~Dn5 Ind to eVlluate the IPP~Dp~ilte trlfffe management
wuures to use along sud! route'. Whtl. the use of tuffit barriers was
successful Ilong t~e Bry~nt Street corrIdor. staff be11!ves that the Ippropriete
CIQ!:S80:2
··-·-~L·· .. -
. ..
11124/1!.1
-6·
o
blend of bi~e and motor ~thfclr tr,fffc on !ac~ futur~ bicycle boulevard route
mu~t be eva1uated independe~tly. The trAffic ~"a~~nt techniques utili2~d on
f~ture routes (,uc~ IS two~way 5toPS. traffic cfr,1es. d1verters. or barriers,
etc., shou1ci bE hilored to t~e tnd1v1d'ull ct'larac.tl!'rfst~cs cf each corr~dor.
If d;recte~ b~ Council to deve10p the overall pla~. staff would propos! to do So
O~ I time peMmittfng ba51s. in the conte~t ~f the currently tst5b1fshed
pr10rltfes and CDm'nitmer,ts within tn!!' Transportation Services Progrdill of tnt
Traflsport!tion Oivfsfon. Under tl'tese cond1t1Gns. with staff workfng closely
wit' PAIAC. it is ,nticipated th.t it ""uld Uke .t lu,t ,ix mocth, to de,.lop
the .c1an. 1f Co',liiet 1 assigns tne study Of I bf cytleo boulevard fletwor'k a t'1 i gher
prfority, oth~r current7J programmed and pr1orftfz~d proje~ts ~nder the
Transportation Services pr~gram. such !s Project Mob1l1ty, tt'1e bf~e locker
installatfon project in bus1ness diltrfcts. and the 516 8~s ~lan imple~entat~on.
would have to be deferred until .ork on tt'1e Bicycle Boulevard prDject is
tompl.Ud.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT
The Envfronmenta1 Assessment of the Bryant' Str~et Bicyc.le Boulhird wtl'fch was
prov~ded to Council in December, 1981 (CMR:55S:1) ~tcommended a neg~tive
decilratfon. No further env1ronme~ta1 assessment 1s required.
Reconwnendat 1 on 5
staff recDm'!lends that Cou~cf1:
1. Designate Bryant Street betweer'1 Churchill A~'enue Il'lid 1".eadow Drf\l~ as a
permanent bike boultvard within the framework of Palo Alto's adopted
bikeways master plan.
2. Authorize continued use of tt'1e temporary barriers at loweli and [1
Verano until 'Sl1ch time as staff is able to return to Council witt'1 permanent
des.1gn detai 1.s for permanent barrler5.
3. D1r-ect staff to 'WOrk "":th PABAC to deve1c.p an overall p1!n for II netW'Ork of
bicycle bou1evards 1n Palo ATto ~ithin tt'1e framework of currently
establis~ed project priorities within the Transportation Services Progra~ of
the Transportation DiviSion.
Respectfully submitted.
~~
GAYLE Ll KEXS
.ochte Pl~ .....
~ FLEMI G
s1stant City
tt: PABAC
Residents att!nd1ng Mlrch 2. 1982 meet1ng
01R:580:2
."-:",,<::;"
~'7P\~_'
~~uCH17~L-·
Director of Transportation
11/24 /81
-7-
•
..
,
..-I _ ••
-. .
r~·.~·~ IJ ....-:;,
I I-i' -I~ I I,,;i.ll ~ . ,
~ I
ri l I-t • tt . . p., ;'. ~ I
:,~ I : E L~r r--,':
I
I
· ft-
I f'\I ~-~ ~l) .. : ~ ;~ 74 p
111: I -~
•
U I'
~ "'-"""""
--r.. V ~l -"
,., ~;l.p-' ,~.~ ;,!' 1<' , '.' .'r ; ,.-. f:-~!j > EE · ~ h :.-.. I(,'~ , ::. .. , '.
I ;-'"
l-i-l--'~ L-
il! . t I
I .~ ....
J I ...
H .~ t"'~
: i1" ~.
, J. "'~ J II
-I )-
!E ,JO! .-_. ~ . , . """ "'-": t'l' .r ', .......
"~~il\.·,
:~
~---,----------~---,,,,<.....,,..,,. -.~----.
,;<
'.1
--
BICYCLE BOULEVARD
DATA COLLECTION SUMMAR!
~hiblt 13
1. BICrCLE COUNTS
.,~C~! counts were taken It t~e fol1owfr.g f~tersect1on. Before tQU~ts were
tl'en In Ploy 1981 • .,d April 1982; ,fter counts were to'.n In October 1982. All
counts were c:ondutted during &: ll-I'four perh~d 7 I ..... 7 p.~. on .td..week day!;,
.,c'pt IS noted otherwise.
toutl0'
B rYI' t/ ChurcM 11
on BrYlnt
on Churchill
BrYlnt .t Lowell birrhr
Bry.nt/Col i fornll
o. Brylnt
on Co I Hornll
8ry.nt It ~ .. t.d.ro Cree, Sri d9.
Cl11fornf. A~e~ue underpass
Al ... /"-Idow l
on Al_
on Meadow
Middl.fleld/Me.dow l
on "iddl.fleld
on Meddiow
1 Compar.t h. 8 ho,,, counts
240
460
290
931
360
1274
144
757
451
449
473
589
7Zj (SS ~opeds; 4 motorcytles
561
978
54i (21 moped', O.otorcycle.'
1511
94
856
210
362
rI. TRAfFIC COUIITS SiJOWIY
Totll yolUiM: traffic: taunts W-r"e tl'lrn on t"e follow~ng louttons en or edjlcent
to the bfcyo1e bo"leyar6. All counts .r. 2~""our total vel_ CO""t.. Beforo
counts .. r. tlken 1. OCtobor 1982.
Couottr locltlon Before M!!!.
383
31~
820
843
457
1606
lowell e/o B~.nt
Lowell wio '~.nt
T.onYlon e'c BrYlnt
T.n~son _/0 BrYlnt
Bry!nt .'0 T.n~son
W,yerley .'0 Lowell
Eme 'f~n .'0 l .... ll
Bry.nt .'0 Oregon
6rYI.t ./0 Colorl6~
Colorldo e'o IrYlnt
Colo,.d. _,0 Brylnt
BrYlnt s/o loma Yerde
Cempos'no e/o 8rylnt
Ce~.sin •• '0 Bryant
So"t~ Ccurt .'0 call1P~lino
Ramona s/o caRp.si.~
El Vorono % BrYlnt
El Yerln. w/o 8ry.nt
44li
242
595
478
953
1700
584
974
«0
953
977
481
50
33
307
438
752
765
473
1153
432
1111
1076
170
l07
149
304
550
574
572
III. C~ARI~ DF YIHICUl~/8ICYCL[ COUIITS
12 hour tot.l. Itlrnin, P .. ,
(7 1.11.-7 p.a.) (7 1 ••• -9 ..... )
Yici.itl on Brl"nt Y.hl c1 es Blto. Vehlcles Blkes
lowell-S .. le 390 627 52 248
Cl11fcrnfl-Cclorldo 936 551 163 20B
Colorado-Matade,o Cr •• k 349 546 47 141
Lorna Verde-El Vlrlno 143 546' 25 141
Even1ng Peal:.
(4 p ••• -6 p • .,.)
Yehicles BHn
82 154
223 III
80 117
35 IV
*Us1ng ~tlderD Creek bitt counts 11n,! nD b1ke counts taken It [1 V~rlnc
barrfer.
•
,
\
•
Exn; bit 14
BIKE BOutEYARD CORRESPONOENCE REECElYED BY TR~SPORTATION DIVISION
MAY-OCTOSER 1982
.!1!!! Add..... ea. .... nt
513 300 block St.l~ Up •• t .nth gener.l beha.lor of bicycll.t.·'n Palo
Alto; objects to lowell blrrier
5/17 2600 Bry.nt ReQu •• ts speed 11", t signs (wor1< order ' .. ued)
5/18 1700 tloek Bry.nt Drlylng 5chools usfng Bryant for drfyer trllnfng
5/19 2800 block Bryant Students rfdlng foue Ibrea,t to 5chool on Bry"t
SIZO P,lo Alto Appreciates bike boul ... rd
5/20 3100 bl.xk Bry.nt Bicyclist, should conff", to Vehlc10 Code law •• Bn.
b~uTevard ~n1es s~~uld have been channeled to bike
educatfc~ programs
5/27 Sonny .. " Bfko bou1eyord great Idel
5/28 3200 block Bry,nt Sfte distance probl.,. at Campo.fno/Bryant. (Word
order fss~ed to correct problem.)
5/29 2700 block Bry,.t Ob5.rv.~ mor. acped.
6/15 Unknown MotorIsts/pedestrfans fre not aware of stop sf;~
c'hanges
7/7 3200 block Rlmon. Ob.eryed tr'fflc locr.,.e of SOl fn bloc,. Does not
7/!9 3200 bloc.
SD\Jt h Cou rt
support bfke boule •• rd
Supports bikt boulevard .. uses Bryant fOi trips to
Downtown lind Stllnf'ord .. feels .safer
8/14 2400 blotk Ramona Appreciates b1c! bo~levard end us~s Bryant for bi~e
travel .nthin Palo Alto
8/31 Stanford
9/28 300 block
Churchill
10/4 300 block
Tennyson
Commutes on bUt bou1 eyard to Stallfordd
Bicyclfsts Ire not using bike lanes on Ch~r'M;11
Bi k.e bou1 e-vard inC(lnven~:nt for 'area residents ..
Bicyclists often ~$! other streets (Eme~son I
Way.rley)
10/14 2900 block 8ryant Not ob.erved '''erea •• In speeding. As.~' eyc1 i.t rnls bi k.e trive1 ~151erl safer on Bryant
10/28 600 b10ck San
Antonfo
Return Colarado/El Oorado tntersectian to 4-way stop;
conce-r~ed .~out .oped traffic, safety of pedestrian
bridge It Mat~~.~ Creek
.. nJ.Jii' r Xi r f ~-----.--