The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0429.093July 29, 1993 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, cali~ornia EvaluAtion of Residents' Traffic Manaaement Plan for the ~averley/Addison Traffic study Attention: Policy and services committee Members of the Counc i 1 : RBPOIlT Dr allID In August 1992, t~e Policy and Services Committee directed staff to work on ~~e Waverley/Addison study within the same time frame as the evaluation of the street closure associated with the bicycle boulevard extension. Two workinq .group meetinqs with residents 'Were held, froll whiCh emerged a traffic management plan for Waverley and Addison. This .... allS presented to the Professorville neighborhood through a mailing and a neighborhood meeting. The predominant opinion at the neighborhood meeting ~as disagreement with the working qroup plan and the nature of the study process. The Hi~oric Resources Board and the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory committae both found the plan unacceptable. Staff believes that the plan could reduce speeds and volUll\es on both streets,. but that there are tradeoffs with potentially diverted traffic to other streets,. increased maintenance costs, and interference with emergency services. A trial of the plan would cost about $22,.000, with a potential l1lin.1mum additional expenditure of $97,000 to install permanent circles and islands. staft does not believe that current conditions warrant such expenditures, and recommends that Council not conside~ the working group plan further~ Staf~ has identified, but does not recommend, two other options for council's consideration: (i) authorize staff to take the necessary steps, including an environmental assessment, leadinq tb implementation of the working group plan on a trial basis,. and potentially leading to a permanent installation; and (ii) expand the study to include the entire Professorville neigh borhood, to be conducted using consultant services at a cost ranging from $60,000 to $75,000. In 1992, two residents of Addison Avenue and Waverley Street (MessrllS. Bill MCGl~shan and Michael Kastl submitted a proposal to then Mayor Gary Fazzino and Vice Mayor Jean McCown regardinq CHR:429:9J · ~ " " -.. '. potential traff ie improvements on Addison Avenue and Waverley street. Council directed staff to prepare an evaluation of the proposal for the Policy and Services COllUDittee and the Historic Resources Board (please refer to Council minutes, Attachment B)~ sta~t prepared this evaluation and concluded that the conditions did not justify installation of the proposed measures (CMR:362:92, July 30, 1992, Attachment DJ. Staff recommended that further consideration of the proposal be deferred until after council 'a review of the Bryant Street closure, associated with the bicycle boulevard extension. The residents' proposal is designed to 'in their words) -incorpo rate features into Waver ley, Addison and other streets in the neighborhood as required, that will reduce the impact of traffic without impairing access-. The residents' specific objectives are to {l) reduce noise generated at stop siqns on Waverley between Embarcadero and Channing'; (2) improve the visual appearance of Waverley and Addison; (3) reduce thrnug'n and bypass traffic along Addison; and (4) develop a parking plan for the area. The residents· concerns were aotivated by the apparent growth of traffic in the Professorville area, the prospect of the expansion of the Palo Alto Medical Clinic at its current location, and ~he changes in traffic patterns resulting from the extension of the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard. After considerable discussion, the Policy and services committee asked the Transportation Division to investigate strategies to accomplish the first three of the above objectives (i.e., not inc.ludinq a parkinq plan}. Tbe committee expressed interest in the evaluation ot various types of traffic .anagement strategies that had not yet been tried in Palo Alto, and po85ibly in testi~ one on Waverley street that mignt also be useful in other neighborhoods~ The Caaaittee asked statf to work on tt.is project vithin the same time fraae as the evaluation of the street closure associated with the bicycle boulevard. extension. It was understood that staff would not be committed to developing a fi~~ed plan for Waverley and Addison, but would look at various traffic management concepts, share that information with the wide=-neighborhood, and thus return to the Co~ttee with a better idea of what might be possible. The Committee directed that the Waverley/Addison Study be brought back to the Committee after Council had acted on the Bryant Street c.losure issue. (Please refer to Committee minutes, Attachaent C.) Staft recently prepared a status report on the Waverley/Addison study (CMR:383:93j, Which was distributed to council in the July 8 packet (the content of whiCh is repeated in this latest report). Council discussed the bicycle boulevard extension project at its Ju.ly 19 .eeting, and concluded that the Bryant Street closure should be removed for a six-month trial period. Staff vas given CMR:429:93 7/29/93 Paqe 2 tbe flexibility to take appropriate traffic management measures during the trial, to correct any problems that miqht arise from the removal of the clcsure~ In February, staff mailed a letter describing the Waverley/Addison study to approximately 475 residances in the Professorville Historic District (please refer to Fiqura 1 in the body of this report), plus additional residences bet'W'een Webster and Emerson north to Channill9. Interested residents wer-e asked to join a working group that would meet with staff twice to develop and review traf:fic management p!:'oposals tor Waverley and Addison. Eiqhteen residents volunteered tor this group. In keepinq with the committee's airection, staff indicated in the letter to residents that tr-affic JI1anageaent measures would be considered only in the area initially tarqeted by Messrs. McGlashan and l(ast (Le., Waverley between EMbarcadero a.nd Channing, and Addison between Ramona and Cowper) and that staff did not intend to develop strategies for other streets in the area. However p 5taff indicated that the much wider area described in the previous paragraph would be included in evaluatinq potential impacts from the plan and in informinq residents~ Two working qroup meetings were held in May. with 14 residents attendinq the first meetinq, and 9 attending the second meeting. several of the attendees lived on Addison or Waverley near that intersection and had participated in developinq the original plan submitted to CounciL At the first vorking group meeting there was a discussion of the purpose and objectives of the stUQy. This was followed by a discussion of traffic management measures that could be considered for Waverley and Addison. including drawings of each .eas~ as applied to Waverley and Addison, and numerous photographs of each, as used in other cities. After the first meeting, a subgroup of working qroup members, including Mr. Kast, spent several hours developing a proposal to prese~t as a sta~ing point for discussion at the second meeting. The second meeting was intended to develop two or three alternative traffic .anaqement plans for each 9treet~ By the end of the second .eetin;, a single conceptual plan had emerged, which was essential ly the one developed by the residents' subgroup between the two working qroup .eetings. At both meetings the~e was a cooperative spirit amonq the m~mbers~ Many thought the study was too limited in qeogr-aphic area. The issue most discussed was the loss of parkinq on Addison between Bryant and waverley due to the new bike lanes, and why bike lanes were needed anywhere on Addison. For the Council's information, staff has prepared a series of exhibits describinq traffic control devices and geometric desiqn features that are mcst appropriate for, o~ most commonly used in~ residential neiqhborhoods, collectively referred ~o as nneiqhbor- CKR:429:93 ,-_t'~ \ . , 7/29/93 Page 3 • -- \ \, .-. V'- I I FIGURE 1 ".~.J----4 4t7ft:li Professorville His.toric District Page 4 ;~t~;. ,:;:"~:.~;.". } . ., - hOOd traffic management measures"~ In each exhibit~ summary of the ef~ects of Qach measure is provided, sketch and/or photograph of a typical installation~ are contained in Attachment A~ DUCRln-IOlI OP !'Jill WOIUtIIIG GROUP PLlUI a very brief along with a The exh ibi ts The primary purpose of the plan developed by the ~orkinq qroup is to (a) reduce speeds on Waverley, (b} develop an alternative to the four-way stop at the Waverley/Addison intersection, (C) reduce the impact of increased traffic volume on Addison, (d) improve the visual appearance of both streets, and {e} have ne less of parking on Addison. In addition, residents agreed that a variety of planter and circle arrangements should be tested for an initial trial. and that the cost of a potential permanent installation should be kept as low as possible. The overall working qroup pl~n is illustrated in Figures 2 and 2a, a~d detailed plans in Figures 3-6. On Waverley, the vorking group plan includes a landscape~ traffic circle and planters~ resulting in a 6-foot offset of the center line at each planter and a 12-foot offset at the circle. Each location would be signed with an advisory speed of 15 mph. At the Waverley/Addison intersection, the traffic circle would SUbstitute for the current stop signs on waverley. To drivers approaching from a distance, the circle and islands ~ould form an illusion that Waverley WalS not a through street.. The pl.: nters also help to provide physical enforcement of the lane offsets. The working group plan does not propose any changes south of Xinqsley.. The basic intent is to slow traffic on Waverley by introducing a rather abruptly curving center line, and to p~ovide an alternative to the stop signs on Waverley at Add.ie:on, ..... hieh residents feel are routinely ignored by drivers. On Addison, t:_.~ Waverley/Addison circle would provide a visual impediment to drivers. The removal of the stop signs on Waverley would be a further deterrent to Addison drivers, by requiring the~ to wait for any approaching Waverley traffic before crossinq or turning. In addition to this circle, a smaller circle vould be placed at the Scott/Addison intersection. Should the waverley/Addison circle nct be implem4:mted, the. Scott/Addison circle would still haVe some of the same effect on Addison traffic. A~ least one resident felt tbat the circle would provide needed visibility improvement at this intersection, as short "no parking zones would be required to accommodate the circle. On Addison between Cowper and Bryant, bicycle lane striping would be redesigned to allow daytime parking to alternate between the north and south sides of the stre.ets, creating a three-foot of.fset in the lane striping at two locations. Residents purposely desiqned a plan that avoided the use of landscaped islands on CMR:429:93 7/29/93 Page 5 FIGURE 2 z ~ i a: UJ > « ~ a: ~ Z ~ a.. I Z w :2 w Cl « z « :2 u LL u. ~ I- a.. ::J o a: Cl Cl Z :;;: a: ~ (n I Z w o iii w a: Paqe 6 --'l i I '" .t .. ... ~ -•. ~ f 11 - ::: ~ \ & o j ~ u 0 W u, b~J L No ""rk,ng 7AM·7PM ... / ~NQP.rkll\g 7AM·7PM .~ 'L . -0 '--~(JO lc----·.~··~--~-~~l No Parking ~ ~ No Po,klng 7AM'7PM 4-j I 7AM·7PM (b,oycle 18"'. on Addison .0.' o( Bryant) j I RESIDENTS' WORKING GROUP TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ADDISON Iw ." Cl c: 21 "' I::' FIGURE 3 J ~ z o (/) ow c ..... <tU _a: >-UJU ..... u a:UJLJ.. >LJ.. <tc:( ~I= f.t') ..... II • .... --c=---UOS!PPV page 8 I FIGURE 4 -> W -' >-a:: ~ wz 0; >0 ~ > <t-O> " ~t ~ 3: ~ " '" I-W N «(/)(/) a:: a:: (/)WW 1-1-1-wZZ LO (/)-~ ,,->:5 II "-We.. 0-' • W(/)t:! ~ Zt:!Z «~V; -':.::~ , , , page 9 so' I Waverley MIDBLOCK SINGLE LANE OFFSET USING PLANTER ___ -..:+~u~.-- t: o ell '-- !! Q C ::u m U1 ----K.~"'!p1 --------- -t-li~ ~ ---------- Addison ... o SCOTT/ADDISON TRAFFIC CIRCLE '" = , 5' ." .. '" ~ ... ... I 1'0 ~ -------~~ ~ MIDBLOCK DOUBLE LANE OFFSETS USING PLANTERS 1" = 15' l 151. L I":____ ------r r --~ r (I llJi ---~ ------- __ .~JJ 1!J tC~'DIJ' .. ~ Addison 12 locatlonsl , OFFSET LANE LINES WITH ALTERNATING PARKING 1" = 15' Waverley "T\ Q c: :u m en I Addison, which are expensive and would result in the removal of substantial parking ~ Instead, parked cars, 'When present, would s~rve as physical ceinforcement for the lane offsets. Residents were hopeful that there could De small mid-street islands at these locations, if they could ~ installed without losinq parkinq. The traffic circle and 'the lane offs-ets 'Would be signed with an advisory speed ot 15 mph4 The plan for Addison (Figure 2ai wo~ld result in the loss of about 6-8 spaces beyond the recent loss of de.ytime pa:rk~nq for the new bicycle lanes between Bryant and Waverley. The plan does not propose an,." chanqes west of Bryant or east of COYper~ The changes on Addison are designed to slow traffic r and possibly to divert some o~ it to other streets. The exact locations of planters on Waverley and the reversals of parking on Addison will depend on field ve~ification of driveway locations, utilities, and fire hydrants. Plantl!r-s: would be approximately 20 fe~t long and 10 ~eet wide, would be tapered at each end to help facilitate street sweepL.lg, and WQuld be separated from the curb by 2 feet to allow for gutter flow. The Scott/Addison circle would be about 1J feet in diameter anc the Waverley/Addison circle, about 24 feet in diameter. All planters and circles .ould be landscaped. It bas been assumed that, should this or any other traffic management plan ultimately be appr~ved by Council, it would first be iJaplemented on a trial basis. Relatively inexpensive temporary asphalt berms would be used to simulate the circles and islands for the trial. IfBIGKIIORBOOD XBE'1'IWG In June, a letter was sent to the same 475 residences described above, providinq the same description and exhibit of the working group plan described above. Residents were invited to comment on the plan by letter, and/or to attend a neighborhOOd meeting on June 22. App~xfaately 10 letters and telephone calls were received, an~ 25 -30 people attended the meeting, includinq 5 particip~nts from the working group meetings. Staff explained the origin, purpose, and process of the study, and presanted the details of the working group plan. Numerous sketches and photographs of various traffic management techniques were on display. This was followed by an hour of coaments and discussion4 Staff encouraged attendees to com.ment on the working group plan and to propose other tech niques and plans for Waverley and Addison. The predoJl.inant opinion expressed was cordial d1sagreement 'With the workinq group plan and the nature of the study. The most-expressed comments are paraphrased as follows. • The study approach is hackwards and piecemeal. 'I'he focus is too narrow~ An overall plan should first be developed for the entire neighborhood; then specific streets should be selected for traffic management. Residents of this neighborhood want to work toqether. CMR:429:93 7/29/93 Page 12 • Traffic fro. Waverley will be diverted to other street&, such as Cowper, which would then have fewer impediments tha.n W~verl.y. This is another reason why the entire neighborhood needs to be included. • The plan should include something for the Bryant/Addison intersection because of drivers turning tOQ fast (due to the removal of stop signs and the street clos~re installed for the bicycle boulevard extension). • Perhaps a test is not necessary. installations in other cities. Use the results from • There are not severe enough problems on Wavez:ley to warrant such me15 sures. • Safety for school children will be compromised by removing stop signs on Waverley at Addison and installing the traffic eircle. It already has been compromised by the removal of stop signs on Bryant at Addison tor the bicycle boulevard. • People constantly run the stop signs on Waverley at Addison~ The stop signs should be retained at Waverley/AQQison$ ~ slowing techniques should be installed in advance of the stop signs, so that people would be more inclined to stop. • The bicyc~e boulevard extension is the major cause of the problaas that this study is trying to address. • The devices propo;.-;r:.d for Waverley should be tried on Bryant in place 0% the street closure. Why experiment on waverley when you are already experimenting on Sryant? • Tbe working group plan came about because a particular group of residents was concerned enough to develop some ideas and voice their opinions to the Council. Ona qoal is to test some techniques that could th.en be used on other r:-ofessorville streats. There is no intention to move the p~'oblem trom Waverley and Addison to other streets. lUILA'UOII8I1J:P 'l'O PALO ALTO KBDICAL POIllmATIOJI (!!'AXP) AJn) BICYCLB IIOOLBVJoJlI) Brn:iIISXOIl l'1lOJZCT8 The PAMF has indicated that it plans to move its facilities to another location within about five years. If this were to happen, the traffic problems which the working group plan is intended to address would probably be substantially reduced. 'l'ra!!ic patterns in the area lIould change, possibly including the desiqnatj on of Homer and Channing as two-way streets~ CHR: 429: 93 .:..;... - 7/29/93 Page !.J The closure of Bryant Street between Channing and Addison,. an element of the bicycle boulevard extension, has changed traffic patterns in the area~ A full discussion of these impacts is provided in CMR:380:9J, which was distributed in the July 8 Council packet. At its July 19 aaetinq, the City Council directed staff to ~emove this street clos~re for a six month trial period. This viII change traffic patterns once again, removin9 most of the added traffic on Addi!Lon and, ~tentially, a larqe part: of that on Waverley~ If any problems were to develop as a relSult of this removal, staff could institute other traffic management measures on Bryant. Thus, tor at le.ast the next six months, there is the potential for changes on Bryant which could impact conditions on waverley and Addison. REVJ:I!W BY PALO aL!I'O &:rCYCLE ADVISORY COMMIT'l'EE (PUP-C) PABAC reviewed the working group plan, and was net in favor of the proposals for either street. The committee felt th~t the ahrupt lane offsets would compromise the safety of cyclists because the traffic circles and islands would tend to crowd bicyclists and drivers together, even where bicycle lanes vere present on Addison. on Wa.verley, cyclists would probably be best off by using the entire traf"fi.c lane. On Addison, parked cars may encroach on the transition areas and, tharefore, encroach on the bicycle lanes. REVJ:IIW BY nS!l'ORIc IlltB01lJlCl!S BOMtD (JIJUI) In its oriqina.l discussion of the residents' traffic proposal, council felt that it was important that the HRB have the opportuni ty to review the plan, due to the location of the project area within the professorville Historic District~ The HRB reviewed the working group plan on July 7, and was not in favor of the proposals for either street. The predominant feeling expressed by the HRB was that the grid street pattern and other public infrastructure are as much a part of the Historic District as the homes ~ The proposed obstacles in the qrid street pattern~ including tJ"Ioe associated signage and possible modification of curb radii near the traf":fic circles, were seen as an introduction of inappropriate . eleaents into an historic street pattern in a downtown setting. It vas suggested that the most that should be done is to review the p1acement of stop signs, and to return to a regular pattern of stop signs every other block. en all the streets in the area. The HRB also felt that the scope of this study is too narrow, and that the entire Historic District should be included. RBVXEW BY !l'RARSPORrA!I'ION DIVISION General Comments The working group plan attempts to seek the middle ground of dealing with traffic impacts without imposing undue hardships on drivers or residents. Staff is not aware of a d~rectly comparable existing installation in other cities·. The Milvia ·slow street· in CHR:429:93 , . , 7/29/93 page 1-4 ,"".- Berkeley employs a simi~ar concept of landscaped islands in order to creiilte a meandering centerline, but also e:mploys road bumps (refer to Attachm.ent A). Seattle has several installations of landscaped islands which are used to create sharp lane offsets to reduce speedinq, but the design restricts the pavement width to one direction of traffic at a time (refer to Attachment A). Neverthe lesa, the working qroup plan employs common, acceptable neiq~Jbor hOOd traffic m~naqement measure~~ost of which have been used in some torm in other cities, and some of which are recognized in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes that the plan will accomplish the residents' goals to at least a reasonable degree, if !lot fully. standard acceptable dimensions for the circles, planters, and lane widths were suggested to the warkinq group by staff and have been applie4, and standard traffic signing would be used at all loea.tions~ Based on experience in Palo Alto and other cities, staff sU9gested to the workinq qr-OlJP that, to reduce speeds beloh' the existing SSth percentile speed of 32 mph, a serias of elements would. need to be place(! less than one block apart, and that each ela.ent should be designed to reduce speeds to about 15-20 mph. Lane offsets around the planters h~ve been so d~si9ned, based on a standard traffic engineering formula, and would be siqne~ for an advisory speed of 15 mph. These areas might seem rather abrupt to drivers who are accustomed. to driving considerably faster. Given the latitude in the desiqn formula, it is expected that most drivers will be able to traverse these areas at about 2S mpb and still stay in the designated travel lanes. One problem with this type of design is drivers ·straightening the curves", in an attempt to keep ~eir speed close to what they have been accustomed. In order to encouraqe drivers to suy within the desi9Ilated lanes, the centerline throuqh the transit-ion zones (normally a single dashed yellow line installed with paint or tape) woUld be replaced with a sinqle solid yelloW' line with closely spaced raised pavement markers. Simil~r centerlines have been used on otherwise unmarked residential streets in Palo Alto when residents have complained of drivers cutting the corners on sharp C\lIVes. This type of lane marking would some'what lessen th1S! aesthetic improvements sought in the plan, and could cause some noise problems as vehicle tires hit the raised markers. Review of Plan for Waverley street Speeds. Based upon experience in Palo Alto and other cities with COBparable devices, staff would expect that 85th pe~centile speeds between Channing and Kingsley (midblock, between traffic managem&nt elements) 'Would be. red·.lced from the cur~ent 32 Jr.ph to approximately 25 mph. CMR:429:93 7129/93 page .15 .. VolUW!9.. Based upon eJq)erience il\ Seattle and For-tland, the traffic volume on Waverley could decrease by a maximum of about 20 percent (i.e.~ could decrease by a maximum of about 1000 vehicles per day}. A 10-20 percent decrease would be consistent with Palo Alto's exper-ience in the Midtcwn road bump project~ Any ~eduction in traffic volume would be the result ot tha twin deterrents of lonqer travel time and the visual iltlpact of the planters and traffic circles. Diverted traffic would be expected to use parallel streets between Middlefield and Alma~ the amount of ~hich on each street would depend on the origin ana destination of the drivers and their relative ease of using the alternate routes. For example,. many residents were concerned that Cowper would be a likely alternative. Wit.~ t.he wvrking group plan~ there would be two stop signs and tvo traffic lights on Waverley betwee.n (and includinq) Embarcadero and Homer, plus five locations where 15 mph speeds would be advised. On the same section of cowper,. there are. five stop signs, with a 25 mph speed limit throughout. For most traffic Bovements, Waverley has better access to and from Embarcadero Road than Cowper. waverley also serves the downtown commercial area and the Palo Alto Medical Clinic m~~e dire~tly than Cowper. The qoal of the working group plan, and of staff~ is not to cause traffic to shift from Waverley, a collector-street, to local streets. Before a trial of the plan could be approved, staff would need t_t) prepare an Environmental Assessment, 'Which would identify the amount of any expected traffic divE'.r-sion to near:by streets. This inronaP.tion would. be considered by council before any decision to proceed. was given. Wayerl,w-J.ddison Traffic Circle. The removal of the stop siqns 0)'1. Waverley at Addison and the installation of a traffic circle are key clesiqn aspects of the workinq group plan. However, some residents are concerned about potential impacts of the circle on pedestrians,. such as: school children using Addison mi9ht not be able to cross safely without stop signsj the circle miqht inhibit visibility of pedestrians; traffic would be forced close to the curb where ~estrians wait; and drivers would encroach on crosswalk areas. Sta~f does not believe that it would be worthwhile to install a traffic circle without removinq the stop signs on waverley, even on a trial basis. Wi~ the stop signs in place, the primary purpose of the circle-speed control-would be defeated, even though the visual impact yould remain. With the ~orking group plan, school children could still take advantage of the tour-way stop at Lincoln, which is centrally located in the reiqhborhood. There is also a signalized. crossing of Waverley at Channing, on the north edge of the neighborhood. Also, crosswalks would be installed at the Waverley/Addison intersection, as described below~ CMR:429:93 ~"""",---------- 7/29/93 Page 16 • "-,/ A tour-w~y atop provides a safe crossinq tor school children seems to .be refuted by many ot th'l! residents p~rticipatin9 in this study, who have observed that Waverley drivers routi~ely dt.> not stop fully at the Addiscn stop signs. This is supported by a 1976 City stop siqn study which found that 70 percent of drivers do not stop fully at four-way stops, even when vehicles are present on the cross street. The study includao several four-yay stop intersec tions on Waver.ley, where the average speed ot vehicles through the stop stgns ranged! from 2.5 to 6.4 mph ~ When approaching' a traffic circle, drivers !!lust move 'to the riqht to drive around the circle. thus passing C!03e to the curb and tending to encroach on the crosswalk areas. At sensitive loca tions, the City ot portland has mitigated the crosswalk problem by painting crosswalks (.here none had previously been marked), in order to clearly delineate the proper areas for Cl:rivers and pedestrian5~ In additi~nl these crosswalks wer~ located a few feet further away fro~ the center of the intersection than usual, in order to have enough lane width a=-ound the circle so tllat this encroachment did not occur (13 feet). In the case of the proposed Waverley-Addiso,1 circle... crosswalks would need to be moved as described above by approximately two feet, and then be marked (they are currently unmarked) ~ To further enhance visibility, these markings could be done in a "ladder stripe" pattern, which has been shown in tests to be the most visible crDsswalk marking. On this basis, staff believes that it would be acceptable to replace the stop signs on waverley at Addison with the traffic circle, on a trial basis. Parking. rarkinq is currently not allowed on the east side of Waverley between 7~oO a.m. and 7:00 p.m. because of the presence of bicycle lanes~ Thesa bicycle lanes will be removed .hen Waverley is repaved and restriped this fall, thus addinq about 50 neW' unrest;:-icted parkinq spaces bet .... e.en Channing and Kingsley. The workinq qroup plan would remove a total of about 750 feet of parking from both sides of Waverley between those blocks, or about 34 spaces. Thus, even with that 106s, there would still be an overall net gain of spaces in that area, compared to current conditions. However, parking would be prohibited in front of those residences where planters and the circle were located. Aesthetics. One qoal of the working group plan is to improve the visual appearance of Waverley and Addison. On Waverley between Channing and Kingsley, the six i~lands and one circle would add about 1200 square feet or landscaping to the three-block area~ These landscaped a:reas would improve the appearance of Waverley, but the improvement would be offset somewhat by the additional signing and striping needed to guide drivers around the islands. ApproxlDately 300 feet of new white edge line would be needed. Approximately 500 teet of dashed yellow centerline would be CMR:429:93 7/29/93 Page 17 .. ~' . replaced with a single solid row ot closely-spaced raised markers. Island curbing may be painted white, and a small reflector may be installed on each island. Approximately 11 yellow warninq signs ~oUld be in~talled. LaD2 Widths. In most locations, traffic lanes ~ould be a minimum of 12 feet wide next to islands, which is the minimum ~idth needed for a bicyclist and a motor vehicle to share thp. lane. This is the same lane width available when two cars are parked opposite each other on Waverley. Turning Movements. EVen though siqninq would be placed at the traftic circle, requiring left turns to be made around it to the right, large truCKS and fire engines would not be able to negotiate this turn. Drivers of these vehicles would either h"lve to t,·rn at another intersection, or might decide to turn on the inside (to the left) of the cirCle. This has not been a problem in seattle (lett turns permitted on either side of the circle), or in Portland {left tuniS permitted only en the outsid$: of the circle.. but are sometimes made on the inside). In some cities .. the radii of curb returns on the corners have been increased to facilitate tu~nin9; however.. staff would not propose that change tor either the Addison/waverley or Addison/Scott traffic circles. Waverley/Kingsley Islands. At the Waverley/Kingsley intersection, the two offset isl~nds should have a similar impact on speed as a traffic cirCle.. though the visual impact on an approaching waverley driver 'Would be less than 'With a cIrcle. Pedestrians crossinq Waverley 'Would be aided by a narrow travel way~ Vehicles WOuld be travelling next to L~e curb at only two corners~ rather than all four, as with a cirele. The islands would not inhibit turns by larqe vebicles as much as a cjrcle. Unlike a circle .. the islands would have minimal effect on Kingsley traffic~ The working group plan calls for-both single and paired island installations. Single installations 'Would cost less and usurp less parking than the paireQ islands. However, the visual impact of single islands would be less, and fewer Offsets are made in the centerline. If this plan ~ere tested, both the re~idents and staff would like to compare the effects of single and paired islands. Review of Plan for Addison ~nue SMeds. The workiuq group plan for the two-block section of Addison between Bryant and cowper includes similar speed-reducing eleaents as on Waverley~ Ho~ever, the lane offsets created by the shiftinq of parking 'Mould probably be less effective in red,ucing speedS than those on wave~ley. Compa~ed to waverley, the lateral shift is less, the length of the transition zone is correspondingly less, and there is less physical reinforcement of the transition. If parking is light~ and/or at night when parking is permitted on CMR:429:93 7/29/93 Page 18 both sides, there would eftecti vely :be no physical reinforcement of the lane Ot:tS9tS. It 'Would not be possible to install any landscaped areas to provide this reinforcement without su:bstantial removal of perking. staft is confident enough in this concept to test it, and estima.tes that the pl,ln'': would reduce the current lIidblock 85th percentile speed of 32 mph on Addison to about 28 mph. Volumes. Addison is a local street, as contrasted with the collector street desiqnation of Waverley. Addison carries a higher volume compared to other parallel local streets, due primarily to its closer proximity to commercial land uses. As a local street, it would be appropriate that :::oDle amount of non-local traffic volume on AClQison be diverted to collector and arterial streets (a.q., Homer, Channing. waverley, Em..bG.rcadero, Alma). The proposed plan for Addison would probably result in some volume reduction, but less than that for Waverley. because there are fewer visual impediments, and speed reduction would probably be less. Before a trial woul~ be authorized, an Environmental Assessment would determine how much traffic diversion might be expected on nearby streets. Parking. The plan avoids using landscaped islands on Addison, in order to minimize the loss of parkinq. CUrrently, about 18 24-hour and 20 12-hour spaces are available in that block~ The plan would result in the lo~s of a total of about 130 feet of parking on both sides of Addison between Bryant and Waverley, or about 6 spaces (primarily due to the scott/Addison traffic circleJ. about evenly divided between the 12-and 24-hour spaces. About 30 feet, or 1-2 spaces, wou~d be lost in the next block east. B icyc) e Lanes ~ The existing bicyc Ie lanes on Add ison would be preserved throughout. Their width would be reduced to four feet around the Scott/Addison traffic circle, the minimum acceptable. tieitber bicycle riders nor drivers may totally stay in their r~~ctive lanes in the transition areas. Aesthetics. On Addison between Bryant and cowper, the two traffic circles would add about 400 square feet of landscaping to the t~o block area (300 of which is common to both Addison and Waverley). As on waverley, the vis~al improvement of additional landscaping would be offset somewhat by the aduitional striping and signing required. Approximately seven yellow warning signs would be installed. Approximately 80 feet of dashed yellow centerline would be replaced with a single solid row of closely-spaced raised mark ers. ~ptual Level Cost Estimates Cost estimates have been prepared for trial and permanent installa tions of the conceptual-level design discussed above. A trial of ii!ll elements of the working group plan would cost approximately $22, OOO~ and would be installed by a pr-ivate contractor.. All CHR:429:93 7/29/93 Page 19 signinq and striping for the trial would be d.)ne in pertilanent fashion and could be retained for the peZ'l!lanent. instal!a,tion. Traffic circles and planters ~ould be formed from asphalt concrete (similar to the mail box island in front of the Post Office on Haailton Avenue). If the trial were not suc~essful, and all trial elements had to be l.'emoved, the additional cost ... auld be approxi~ mately $1.1,000. An additional $2,000 should be budgeted fer possible ct-~nges during the trial. ThlJS, a total of $35,000 'Would need to be budgeted tQ cover a trial of the p13n dnd its possible removal. If the trial were successful, and a.l! plan elements were to be made:! permanent, the berms would be removed and. replaced with perma.ne.nt landscaped circles and islands formed with concrete curbing, based on the minimum co~t "basic~ desiqn for the street closures approved by council in 1990 (e.g., Brya.nt/Lowell and Bryant/El Verano). Included i~ this design are crought-resistant landscaping, boulders, a~\ one year of manual watering by a private contractor. The addition.,l cost for the above 'Work 'Would be approximately $97,000 for a.',l e.leJrlents of the worlting group plan. This cost estimate was el:trapolated from the simj lar 1990 project, and should be considered as very approx imate. The tot al expend i... ture fer a su.ccessful trial of the working qroup plan (with no modifications), plus permanert installation of the basic design, would be approxi mately $22,0)0 + $97,000, or $119,000. A permanent installation wculd be designed and constructed as a capital Improvement Program (elP) project by the Public Works Cepartment. If the circles and islands were based on the -low-maintenance/high aesthetic· aesiqn that is especially desired by the Public Works Depa..rtaent, the additional cost of the permaner.t ir,stallation of the plan would increase to approximately $155 ,oeo, and possibly higher if SOBS lonq storm drain connections were required 4 with this desiqn, the total expenditure for a succ~ssful trial and perwanent installation would be $22,000 + $155~OOO, or $177,000, and possibly hisher. These cost estimates wer~ aAtrapolated from the 1987 Evergreen Park p~oject, and should be considered as very approximate. For further discussion ~bout the two types of islan~ designs, please refer to the Public Works Department's e,raluation of the working group plan {see below). Emergency services The Police Department is not in favor of additional obstacles to the provision of emerqency services~ Police vehicles could proceed around the traffic circles or down the center of the street around the other islands~ but at a slower rate than usual, thus impacting response times. The Department is concerned about the precedent setting nature of the proposed plan. CI!R:429:93 7/29/93 Page 20 .- I '. , .... -. ,.;>,: " -.. The Fire Oepartment strongly recommends that the tratfic circle at Waverley and Addison not be implemented, because it yould i~pede easy access to the fire hydrant on the corner, and ~ould require that left turns be made on the inside of the circle into the opPOsing lanes of traffic. ThE islands at the corner or Waverley and Kingsley would impede easy access to a fire hydrant at that location. The Department notes that nighttime visibility at Waverley and Addison is only fair, as the nearest street liqht is about 200 feet away. PUblip Works Department The Public Works Department believes that the proposed basic design of the landscaped islands in the working qroup plan would have a substantial negative impact on mainten~nce. The t~o-foot gutter areil bet~een the islands and the existing curb would tend to collect debris, which would interfere with storm drainage. Even though the islands would be angled away from the curb line, they would still interfere with efficient mechanical street slrieepin-g. To be properly cleaned, these areas would have to be s-.. ept manually. The Public Works Operations Division does not receive extra :funding for maintenance when projects su~h as these are approved. These islands, if installed, plus oth~r eXisting islands in the City with the same desiqn, cumulatively produce substantial negative impacts on maintenance, including street resurfacing projects. The Public Work5 Department notes that the island design proposed in the 'Working qroup plan is the basic design, similar to that approved by Council in 1S90 for eiqht street closure locations. That desiqn was d.eveloped in reaction to the relatively high capital cost of the low-maintenance/hiqh-aesthetic design used for several of the street closures in Evergreen Park. The closure design used in Eve.~een Park was one that was int~9rated with the curb, included nelll catch l::Ia~ins and storm drainage, 'Was shaped specifically to accommodate mechanical street sweepinqr and provided an extensive, high-~lality lanascaFed area with automatic irrigation. {The cost of the basic i5tr~et closure design is approximately $11,OOO~ whereas that of the low-maintenance/high aesthetic design ranges from about $25,000 to $40,000, depending on the amount of storm drainage work required.) The Public Works Depart.ent continues to favor the latter design, with its SUbstan tially bigher initial cost, coupled with lower annual .aintenance requirements (and substantially greater aesthetic appeal). cost estimates for the working group plan based on both design approach es were discussed above. cgPmunitv services Department The Parks and Golt' Division is responsible for maintenance of public landscaping. However, the Parks Superintendent reports that there has not been cl~ar direction nor a budget allocation for maintenance of landscaping associated with the street closures. As CHR;429;93 7/29/93 Paqe :21 o. --,..--------"'"' _._-":: ,. a result, this landscapinq has not been regularly maintained. In many cases, the drought-resistant landscaping planted in the 1990 street closure islands has not survived. It is not clear whether th. initial establishment period with contractor-provi~ed watering was too lihort, or whether the intensity of the recant drought overwhe~ed the ability of small patches of even drought-tolerant .landsca?irrg to &urvive without water. The Public Works Department, w~ich is responsible for watering unirri9~ted public landscaping, does not vater these is;,ands with its water truck. This project may hD."~ shown that, even for dronght-tolerant landscaping to aurviv. in 3uoh islands, automatic irrigation may be necessary a ClearlY$ if the i31ands proposed in the working qroup plan yere approved for permanent installation, a policy would need to be esta_blished and funds allocated, to ensure that proper maintenance and watering or irriqatlon were provided. The utilities Department does not support the proposed plan bec;ause there are extensive services in the area, both over-head and soon to-be-underground, which would require ma.intenance. The islands and circles would impede access to these utilities by large trucks. Waverley and Addison are crowded with infrastructure such as water, sewer, qas, storm c:lrains, and electric, telephone, and cable television lines. Any surface obstructions make ~aintenance aore diffioult, and the islands should be located in area$ where there are the fewest such utilities. The traffic circles, which must be located in the centers of the intersections, may cover manholes or other utility accesses. These accesses liould then have to be raised to the new qrad~ in the circle area. No speci:!ic action is recommended at this time; therefore, no Environmental AssesslIent has been prepared. Should the CO:.lncil wish to proceed with a trial, an Environmental Assessment would be prepared for Council approval. COlfCLU8101f staff believes that conditions on these two streets do not warrant the type of me.asures or the expense of even the basic design proposed in the working group plan ~ If, h01Jever, COUncil wishos to proceed with a traffic management plan for Waverley and Addison, staff liQuld support a trial of the proposed working group plan. staft recommends that Council not consider the lio,kinq q~oup plan further. CMR:429:93 7/29/93 Page 22 sta~t has identified, but does no~ recommend, two other options for Council's consideration: (i) Direct starf to take the necessary steps Ip.adinq to implemen tation of the working group plan on a trial basis, potentially leading to a permanent installation. The next steps 'Would include praliminary desiqn, refined cost estimates, des1gna t1un of funding sources, preparation of the Environmental AasesSJlent, and return to Council for approval to proceed with the trial. (ii) Expand the study to include the entire Professorville neigh borhood (and/or other contiguous areas id.entified by Council} a This would require consultant services at a cost ranging from $60,000 to $75,0004 Respectfully subaitted, C~~ CARL STOFFEr. Transporta~ion Engineer City Manaqer Attaclments: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and community Environment A. Inventory ~f Neighborhood Traffic Mana~ement Measures B. Minutes of 5/18/92 C1ty Council meeting c. Minutes of Sf4/92 Policy and Services Committee meeting. 04 CMR:362::92 (attached ror City council members onlYi other copies are available in the Transportation Division ortice) cc: Historic Resources Boa~ Architectural Review Board Planning commission Palo Alto Medical Foundation Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee stoecker and Northway ~~sociates Bill McGlashan Members of the Resiaents Workinq Group CXR:429:93 7/29/93 page 23 ATTACHMENT A INVENTORY OF NEIGHlIORHOOD TRAFF1C MANAGEMEI-oT MEASURF.5 NeigbbOIllood traffic management measu .... are u.sod 10 reduce traffic speeds and volumes on Joc:aI residential _. with the expectation that safety ",ill be incn:asod and that neighbo!1IOod livability and environment will be enhanc«!. Many of _ measures are also used 10 control traffic on arterial _. but the purpooes a.'1d sl>ndanlJ for their usage 00 major street> are oflen different than for their usage as neigbborbood traffic management measures. These measures geoe<aIly fall into two categories. Genmetric ik:;ign fealvn!s are physical features of the tmve!kd way which guide or re.tria the movement of velricles. and are illustnw:d in Anacbmcmts A(J) -A(t7). TrqlJic control t1ev/i:es are signs and signals Ihal communicate "'£lIla/Ory, w.uni'lg. or guiding messages, and are illustrated in Anacbments A(t8) -A(2J). Measures that physically coerce traffIC. such as street ckJsures. road bumps, and most other geometric design features, are considered 10 be -active" measures. Signing and striping measures are usually considered 10 be "passive" measures. The latter usually require more police enforcement to be suc=sfuI. \ r f , I ~ i - 1. STREET CLOS~llES Bryant/l.owell Palo A!/o Slanjortii4sh Palo Allo Holbrook Lane ,4JheltOrr ,-' .~ r; -:' /.. 1. STREET CWSURFS A stnet closure is a complete closure of a street at an interscctiOll or midbJock. Access for emerge<ocy veIticles can be provided through !he closure. Bicycle 3!1<l pedestrian aooess usually is maintained. This is perhaps the most e.xtreme traffic management mea.l;ure, and is very effective at reducing volumes. Palo Alto examples: Evergreen Park, CoUege Terrace, Embarcadero Road cross streets. T10ffic Volume Speed Noiu, Air QMaliIy, Energy Con· $IIT1IpIWII ApproxinltJu Cost Othu • Large reduction; usually reduced to local traffic only. • Potential large undesired diversion to other streets. • Does 001 reduce ~ per se, but likely ciiminales the driver population whicb previoosly had used !be street as a speedy through route. • Roouces noise. • Usually negligible L'1crea.."les in emi'Ssions and fuel consumption due to minor detours. • Reduces accidents in immediate vicinity, but may shift them to other streets. o PoIen!ialJy substanlial impact 011 emergency semce response times and access.. • Signage is required, which may be unaJcractive. o I ~scaped islands may be used for !be closure. o Poor maintenance may reduce aest.'lelic appeaI. • Required for all elements of the closure, with low-cost installations having the greatest maintenance requirements. • May interfere with streeI sweeping; gulfe", may cleg. o Landscaping DlUst be Watered. • Ranges from $1000 for a simple berm to $40,000 for low mainIenancelhigh aestbetic landscaped island. o In Palo Alto, residents living near closures have usually been about evenly SPlit for """ against them. However, !here have been only. few cases where neighbors have asked that the closure be removed. Some violations may OCCUT if dri..,., can drive Ihrough !be emergency vehicle opening in the center of the closure. o Takes up curb parking space. - 2. Oi'o"E-WAY (HALf) STREET CLOSURES ~. ",--,' . . . Porllam! Berkel.y "". ,I .. >{"'-~.~ 2. ONE-WAY (HALF) STREET CLOSURES A one-wa~ closure is • barrier 10 traffic in one direction only. while permitting two-way traffiC" on tither side. Because they only block half the street, they are easily vioi;:ted, and allow easy passage of emergency vdticles. Bicycle and pedest.';an access usually is maintained. P.xample.s in Palo Alto: Park between College and Oxford, Park at Chestnut. Traffic Vol""", ~ Air Q1Mdiry. EJrergy Co,.. SWJlption. TrqJJic Safely. Emergency Response Mai1lJelUl1tCt Other • Large redUC"OIl in one dir<C!lon; usuaily reduced to local traffic only. • Potential1arge undesired d!version in ooe direction to other streets_ • Does 1\0\ reduce ~ per se~ but likely eliminates the driver population which previously had used the _ as a speedy tbrough route. • Reduces noise. • Usually negligIble increases in emis..'liioo.5 and fuel consumption due to minor detours. • Reduces accidenu in im mediate \oicinity ~ but may shjft them to other streets. CIo Minimal impact on emergency vehicles, as they can drive around tile cIDsure against traffic. • Signage is required, which may be unattnctive. • u.ndscaped isIonds may be !!sed for the closure. • Poor maintemnce may reduce aesthetic appeal. • Required for all eJwlents of rhe closure, with low-rosl installations having the greatest nulntenance requirements. • May interfere with street sweeping; gutre.., may clog. • I ~Q(bcaping must be watered. • Ranges from $1000 for. simple berm to $4Q,ooo for low mainle nancelhigh aesthetic landscaped island. co .May be more acceptable to residents than full ciosures, as some traffic flow is maintained and traffic diversion is Jess. They are easily violated by driving aroond the closure against traffIC, whicll may cause complaints from residents. • Takes up CUIb p;!tking space. t :.-.. I [ l I - 3. FORCED TURl\i CHAl\'XELIZATIOOl: A'iD DIAGOOl:AL Ill\ ERTERS Port!.and Portland ---"---"~' -' -... " .... '. "-.. 3. FORCED TURN CHANNELIZATION AND DlAGONAL DIVERTERS Fon:ed tum channelization is one or more traffic islands designed 10 pre\lent througb traffic from executing specific movements at an intersection. A diagonal diverter usually forces all traffic onlo an inteneeting street These measures break up throu.gh routes, making travel through a neighborhood diffiC1lll, while nOl acIuaIly pre"enling il Bicycle and pcdesIrian =, can be mainlained. Palo AlIO examples of forced lum channelization: Park al "flIrEarim, Bryanl aI Embarcadero. Traffic Volume Spud Noise, Air Q!Jalily. ~rgyQm sumptlon Mai1llelll>1lCe • Large reduction po<..sible. • Potential diversion to other streets. • Reduces speeds in the vicinity of the device and may also eliminate the driver population which previously had used the st=t as ~ speedy through route. • Reduces noise if volumes are reduced, • Usually negligible increases in emissions and fuel oonsumption due to minQr detours. • Tends 10 incmtse lraffic safely at lhat locatiOil. • Emergency vehicles may or may not be able to contin ue through the intersection, thus poIaIlialIy having substantial impact on response times and =so • Signage is required, which may be unattnlctive. • Landscaped islands may be used for the channeli2.ation. • Poor maintenance may :<dure aesthetic appeal. • Required for all elements of the closure, with low-cost installations having the greatest maintenance requirements. • May interfere willi street sweeping; gu!ten may clog. o Landscaping mu<l be watered. • Ranges from $1000 for a simple berm 10 $40,000 for Iow main~gh-aeslhetic lamlscapecl island. • Depending on the design, VIOlations may occur by driving around the t'.:m channelization. Some violatioos may occur with diagonal diver""" ii driven can drive through the emergeoCJ vehicle opening in the center of the diverter. . . / 4. MEDIA. 'I,' IiARRIERS 4. MEDIAN BARRIERS The median barrier is a standard traffic eniinoering feature which is usually used to improve flow "" • fIll\ior sI!'eet. For neighborllood traffIC management. sho.\'! median barrie" C3II be installed at specific locations on a major street at the intersection of a local street in order to prohitoit some traffic mcvements into and out of the local street. Bicycle and pedeslrian = C3II be maintained. Palo Alto eurnple" Meadow at Park. Charleston at Park, Charleswn at Louis. Traffic Volume Speed Hoiu, Air QualiJy, Energy Con sumption Other • Uuge reduction. • Potential large undesired diversion to other streets. • May eliminate the driVeT population which previously had lised the street as a ~y through ro"te. • Reduces noise if volumes are reduced. • Usually negligible increases in emissions and fuel consumption due to minor detours. • Red""", accidents in the immediate vicinity. on boIh the local one rnaj<Jrslreels. • Emergency vehicles may or may 001 be able to continue througb the int<nec:tiorl, thus potentially having substantial impact on response limes and access. • Signage is required, which may be unattractive. • l.andscaped islands may be used for the channelization. • Poor maintenance may reduce aesthetic appeal. • Required fO£ all elements of the barrier. • No impact on drainage and street sweeping, as these devices are \ocated in the center of the __ • Und=piJ1g must be watered. o Ranges from $LOoo for. simple berm 10 S40,OOO f.". low mainte nanc:dhigb aesthetic landscaped island. • Because the median barrier is an accepted arterlaI treatment, and because it is DOt actually located on • ncighborilood street, it is less likely to atOWe neighborllood opposition than some other measures. i! Ii ~. ·1 r - 5. TRAFFIC CIRCLES Seattle 5. TRAFFIC CIRCLES For !:be purpose of neighbortood ttaffic m.aru:gemem:. traffic: circles are refatj .... e1y small circular islands (u:;ually laodscaped)? placed It the center of intersections of local residential streets. Their purpose is primarLly 10 reduce speeds alone a length of street {if used in a s.eries}, and reduce accidents at problem inl:efsection.o;., NonnaJl y tile] are used without 5top signs. Local examples.: Park Boulevard at Park Avenue (Palo Altn. an unusually large and unique iippJication), Fair Ow Avenue (Fair Oaks ne[ghborhood near Athaton). Noise. A if Quality. Energy Con sumption TrqfJic Safety. Em<rr-ru:y Resp:Jnse • Ranges from minimal up to about 20 percent reductioD for I series (Portland). A single circle produ.ces essentially DO reductio!] in vnlume. • The location of a circle (or ciroes) in the cen'er of the street creates the impression from a distance tb:JI the street is not through. IUS having a psychological impact on me driver which that may cause bim or her to seek .an alternate route. • Reduced about 100-200 feet before and after the rude, compared to there being DO previous tontrols at the intersection. (portland) • Speed reduction over several blocks requires.a series of cu-cles, spaced at a mULmum of 600-800 te.t '1''''' (Seattle). • The. amouot of speed reduction dqJends on the pce-.'ailing speed before the circle is installed. Speeds bctweec circles bave been reduced from '-9 mph (portland). • Smaller circles that cause lese deviation in the traffic stream bave rorrespondinglyless impact on speeds. • If a circle replaces stop signs, Doise can be redu.ced. • If a circle replaces stop sigm., an iocremental cJ~lease in emissions and fuel con sumption can be obtained. • Studies in Seattle have shown that intersection accidents have heec subs-.antially re<luce<l. • Nulll«OU! oosetvations have been made of unsafe practices caused by circles. They pre5eII1 increased bazards to pede5triaru: by bringing vehictes cioser to the curb and crosswa1l areas. • Some drive:s. especially of large trucks, will turn to the left of the circle, thus en- croacblng into the opposile tr.affic lane oc l:be cross street, but this has DOl beezl I problem in Seattle and Portland. • A series of c:irc:es would siow emergency response vehicles. especially fire trucks, bat do not block access to any street. • Circle can be ~. • Sigmge is required, which may be unanra..."tive. • Increased maintenaDce requirements. • No impact on draina,i;e and street sweeping, as circles are located in the center of the street. • Landscaping must be watered. • Ranges from $2.000 fur a small circle -constructed with simple benning to $30,000 for a Luge island of the low-maiotenancelhtgh-.aesthetk design. • Parking must be prohibited with in aboul 50 feet of the inters~tion on all ~ides of the street. • Have been well acceptrJ in some cities, such as Portland and Seattle, where hundreds of c:irc:les bave been instaned. ./ 6. CHOKERS (Bl'LBOLTS) L 24" Rarsed Pldrllers. wilh Trees and low FlDwering Stv'ubs • c"'. Bulb Outs and Textured Crosswalk 1;:: • E.&cec:pt from City of Palo Alto MidlQwn Ncirhbgrbogd TraffiC" _.DKS~ Milvia Slrtet Berkeley 6. CHOKERS (BULBOUlS) ":~ ..;;-~~ ".~ .-,k A choker or buIbout (aka, curb ex.tension) is a narrowing of the ~treet. eitlter at an intersection or midblock, in order I<l recluoe tIw widL~ !Jf the travelled way, usually to the mini mum required for two-way traffic. The narrowing is usually accomplisrted by extenrling the curbline into the st:reet. Palo Alia example: University AV<2lue between Cowper and High (though nO! a neighboriKJod traffic management project). For bulbouts used on one side of the .:itreet in conjunction with offset "",,""'lines, refer to discussion for "Seq>entine Streets". TrqJJic Volume Speed Nr>iM. Air Quality, Energy Con sump!ion Mainltnana Appl'O%imale Cost Orll" • Studies have shown that chokers reduce traffic voltJ.nes only if they narrow the street to I..., than two lanes. or are installed frequently along •. cooSlderable length of street. (For narrowings 10 one-Iane wide with two-way traffic, refer to discussion for chicanes.) • Choker.; appear to have insignificant effect on speed. • No significant effects l"'.ave been identified. • Chokers decrease the-wid th of the lntersection for pedestrians, thlL'i making their crossing less h=dous. However, chokers bring vehicles cl<>se to tile curb, which could in= pedestri<m hazanls. • The narrowing of lanes forteS 11IOIOr vehicles and bicycles together. • Chokers can be IlIndscaped. • Painting of curbing and small refkctor signs may be requi11ed, decm!sing ~c appeal. • lncreased maintenance required, with low-co.st installations having the greatest mainlenance requirements. • Landscaping mu.st be wa!e.o-ed. • May interfere witll street sweeping; gutters may clog. • Ranges from $2000 for a simple berm to $40,000 for low mainte ll3llCeIhigb-aesthetic landscaped Wands (i.e., per set--ooc on each side of tile street). • Takes up curb parking spaces. but impact is less at intersections, wl.ere parking may be already prohibited. ~-l I I I I 7. ROAD BUMPS (LOCAL STREETS) Ma,ilJ Street B,rle,l,y Oak Al'enue Menlo Park '"3!! \ --,-~-,.-~.-......... ,---","- 1. ROAD BUMPS (LOCAL STREE1S) Road bumrs (aka p.1vemenl UDdulations and speed bumps) ate raised area .. wich a circular cross section in Ibe pavemem surfzce from 3-4 ilIcb~ bigh and 12 feet in length in the direction of traffic flcw. instaJled ocJy on local stroe:b. Their purpose is to reduce speeds. TyptcaJly they are imtaIled in a series of at least NO or three. local examples; Midtown arC<! (PaJo Alto); Cambridge ar.d Oak Avenues (Me:::tlo Park). Noise. Air Qua/jIy. EMrgy Om s.mtptiolt Mlllnrenance • Experieoct: in Palo AJtf'J bas shown volume reductwns ranging from 10..:0 percent. • Speed reduction depends on the spacirlg of bumps, which can range from approximately 2SO feet to 600 feet. With the closest spacing. 85th percen tile speeds between bumps ~an be reduced to 25 mph, .. &,'h:h percentile speeds over the bumps range from 15 to 20 mpb. • Slower speeds result in K>wer noise le'oIe.ts between bumps. • At humps, noise can increase due to braking, accelerating, and boun:::ing of cargo in trucks. • Minima] change in air quality and energy consumption. • Bumps have generally DOt caused safety problems. or li.ablJity c1arms. • Long wheeINse vehicles, incllMfmg fire trucks, must pass over bumps very slowly to avotd significant jolts to veh ides. • Drivers may drive in the gutter to partially avoid the bumps. • A series of bumps would cause :substantial deiay ill emergency vOOicle 1e$pOOSe times, but does DOt impair access to streets. Palo AIle Fire Department bas experieoced 81 least one injury to a firefighter who hn his head on the roof of the truck while passing O'Jer a bump. • AdditiooaJ signing and striping degrade aesthetics. • No opportunities for landscapillg. • AdditiolW maintenance is reqcired. • Bumps interfere with street overlays, and may have to be removoo for a fR<Jlrfacing proj ect. • $4000 each, including signing and striping. • Road "bumps are very common in CaHfurnia cities, with some. citie& baving dedicated budgeu and huooreds of i.nstaJiations.. • This is the ollly traffic management device fer which Palo Alto has estab lished procedures aDd standards, lbrJugh no dedicated source of funding. • Crosswalks can be raised, similar to a road "ump, and can reduce spee:ch simila:r 10 road bumps, [fused frequently enough. However, this techn.ique would be used primarily to slow traffic at a crosswalk to enhance pedes· trian safety (E:umple, c.mpus Drive near Stanford Medical Centec). ~----. " . '. S. ROADBL~(COLLECTO~ PortIiIPd, Oregon, is testing a road bump specific.aJly for use on collCII."1Or streets, It is 22 feet long in the direction of vehicle trayel~ as oppooed to 12 feet for the local ~treet road ~mp. It.s pUlJ'03C is to roouce speed on collector streets, bur: 10 .J; lesser degree than the shorter bump. • No data a,.,ailab:e yet, but likelihood is that volume reduction would be minimal. • llIdi_ are obi! spe«Is would Ire reduced to ~3S mph between bumps spa<od 300 fe« Bpal!. • Speeds _ bW!lpS are about 30 mph. • M"mimaJ change to noise, air qualit)' and energy COnsUmptiOD, except pouible ooise at bumps from bomrint; .0:.:&&0 In trucks. • No data ...;Jable yet. • Impact Oil CUler¥CDcy response times would be 1 ess thao for local street: road bumps. • Same imptots as fo< local road bumps. • Same imptots as fo< local road bump5. • Expecud cost would be about S5000 p..-bump. • PottI.aad is perhaps Ibe only city to bave insIaIled road bumps OD ooo-IocaI -. 10' --.I<.~-6,-1 ARTERIAL SPEED BUMP 9. MEDIAN ISLANDS (SLOW POINTS) PDrtland MEDIAN SLOW POINT ,. MEDIAN ISLANDS (SWW POINTS) These islands are in.staIIed in the center of a street, and serve to narrow and offset the traffic 1anes toward the c:wbs. Portland, Oregon. has used these devices on ooilecto< streets in o:der 10 slow Ir.Iffic wilhout causing volume reductions. Can be installed midblock or at intersections. Trqtfic • Indications are that traffic volumes are not affected. Volume Spud • Portland 00_ an 8 mph speed reduouon with one installation. Noise, • Minimal changes in noise, air quality. and energy consumption. Air Quality, Energy Con· sumpn'on • W'ldth of the intersection is decreased for pedestrillns, thllS making their crossing Ie..< hazardous. However, vehicles are brought close to the curb, which could increase pedestrilln hazards. Midstreet islands can serve as pedestrian refuge areas for crossings of busy stt<ets. • The nanowiug of lanes forces moIOr vebicles and bicycles together. • No data is available on impact on emergency response vehicles. • Islands can be landscaped. • Painting of curbing may be required, and wanting signs and reflectors are required, decreasing aeslbetic appeal. • InL-reased maintenance required, with 1ow-cost installatil)ns having Ole greatest mainlenance requirements. • Landscaping mllS! be wattI<d. • N<; impact on drainage and street sweeping, as iolands are IocaIfd in the center of the street. • Ranges from $2CiJO for simple bonns to $30,000 for low mainle· nancelhigh aestIIc:tic landscaped island. -. "-~' .. 10, RAISE& INTilRSECTIONS A raised intersection. is analogous to I. midblock :-oad bump as .a ... peed reduction t&b.nique. The entire ~ is raised I. rew iDches above grade, and may be gi\lt':1 a special pilvemen~ treatment. This technique has heeD used exlensively in Europe. In the U.S., they have more often been used as eobam-aDelIts for peeemian safety and aesthetics in shopping areas, rather than for neighborhood traffic -. TraJjic Vol ume Notse, Air Qw/iIy, ENTgy Om' sllMplion Trqffic SqfrtJ, Emug~ Response llestlvtics • No dJ1a available. • No data is ;owaUable. but effect OIl speed would be ex.peete<! to b't less tb.a.Il for road bumps, due to gre<Iter length of pavement rise through an intersec· tien, compared LJ a road bump's 12 feet. • Noise can increase due to braking, acuier.nion, crossing textured pave- ment. and bouncing cargo in truc-ks. • Minimal lmp<lCl on air quaHty and energy consuntption. • No data. available. • Potential for improved aesthetics if special pavement trea!menl is used. • Waruing signs may be required, which 'Wouid degrade ~thetics. • Additiooal m.ainte.IlaIice is required, especiany for special pavement. • Raised inrersection interferes lliith street overlay'S, and may have to be removed for a resurfacing project. • No Jata available. Raised intersection with ILB pavement, Koraku Road-Pia, Nagoya, Aichi (photo by Hideo Yamanaka) •• 11. RUMBLE STRIPS 11. RUMBLE STRIPS RumbJe strips are strips of J1)lJgn pi"ement or lines of raised cenlfrnc markeTs which were developed as a means to alert drivers to dangerous or une,,-pected roo.dition.s. Used as a oeighbartlood tIaffic management <levicc. !heir purpose is 10 reduce speed,. Noise, Air QuaIUy, Energy Con· sUl'll{Jdon • No tffect. • Studies have shown reduction in speed ranging from negligible (Ottawa) 10 IS mph (San Francisco). • Noi>e generation can be scbstantial, espo;ially with high tIaffic volumes. Negative community response can be expecI<XI. • M"mimal effect on air quality and fuel consumption. • No effects have been detennined in oeighhorhood Ir.!ffic management instaIJ.anons. • Due to safety concerns, would probably be unacceptable 10 bicycle community, ""Jl"clal1y on a designated bicycle route. • Drivers may drive in the gutter 10 partiall Y avoid the strips. • Pavement markers may degrade aesthetics.. • Increased maintJ:nanCe roquired, especWly for oc=ional replacement of raised pavement markers that are lo().5ened by passing vebicies. • Would have to be removed for street resurfacing. Approxim<Ue • SSOO per set. Cc.!t Other • Used in a few location. in Palo Alto in the 1970 .. , but were removed due 10 oompWnts about noise. 12. SERPeNTINE STREETS ""- Milviil Streel Berkeley Stag;:;o.red paridng areas I -.--J l :;::::C;' --'-------:,' i". ,. I r=--' =~.~ . .. 11 Figure 60. Choker deBiln on one Bide of a roadway. Location on akernate sldeB at lucce88lve intersectJona creates ieI'" pentine alipment. 12. SERPENTINE STREETS A serpeutiDe:streel i! an artificially<rea!ed curving two-way street -employing i5lands or other means that are pJaced OD on-e side of the street, to cause the centerline to be cffset towards the othn side. The length of traruitioD through th~ off!.et can be varied according 10 the design speed desired through dle offset. Ma} be used midbloc.k: or at inlerse..."ti0n5. Local example: Milvii Street (Berkeley), University Avenue between Cowpel' aDd High (Pa!'O Alto, dtou.gtl not a neighborhood traffic management projea). Troffic Yol~ Nolsl!. Air QuaiiIy, EMrgy Om sumption Troffic Safety, &u!rgeocy Response AestiretiCJ • Jf the dcsien speed (if me offset r::ransition is ~millar to that: for other devices such as road bumps or traf'fu: circles, .aad if a seri~ of offsets is used, volume reduction simnar to a. series of those devices should occur, i.e., from zero up to about 20 percent. The Ba:teiey traffic qirleet estimates than offset lanes bave caused minimal volume reduction. • Speed tfuo~ the offsc;: transmo8 can be designed fur .any level. If me speed is. d~jgr.ed similar to that foc otbe:c devices sl:tch as road blimps or 1:l';Iffic circles. and if a series of ofhcts i:5 useti. speed reductioo similar to I series of ~ devices should be obtainab:e. • Drivers may .i)()t stay in the proper-lane in the tra.taitkm, aru, thus reducIng the effective ness of th is mr..asure in reducing speeds. • Noise could iI'Ic:rease due to brakl ng, acceler3Iing. and pantng ovet center] ine pavement marten at: speed control element. • Noise can be reduced between elemenu due to ,lower speeds, • M"mimal impact on air qWJJlty and t:"netgy consumption. • Vebicle$ are forced toward the cwt, At intersections, this oouJd degrade pedestrian wety. • Driven may DO( stay ia the proper lane in the transilioa Mea, thus posing potential safety problems. • Depending on lane wN1l.l\.s, bkycles and motor vehicles may be forced togechet in Ihe transition areas, • A series of curves could iocrease emergency service response ti.-ne. • lslands "" be landscap<d. • Painting of curbing may be required, and warning signs .and reflecton. are requirvd. decreasing ustht<i, appeal . .. lDaeased m.ainteruJDce required, witb k>w-ro.st instafl.aions baving the greatest maintenance requirements. • Land.scaping nrust be watered. • May interfere with street .weeping; gutters may clog • Depends 00 length of street:, Cost for single island ranges from $2000 for a simple berm ro $20.000 for a low mainteoancelhigh-aesthetic landscaped island. • Islands can interfece with lllI1t.ing movements for large vehicl.c.s. • Tales up curb parting Sp.1Ce5, • A serpmtine street can be created by other means besides islands. Diagonal and parallel parking can be alternated from OUt side of the street to the other, or parallel parting ~ be alternated from side to side, and prohibited on the other side. i I \ r - 13. OI'o"E-WAY CHiCAI,'ES Seattle • i . - . ..-1 I , -I . • , i _ '''-.''' .Il ·;.;::-way chicane is an artificiat)y-crealed series of tight turns with only eno\'gh ..... idth fDr one-wa.y travel mrough a short section. Two or three bu lbouts on aJ tematiilg sirles of the street crf"-ate the need tD weave from 2 to 4 timt::s to plW: through &be chicane. Used in man)' locations in Seattle. Local example: Fair OW neigltborhood near Atherton. Noise, Air Quaiily, Enugy Q;". sumption • In one location in Suttle, volume was reduct'\J 3S percent. • Potef'ltiaJ diversion to other streets, • In one locatioo in Seattle, speeds were decreased 25 ~rcellt. • DepeodiGg on spacing of chIcanes, 85th petcentife speed herween chicanes can be reduced 10 25 mph, • Advisory speed through the cb ic.ane is 10-t 5 mph. • Possible poise generated by br;!L;'", ~ :iJ.J accelerating in cb kane a .... ea. If used in a series, DOi.se would t..: red'Jced bet\1i'~c chican~ due to slower sp<OOs, • M"mimal change in air quali.)' and energy consumption. • In SeanJe, accident rate bas f10t mr..ieao;.e::! at ch icane loc3tlo!l5. • ]f used in a series, thcre would be a substantiaJ delay 10 emergen..--y 'Vehi cles, but access to an streets is malnt3ined. • Wands c.an be landscaped, • Painting of curbing ma)' be required, and warning signs and ret! ectors Mot required, decreasing aesthetic appeal. • Increased m.ainleoaJ'Ice requu-ed. with low-\X)st instal1atioDS having the greatest maintenance requirementS, • LandseapiDg must be watered, • May imerfere with street sweepmg; gutters may cJ.1g • For a chicane ... ith two burooUli, ranga. from $4()()() fur simpJe berms to 580.000 for low maimenanctlhigb aesthetic landscaped islands. -----' I ~ ! ~r I ., , I , ' I'r • i r 14. SWW STREET Mil~i.a Street, Berkeley , . -. ;, .' .",-'-'. 14. SLOW STREET The slow street employs • combination of traffic management elements. On Mil';" Street in 1Ierkcley, !be slow street, • coUector, employs rood bump<, bike lanes, a serpentine """lcrline, stop signs, .;ui a one-way cl<>sure at one end. The purpose of l"" design i. to slow traffic. Spud Noise, Air Q1Itdi.'y. Energy Con swr.ption • Reducai by IS-2O percent, prinw:ily by the road bumps. • Reduced to 23-25 mph between bumps. • Minimal impact "" air quality and fuel consumption. • Noise impacts from road bumps as described elsewhere for that measure. • Effects on emergency response the same as for road bumps and serpentine streets. • • Aesthetic impacts the same as for tPe various measures used. • The density af measures used results in a heavy concentration of signs and striping whicl1 degrades aesthetic •. • Required for all elements of the slow nreet. Refer to maintenance impacts of individual measures. • Sum of costs of in<'IividuaI measures. . . -~ (". -/---,..- -'-~ .. 1$, TEXTURED CROSSWALKS I I I Textured Paving (Typical) \ , 24" Raised Planters with Trees and Low Flowering Sr .. ubs 8' Street Tree in Tree Wen (Typical) :::1, "'---'-Curb Bulb Outs and Textured Crosswalk Varied pavement Staggered patchwork, Sekime Road-Pia. Osaka (photo by Hideo Yamanaka) · .. 15. TE""TURED CiiOSSW M.KS Crosswalks. whBlher mi(!bJock: or at intersections, can be leJ.turOO hy means of special pavers or ot~er trearmeo.l:. The intention is to impart :I message to the driver that the area being traversed bas some st>eCiai identity andIor that ~e.:::ial at'tel1tioa: is required. (Crosswalks can also tie rai~ed on a pl atfonn similar to a roarJ bump and a raised inr:erseaiLID-refer to d~ussion for those twO measures.) l!Jc.a1 eAamples: Universir:y Avenue between Cowper and High (palo Alto), Downt'JWD Redwood City {neither-.are Deighborhood traffic management projeru), Willow Road at GUbert (Menlo Park). 1Ttdfic Volume HotsI', Air QualiIy. EltugyCon· swnpdnn Trolfic S4j"ery. E;nergency Rupons. Ae.sIhaic.r • No impact would be expected. • Only a minor reduction, Lf any, would be expected. • Dependine OIl the pavement treatment, some extra ooL'loe may be genet'.ated. • No impact on air quality and energy consu rnption. • No dita is available OD trafflc ~afety. • No impact on emergency respon.~. • Aeslhetic improvement from the special pavement tre.atmect. • Increased maintelW' ... -e for tbe special pavement treatment. • May need to be removed for str:et res;Jrfacing. • $400() yO< crosswalk (1986 M"Hltowtl Study, Palo Alto) Japan !. , i ~ i . ·,·~·jf2} . -. , .~ - 16. GATEWAYS Middlefield Road Alhtlton Ninth AJlenue Fair Oaks Neighborhaad • "- ~ ~-: ,J: ;-;",- 16. GATEWAYS A plrWay consists at an "rcrutectural feature on each side of a road way, used primarily to indicate entry into a special area, ~w.ch as a resi;;Jential neighborruxxl. If the gate\.\.-ay is. R&JTOW (e.g., ~tting only one traffic directio>, al a time), it would reduce speed at that point and could reduce through traffic. l.«aI examples: Fair Oaks neighborhood near Atherton; entrance to Undenwood 1IIOighbotiIood. AtIIerton. Spud Noise. Air Qu<UiIy. Energy eo".. SIIItIpliOlJ MainJt1fIl1ICe Other • No data available. Small reduction possible. • No data available. Speod reduced at location of gateway if it is narrow. • If gateway is. narrow and trnIfic vo!umes moderate, some increa~ nois<: could be generated by ~raking and acceleration in gateway mea. • Minimal effect on air quality and energy CCflsumption. • No specific data aV2ilable, but one-way street widths with two-way traffic: associated wilh Seattle chicanes have no!: resulted in increaserl accidcrtts. • Minimal delay to emergency services .... a gateway is gener.illy used only at an entry to an area. • Drepending on the design. can improve aesL~etics. • Increased mait1.talance is required. • A simple gateway. such as in the Fair Oaks =. could be constnK:ted for approximately $1000. • Makes a statement that a driver is entering a special area. ... ~ .. L 17. WOONERF Ho!mnd woonerf ~"'_ .. Ir A Woonerf, seeu i.n Europe and JapaIl. is an area In whi.:n aIi 'w'l;:hkular a"LG peJes.trlJfl activities ar~ merg,-...j, with nQ grade changes. In!he NeL".ieriaIl(.ls. wout 2700 r~id~!1tj4.1 $tl:!f!l~ W('fc CNIVf!rtc:d te' Wexlnerven between 1976 and 1983. Throug"l traffic i~ r::Jmin-::d. but ia.nJ"..:.aping 4nJ ~.~t'i!l furniturt make It impossible to drive fast. The street "learly lndi.catt!.~ entr~ inl(1 a r~sidenlia! pr.:: .. :in..:t. P.wemem treatment may be specii!lized. The street may oni)' he wide ~nDugh fr'r traffic in \Inl: di(e..:tion;:t a time. The street: 15 used.as pIa) space for children as well a.~ tr;.n:.portilliDO uses This c(mcept I~ g~nerally not $e'en in the U.S .. bur some pLumed unit development, hdVC: street.\ s.imiLar 1\.) I.\'oonen.-en., fbi.rJ~h specific cost data is DOt a'o'ailable, the cost ofr~\'ai.ing an t::'I:is.!ing m~L't tr. the l'S may he p!O~ibitj\'ely bigh. N,l mhu dec:aUed data is a .. "ailabJe. ---------- c L - 18. STOP SIG!Io'S Mill'io. Street Berkele.~ • 18. STOP SIGNS The basi. puIJlOOO of a ,top sign, a passive deviee, is to assign rigllt-<Jf·wayal intersections will> signifieant ttaffic volumes or safety p,oblems. Official warrants describe Ihe OO<ldidons under whicb stop sicns should be installed. Neverlheless, stop signs have"""" installed for neighborhood traffic mana,:ement pu.rposes. often at the in wte:Ice of nearby residents, and often withou: the rorornmendatioo of Ihe tIaffic engiPeer. Example of stop sign installation. for traffic management puz;>o>es: Pal" Alto'. • guard and go" stop sign system. Spud Noise, Air Quality, EMrgy Con· sumption Trqffic Safrzy, Eme'1lOlCJl Res_ • Single stop signs are not effective at reducing volu~. If a series of stop signs is w.stalled, and if IIlere is an alternative and faster oollecto!" or arterial route , volumes C3iI be reduced. • Palo Alto's 1976 stop sign study showed tJ'1..at, with step signs installed every oIher block, 85th percenlile speeds ranged from 23· 37 mph between stop signs, with speeds at or 1= than the 25 mph residential speed limit at only 3 out of 60 locations. The rondusion of tile study was lila! speeds with the guard and go system were ... WI, or faster, than Ihey would be without it. • If stop signs were installed every block, midblock speeds mighl be reduoed turlher than noted above, but widespread disobedience of stop signs would be e:xpected. Even with stop signs every oIher block, IIle stop sign sludy found !hat over 7iJ percent of tram" does not come to • full stop at inter>ections, with speeds tltroufh !be intersection ranging from 2.5 to 10 mph. • Speeds reduced within about 200 feet of the ir'!rersection :!! which Ihey are installed. • Emissions and fuel consumption are increased. • Noise can increase, especially where speeds without stop signs are le.ss titan 30 mph. • As noted in the stop sign study • .s.aft"ty is compromised by 100 many stop signs ~ because of the disohcdience caused by ha .... ing to Slop frequeotly for no apparent reason. • Minimal impact OD emergency response. • Minimal impact 00 aesthetics, unless "stop" legend is installed. • Maintenance for a single sign and stop bar is relatively small, but compounds foc a series of signs. • $20() for new sign and stop bar installation. • Generally unpopular with bicycli:sts, becau~ a series of complete stops can substantially lower average speed. • GeroeraIly popular witl! local residents, but no! with out of area residents. 19, TURN PROHmmON SIGNS The basic purpooe of tum prohibition signs is to prohibit certain turns in order to improve safety QC prevenl IXJllgestion on main """'<S. As used in neighborbood t'llffic management, "No Right Tum· or -No left Tum-signs. with or witnout specified hour., of the day, a.·'e used to block or _ up shortrutting traffic paUems OIl resid",tial streets. S"ch pattern. =-.. , most freqUOlUy ....... congested major in~s. Since these are passive devices, their su= depends Ofl their genenl accepcance by drivers, and on "'forcement. Local examples: Churchill at Alma (l'alo Alto), Wtliow Roood at Gilbert (Menlo Park). Troffic Vohun.. • Poo:ntially significant re<!"clion, though. violation ""ole of 10-15 percent can be expected, unc!er good cimlrnstances. • If the moveJll<'Jlt being prohibited had fonnerly heel] used by a driver population as a speedy through roure I substantial reduction is po..!blc. • Noise reducaOD is proportional to volume reduction. • Impacts on air quality and em; ssions are probably negligible. • No informatioo is available regarding traffic safely. • No impact on emergency .. rvices. • Minimal impact. • Minimal impact. • $150 per new installation. • l1mited experience in Palo Alto suggests thai constant Police llepannlenl enforcement must be provided 10 prevenl flagranl violr.tion:. Hence, boo:ause such enforcemenc is usually not posslole, this measure has meIy been recommended or used. 20. SPEED LIMIT SIGNS ~ l~;idential. stt~. the prima fade speed limit is 25 mph, and ~ typically ncr posted, The pUfTAJSe of this. passi .... e measure is to paS! this spetd limit, with the bope (If red-.H.,:tng speeds. Trqffi< Volume Noise, Air QWlIIty, Energy Con swnption Traffic SqfetJ. Emerg~11:CJ Respon.!e • No impact. • StlJdies and fLeld OMef'\'"ouions in Palo Alto a.'ld oll,.er cities sbow tb.a; drivers speeds include retatjo.·ety linle consideratIon for rn e posted' .. ~ Hm!!. . ... b"-"",,'mt su.sl<iinoo polit:e enforcement, dT ivers tend \D traY~l 3K a speed at WhlCh they feel is comfo~le for the circumstances, • Minima: impact,. assuming that the .s.jg:r.s are ineffective. ~ Mj~J::;aj impact (I~ traffic safely. assum ing thai the signs are ineff~ye. • No '!mpilCt O~ emergency services. • Minimal impact. S<t1ltk -:..-:' .. -'; ""< 21. WAR.NING SIGNS AND OTHER PASSIVE MEASURES -JJl ~ ... ~~" rrr «::oJ <"':'<'c,""'>------ D- Painltd l&l4nth Source: Reference 5 Figure 74. Typicallatera18tripillg to give Impression of in creasinJ 8peed , , , '. 21, WARNING SIGNS AND OTIIER PASSIVE MEASURES Warning signs are standard sign.;: p]'escrib~ by the Slate tu warn of !;pe<::ifJC obstacles and oonditions. In nejgbborhood traffic management, such sigro may Of may not relate to Sil..:--spedflc col1dltion!. Exa..'T'.pies are signs such a.; "Slow·, "Residential Street~~ and "Chi!dren P!3yina.~. signs .... 'ilI novel mes.'8.,ges such as O<5d speed IlnriU" or ether norrstarodan! messages. Ano\her measure is 3, Se1'les of white ban. painted acri,)~~ a roadway with decreasing spacing to gh"e the driver the illusion of sp~ing up (in the hope of slowing the drlvor down). Generally, sueb passive devices, though popular with local residents, do nnt have a measurable impact OD t.raffic speeds or volumes. The warning signs warn of conditions that most drivers. presl.!me t{l exi~ in .:v~ry neighborhood. bence their installation in a parth:ular neighbvrhood is 1'-ather meaningless. The messages of ail rhese signs and markings wears off quickly on ie-gular drjve~ on a panicular :,oute ..... hetter local residents or sMrtcuttiOg through traffi.:. Some of th~ geometric design featur~ employing is[lUIds and circles i.O ,onU'.,1 traffic can be installed with traffic sbiping and/or stmdatfl raised markers to form the island' or dr.;;le. SuciJ mstallar.iono:; are relatively inexpensjve,low~maintenance, and do not interfere with drainage and street sw~pir.g. However. because they can be driven over, and because they produce no visual obstruction wbeo. seen from a distan .. e. the, have considerably Jess Empact on reducing speeds or VO[UlIles, and thus; are wmewilaJ I ike adler passh e measures. .-.- Fiiure 75. Odd-"" .. _ ...... -SonbJp. CA. F J!FFERENCES NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT MEASURES I. Homburger, er:. at, RestdWiaJ St@til Resign and Daftic Cgntrol, Institute oC Transportation ~.1989. 2. Smitb. AppJeyard, d. at, Sure of the An' Residential fume Mwgement, Fedenl Highway Administralioo (FHWAlRD·80I092). Decombef 1980. 3. TIKM, Final Report. City of Np Alto Stop Sign System E\,aluatioD..fuir...iDl. Sept.emf>er t 976. 4. VOIl Bontel. Edwin W •• "'Traffic Circles: Seattfe·s Experience". S. Dor6, 1 ..... W. and Noel F. Schon..,.... 'Seattle', Neigbborbor.d Traffic (Antrol Program". lIE lll!&mI!. F<bmary 19K2. 6. Seattle Eoginecrinr Depanmeru, Transportation Divi.sioll~ "NE 70 St:reet Chicane. Evalu.uloo'" . 1. Palo Alto TransporutHJo Division, field ... jsi~ to Seattle !1eigbborhood traffic n:.anagement sites wi!h _. traffic engineer, 1992. 8. ~. Oregoa, Office--of Transportation. evaluation reports. of various. traffic rr.anagemen( projc:c:ts. inc:ludiDg Divisi.on Corridor. NE 7th Averu.t~, NE 15th Avenue, Cornetl Road, _and. NE 21st and 24ch Avenues. 9. Palo Alco T<3llIIp<JfIaioa Division. field visits to Portlard noighborllood traffic manage;nent sites with Portland traflk engineer, 1992. 10. CMJt:UO'.s. January 10, 1985. S....r Re4~. Excerpt of City Council Minutes Ma) 18. 1992 Meeting ATTACHMENT B s. Mayor Fazzino and Vice Mayor MCCown re Professorville Traffic Mitigation Proposal (continued from 4/27/92) Vice Kayor McCown sai~ Mike Cast a~ Bill McGlashan submitted the Protessorville Traffic MitIgation Proposal. While she could not say which elements of the propo;;al were feasible or desirable, 80ae ideas presented .1qht also be applicable in other neighborhoods. The proposal was worthy of discusaion. Mayor Fazzino COlIlR8nded the proposal and believed it deserved consi~eraticn by the City. The proposal respo~ed to a difficult traffic ai tuation in an important neiqbborhood. While he could not speak to which el..ents of the proposal were feasible or appropri- 5/18/92 68-350 ! I ate, he aqreed that SOlIit\' of thf! concepts in the proposal might serve in simil&r traffic challenged in other neighborhoods. Mike cast, 420 Addison street, said a& residents of the Professorville neighborhood, he and Bill McGlashan felt it vas inoumbent on them to come. up with solutions for the traffic problems in t.~e area. Their solutions were specifically i::1ter.ded to not degrade other neiqhborhoods by unloading traffic on other street or causing undue difficulty getting to the downtown area. The series of items contained in the proposal were resea~ched as ones 'Which were deemed. appropr late or marg inally successful in other areas or towns. He appreciated the opportunity to hav~ the proposal forwarded to staft for consideration. Ellen Fletcher, 777 San Antonio Road, 1108, s~id last year Cour.cil voted to instal.l a temporary barrier on Bryant Street and to evaluate it in six months. Any Council action at that point waR premature because the effects ot the bar-rier were not yet evaluated. If Council referred the matter to committee, she urged Council not to del~y the installation of the Bicycle BoulevAAd. In 1976 Council adopted the policy in the Comprehensive Plan to iaplem--nt the network of bicycle boulevards and it had been ten years since the first segment of the bicycle boulevard vas installed. Staff vas working hard to open the bicycle boulevard in conjunction with -Seat the Backup Day" in Sept.ember 1992. Irvin David, 3886 La Donna Avenue, vas concerned about the proposal being considered by the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory CODDlittee (PABACJ because of its t..pact on the bicycle boulevard. While he supported &08e of the eleaents, he was conce.rned about considering the proposal and its costs as a supplement to the Bryant street Bicycle Boulevard prcject. He believed Palo Alto needed. a Transportation commission. Vice Mayor McCown did not intend for any conaideration of the proposal to delay the bicycle boule\'ard~ While she did not necessarily support considering the cast/McGlashan rroposal as a supplement to the Bry&nt Street Bicycle ~ulevard project: it was important to consider the ideas~ It the recommenaatiun from the committee was to consider or pursue the items contained in the proposal, it was important to do so in the same .anner as council woul.d look at any propcnl which would include full parCiclpation by PABAC and other appropriate organizations. MOTrna TO RBPBRI Vic. Mayor MC~ovn BOVed, seconded by Fazzino, to refer the item to the staff tor a first level evaluation to the Policy and servioes Coaa1ttee, the Historic Resources Board, and subsequently to the City Council for issues that the Policy and Services COmmittee should pursue. Council Member Wheeler was pleased. to see that Council vas qoinq to take a look at the cast/McGlashan proposal. It vas important _for the -Historic Resources .Board to a180 consider the proposal. council Member Ander&en did not see that the propooal would delay the Bryant street Bicycle Boulevard proje~. 5/18/92 68-351 ~---.----- Mayor Pazzino emphasized that the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard va. not a part of the motion. The proposal responded to traffic issues which many other neighborhoods in the community were also concerned about. Council spent II. qreat deal ot time and JIIoney on traffic issues, and if the Cast/McGlashan proposal could be 1lIple.anted .tor $25,000, and it was feasible and appropriate, Couneil ahould qive it careful consideration. IIOnQIJ PMl8ZD 9-0. 5/18/92 68-352 2. 3. 4. S. 6. ATTACHMENT C Excerpt of Policy & Services Committee Minutes August 4, 1992 Meeting Regular Meeting Auqust "# 1992 Oral Ca.munications Council Priority: People in Crisis -status Report Professorville (Waverley/Addison) Traffic Mitigation Proposal Heritage Tree Ordinance Palo hlto Housing Corporation Fundinq Request Future Meetinq Schedules and Agendas 2 2 5 13 21 Adjourn.ent at 10:05 p .•. _., ' ,., ......... ;..-.:.<" ~.~. --:'~ is!!ues wl'u.ch arose durinq the opriate levels of service meeting~ The second committee would t alterr~tive fund-rai&inq plans tor the nonprofit agencies. Ralph char and the Community Association for the Retarded were looking nto the Silicon Valley Ball proceeds. Chairperso Kniss was pleased to eee the appropriate levels of service iliau continued and thought. it could make a long-tera ditference. of the ideas for the network meetings C~ out vela of service public meetings. Assistant to the City agar Vicei Rudin asked for input from the P'S committae concerning previous suggestion for a joint meeting between the HRC and c'Ounci in Fall 1992. council Member McCown asked i another joint meeting was aLt:eady sche<luled. Mr. Martin replied yes: August 27, 92, was scheduled to discuss the agenda for an early October joint C council meeting. MS. Rudin said the P&S Co .. ittee had cons~ red a jOint meeting for :fUrther People in crisis discussion, but in ight of the scheduled Beating and the in-depth attention at th T~"WJ'l Hall meeting, perhaps it was no lonqer necessary. council Heaber MCCown said since it was a major to 'c ot interest, the itea would: :be cover-ed in the October joint :aeet xr. Martin said the HRC was doinq lIUcl .. and ha.d qood pool the diversity issue. Chairperson Kniss &aiel the antlwer 118 s NO ACTION REQUIRED 3, ~ssoryil1e (Waverley/Addison) Traffic Mitigation proposal Chairperson Kniss said the issue was one which had been introduced by council Kember MCCown and referred to the PiS Co_ittee. Since the decision bad been made about the Bicycle Boulevard Extension Project CBicycle Boulevard) and bicycle barrier, a suggestion had been aade. to defer recollllendation on the proposal until after COUncil's review of the six-month monitoring report on the Bicycle Boulevard .. council Meaber MCCcwn thought the intent was for the P'S Committee to talk about the issue but defer its being brought to council until later. Chief Transportation Official Marvin overway recommended the item be deferred. until later. 8/4/92 p.s: 5 • Council Member McCown aske~ if the P.S committee should discuss the. issue, and then bring it back to council at the same. time as the six-.onth report~ Kr~ overway said it could be brought back to the P&S Committee in light of what staf~ knew to be the experience of implement~tion ot the Bicycle Boulevard~ Assistant to the City Manager Vicci Rudin said if the P&S Committee discuBsed the issue at the present time, then it cOllld be continued until later. Chairperson Kniss said it would be discussed, reviewed in :six mont...'1s, and ttlen returned to the P&S Committee. Council Meaber McCown suggested Michael Xast, one of the authors of the proposal who was p~esent, speak on the issue. Mr. Overway said the proposal was presented to Council by Michael Xast and Bill McGlashan and then referred to the P&S committee. staff's preliminary evaluation addressed in the staff report (CMR:l62:92) atteapted to provide available information reqardinq the conditions, as staff understood them, and aspects oL the proposal. Data collection for the study relied upon information gathered in a number of other studies and did not follow the nor.al process of orientation .eetings an~ discussions nor.ally done to develop a consensus. Tbe objectives of the proposal were to reduce vehicle noises, ~rove visual appearance. reduce traffic on Addison Avenue. and provide an acceptable parkinq plan where parking was at a preJIiwa~ The mea,Bures presented in the proposal were legitimate traffic 1Deasures~ Any sta'ff concerns centered. around effectiveness in relation to costs, not the appropriateness, of the proposals. In a historical review of studies, similar lMasures had been .considered, proposed. and discuBsecL The costs in relation to the measurable, demonstrable effect were j'..lstltied. A prior cost estimate given for a speed bump at $5,000 was in error; it was actually only $4.00(;. Road busps had a fairly assured r demonstrated. measurable effect which predicted the reaults~ Chairperson Kniss asked for the known result of a speed bump. Mr. Overway said a slower speed could be achieved by the stra.teqic; location of speed bwnps ~ however, the issue wi th bulb-outs was aore judgmental.. The technical, documented results were not refuted and indicated a useful, creative, pleasing, and more cautious driving envi~nt. The technical staff could not guarantee a greater degree of reductions in noise, speed, or traffic volume as other alternative lIeasures, but bulb-outs were still worthwhile. The city had chose...'"'l not to have bulb-outs in several instances bec<'!!uEe they were aore expensive. The staff !"~port (CioiR.:.362 :.92) provided data for e~i~~in~ ~vl~itions, evaluations of various aspects of the proposal~ and tried to review the status ot commitments with the Bicycle Boulevard and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAKF). Staff thought it would be better to wait for the actual i.plica tiona of the Bicycle Boclevara and barrier location and know .ore 8/4/92 P.S: 6 •.. .. ~ about the PAKF to assist in decision making. At the end ot the statf report ware a number of visual representations on how the varioue types of objectives in the proposal could be viewed. The COWprehens:ive Plan apacifically encouraqecl or raised the possi bility of uain9 the types of 'lleasures proposed in the staff report. The proposal was valid but was a question of cost. ChAirperson Kniss said a conflict of interest ~xisted with Council Keaber Huber because o~ the location ot his residence in relation to the proposal. council Member Huber exited for the remainder of the discussion. council )lelIber MoCovn asked if the d.ata, or lack of t1ata, concern ing available evidence 'Which supported the: proposal vas literat\:re type data or actual e~pirical data tor functions within Palo Alto. Transportation 'Engineer Carl Stoffel said information or data about issues like planters and bulb-outs referred to what was in the literature not to Palo Alto~ The data 'Was inconsistent as some exalIIPles implied a rBduct':"on in speed and while other times it would net ~ Notb!.ng could be quaranteed from the data ~ council Kember McCown confir.ed the data was from 1 i terature, albeit conflictinq data~ Cbairperaon Xniss thought similar work had been done in the Green Jleadow area .. Mr. Stof~.l said the pUrpoB~ of the work in the Green Meadow area vas to get people to slow down and stop crossing over the center line; it was not part of a speed Btudy~ Chairperson Kniss said the concurrence of residents in the Green Meeclow area vas that traffic was draaatically slowed, and the final conel usion vas -that the work vas worth i t ~ Mr. Stoffel said a different situation existed ~hen curves in the road were involved because drivers wer-e forced to r-educe speed if they had been cutting corners prior to installation of planters. On strai9bt streets, speed was still possible~ 111". OVerway said it naturally followed that planters affected speed or other conditions; there was just not a consistent pattern to the results. In all cases. residents found the work produced oS much acre aatistying environment. Council Kember MCCown asked it the bulb-out idea was considered the aaae principle as planters~ Mr ~ OVerwllY replied yes, except the planters referred to in the Green Meadow area ver. literally in the middle of the road~ Tbe bulb-outs referred to in the staff report were similar to tbo •• found on University AvenUe or where tree wells existed. 8/4/92 P&S: 7 '. ,-;:.--.... --.:.-:-~ . ., fi.~· -.~. ~'-' Chairperson Kniss asked if the area at Bryant Street at Lowell Avenue was a bulb-out. Mr. Stoffel bu.lb-out. lnvolveu a Mr. OVervay said. the bulb-out aerely narrowed the roadway to create a ditrerent perspective. The center line on University Avenue also weaved back: and forth. council Member Si.itian said Willow Road was another example. Council Member McCown asked it any data was ~vailable for university AVenue. Hr~ Stoffel and Mr. Overway both replied no. Xichael Kast, 420 Addison Avenue, lived close to the intersection of Waverley Street and Addison Avenue a.nd had worked on the proposal with Bill McGlashan to implement a program to improve the street situation.. The staff report prompted many procedural questions on what the City would have to do to incorporate various aspects of the project. He had no problem with a six-month delay to allow a combination of other events to be incorporated. The more integrated a look at the other projects 'Was taJcen, the better. His biqgest C".oncern was what the council would review at the end of the six aonths and what would be done during the six months. He hoped staff would develop a task force to investig~~e some of the proposed ideas with people from the neighborhood. There was opportunity .for interaction, and it was important not to miss those opportunities~ e.q., work scheduled on W~verley Street. Jean Raaaociotti. 959 Waverley street, said the report was excellent and emphasized the danqer of the corner of waverley street and Addison Avenue. M8.ny children crossed. the intersection, and .any bicyclists had been hit in the intersection. Studies on traffic should be conducted during the busiest ti.es of the day-7 to 9:30 a.m. and 4 to 7 p.~. The clo9ure of Bryant Street would increase usaqe ~f the area. Chairperson Kniss askt":d what staff thought would occur during the six-aonth period. Mr. OVervay said not very much would occur. staff would only do What it was directed to do-aove forward and work toward a possible plan for impleaentinq one of the measures, but it needed direction. When consideration was given to the issue in the past, the decision bad been aade not to proceed. Staft was willing but wanted Council to be aware of the cost. Road bumps provided predictable results, but staff questioned whether the speeds on Addison Avenue warranted the aeasure. Relevant data would be collecte.d during the six months, but staff would not develop specific imple.entation plans unless told to do so. The resurfacing of Waverley street was a relevant issue. As part of the Bicycle Boulevard, staff had oriqinally designated a specific a.ount of money to remove existing striping on Waverley street and replace striping without the 8/4/92 1 bicycle.lanes, providing parking along Waverley Street, and qaining 13 parking spaces 1ft til.e ~";"7.'t.;;" .. -:;; .:== ~ Th~ P"I.!bJ i r": works Depart .~nt planned to resurface the street I and when the work wa~ done, at.aif should take advantage of tile opportunity as part of the prc:ject to restripe it the way it should have been without the Bicycle Boulevard. If the decision was made later to wiggle the l.!!'!"!' nt'" add planters, sOJIte portion of the line 'Would be removed. and replaced. It was not ~ large cost item, but it w~~ a c~t !tQm~ If a decision 'Was .ade t.O' restripe at a later time, the cost would be approxi.a~ely $S,OOC. council MeJiber McCown thought consideration should be given to directing staff to proceed with development. of some element of tbe project, witho-....t. fi!lallzation, until the six-month evaluation time. staff should be in a position at the time of the six months to make JleI"'-E!ssary changes and proceed. If the work: was synchronized with tbe resurf'acinq of Waverley streett some coordination opportunity could be used. If the cata Which came out of the six-.anth reviey of the Bicycle Boulevard arqued aq.e.inst the project, then the project should be reevaluated at that point. She was frustr~ted with the reliance on academic lite~ature to determine whether the :measures actually wO::-ked. She favored looking at the project because it was something which over time could .t)e utilized in other neiqhborhoods with a higher confidence level if the City had its own reaults and positive mechanisms. She did not like harriers, and preferred speed bumps or bulb-outs which over time had gained confidence. Staffls suggestions needed to be proven in a neiqhbor bood. The neighborhood suqgested in the stat.! repcrt could be a qootl one ~=ause changes in the area could benefit the overall scheme. The City should be poised in six months to imple.ent the next step incl udinq street treat.ent ~ Reqardinq the speed bumps on Addison Avenue, the City had set guidelines and was trying to apply the. evenly around town where warranted~ She questioned 1 in liqht of the proxi.ity to the Bicycle Boulevard a.'ld the barriers, the exception~l circumstances tor treatment of tne particular stretch of Addison Avenue. Decisions should be deterred until one was made on the placeJllent of the barrier. If the barrier was removed with speed bumps in other areas, it was questjonable whether speed bumps vere necessary ('In Addison Avenue. An exception to the City's normal guidelines for speed bumps might be possible because of the proxi.lty to the Bicycle Boulevard. Council Meal>er Simitian said it was not clear from staff t s analysis of the existing conditions whether or not the locations warranted attention.. council Mellber McCown's co-.ents applied to the desirability of taking the remedies. applying ~~em to an appro priate loeale p and determining whether they were appropriate in a Palo Alto context. The question was whether the staff recommenda tion was an appropriate locale. U~er Existinq Conditions on paqe 2 ot the staff report CCMR:362:92)p volu.e on Waverley street was lIlid-ranqe; Addison Avenue was a local street with lI.id-retnqe volu.est the intersection a~ Waverley street/Addison Avenue was a busy four-way stop, but there were other busy four-way stops; and speed JUlasureaents were close to the speed limit. Staff1s comments seeaed to indicate the area did not warrant the type of attention proposed. 8/4/92 p,s: 9 -.. Mr. OVervay said t.he location was unique because of the presence of interested indivic2uals. There was no other more appropriate location upon which to try the me~~ures, so the presence of local !~t:::"=~ Q .. ': ;:-~~i'ti-.ti ~z tv ~v 'Ca~o -.. ·v.d~ .• -g.D drl lwY'V'" t.esht. aspeot:. Qi the ~ooation. It W8S questionable whether the maqnitude of the problell warranted the solutions proposed but was part of the deaonstration of the information re~eive~. Council Me2ber Simitian asked for staff's view of ~easures other than ~e speed buaps tor their e~f.ct5 on the speed of traffic or voluae o~ tr.ftic on the streets. Chairperson Kniss as.ked it council Member Simitian was asking whether the aeasurea would cut down on the number of automobiles or merely slow down the same number of vehicles, Council Mellber Si.itian said his question was 'With reqard to slowinq the speed of the same number of vehicles. He thought staff indicated the measures would not do either, but he wanted clari~! cation of the qoals. The bumps were designed to $lov traffic, but the other proposed measures spoke of a range of issues not related tc vC11wae or speed. He wanted a sense of what etatf tl'lougbt might be accomplislled. Mr. OVerway said staff would approach the proposal with the goal of not reducing volume. Waverley vas considered a collector street ¥bleb vas meant to carry traffic and was reflected in the proposal. 'Whatever design was chose.n, a.n objective 'Would not be to d,ivert traffic from Waverley Street. The influence would be either speed or characteristics drivers exhibited, e.g. f quick acceleration, honkinq, etc. council MeJIber Simitian referenced paraqraph 6 under Existing Conditions on page 3 of the staff report (CMR:J62:92) which stated the averaqe speed was 28 mpb and the 85th percentile speed "as 32 .ph.. He asked, if speed was an issue, how the area compared with other 25 mph posted residential neighborhoods. Hr. Steffel respon~ed it was a typical residentia~ apeed whiCh had been measured. on other streets in the area .. Hr. overway said speeds had been taeasured on the Bicycle Boulevard, and the avera9& speeds were 21 or 28 lIlph with the 85th percentile at 31 or 32 .ph. Chairperson ltniss asked if staff' knew what the financial co_itaent would be and whether a substantial difference would resu~t in the area if the PAlIF moved. Sbe strongly disagreed with barriers. While Waverley was intended as a collector street, any street with speed bumps would naturally be avoided~ She agreed bumps sloved traffic but tbouqht they al~o diverted traf~ic from the streets. Mr. stoffel aqreed road buaps diVerted traffic~ council Maaber McCown said speed bumps wer'e not proposed for Waverley St.reet. 8/4/92 • I. .. • , ~ Mr. Stoffel said the primary purpose ot bu.ps was to control speed, and the residual effect vas traffic diversion,. The 'barriers accoaplish.~ 100 percent traffic diversior.. H~ asked whether the CO&ts requested applied to the clemEnts of the plan. COUncil Kember McCown wanted to know the cost of what would occur over the six-month periOd. of tiJae. Chairperson Kniss asked lihat the cost would be if the city proceed~ with a contingency plan which~ at the en~ of six months, c=-..:!~ ~= i=rl~~!'!t~h'!l>t~."r ~t t.7~,11d i~vlJolv~ "!!!.~ny thcusands or _rely an assessment at the time. Mr. Stof.fel asked if the cost should include the amount of time statf toot to study the issue, not the cost of actual construction. Chairpe~on Kniss replied yes, Kr. OVe,~ay preferred to approach the issue as staff work~j at it serious.ly but not be committed. to cODing up 'With a fixE:d plan in conjunction with the six ~nthB4 Staff could continue to look at the project, share information, look at other ideas. and when the subject was returned. staff would have better lnforlDation. If that level was acceptable, the cost could be absorbed. If the Pi:S co.aittee had a specific expectation, staff could return with an aqreed-upon plan for impleaentation of sper.ific kinds of projects, which took a level of intensity that was not available during the next • ix aonths .. Chairperson Xniss was lIIore comfortable with Mr .. OVerway's first suqgest.ion. 1(;-.. overway said. if the PAMF did not reJllain at its current location, a substantial difference of 700 to 1,000 trips per day woUld OCcur on Waverley Streat~ which was around 15 percent. council Member McCown thouqht the gats-way idea had meri t aM should be pursued in conjunction with the Historical Resources Board (HRB~ and Profess.orville.. The idea was associated more with the identification of the neighborhood than with traffic4 Interested persons should be encouraqed to pursue the idea with the HRB, which was interested in expanding the borders of Professorville. The Addis-on Avenue issue with the bumps and potential planters was closely linked with the data which would be ret::eived from the Bicycle Boulevard and thus should wait until it was known what would haJ)ptlln wilb that street. The residential permit parkinq bad a aucb broader scope, integrated with the PAKF and many other issues, and staff should not spend time working on it during the next ~ix months4 staff should, ove~ the next six months, investi gate wbat opportunities were available for Waverley street in conjunction with the repaving. ~ Mr. Overway said the Public Works fU!partUlent normally contracted a certain amount of roadways repaving in the spring enabling the contractor to do the work in the summer. Waverley Street would be on the 1993 list~ The siX-month evaluation ended in March or April 8/4/92 P&s: 11 • .- 1993. It was likely the evalu«tion of the Bicycle Soulevard would follow the award of the paving contract rather than the other t.''!y arcund. He suqqested moving ahead with the york on Waverley Stree.t and returning after tha repavinq tor restripinq, if necessary. council Member McCown asked Whether restriping was the only issue affected by repav'ing or whether planters, etc., ver-e also affected. Mr. Overway said some paving might be :::eaoved, but it would have be~n removed anyway. The increBent of pavinq was not the issue. If a change was made, resurfacinq was fairly standard so a higher cost relationship with the restripinq would brinq the issue back. If a recommendation made sense, it would be brought back through the process. Public Works could be delayed in its projects, but repavinq was a larqe. job and. the proi>Osal \"as 8.811. If Waverley Street was delayed until 1994, the parking spaces in the downtown area yould ~e an issue. Council Member Simitian said they ~ould be freed up by the effect of the Bicycle Boulevard. Council Member McCown Yould not insist on the linkage if it were not cost effective. Mr. Overway said staff would strive for that goal. JIO'l'IOB: COUncil MeJlber McCown moved, seconded by .Kniss, that the Policy and. Services cOlDlJIittee recoJUll.e!1CJ t.hat staff :;move forward and work toward a poasible plan for implementing one of the ~asures described in conjuncti~n with other potential work and be in the position in six months to »ave torward in conjunction with the evaluation of the Bicycle Boulevard Expansion Project. council MeRber Simiti~~ supported the motion but did not want to suqqest that he vould be willing to support the ultimate plan or expenditure. He was sy.pathetic with the proposal because residents were willing to come for~ard to improve their neighbor hood and because the plan was well thought out. He was hesitant about staffls $80,000 proposa:" for an improvement program which might or aiqht not have an iapact for a neighborhood whose speeds were typical. The motion involved a .odest cost of staff" tiDUil which would produce a more ~efinitive view. Chairperson Kniss agreed with Council Member Simitian that there was the posl5ibility she would not support the proposal when it returned to the P'S Committee. She would be very interested in the cost fiqures, the results ot the barrier, and \lbat would occur with the PAMF. Council Member MCCown thought the proposal was for a somewhat typical neiqhborhood. It was qood to explore the possibilities because ~~e city could then respond to residents who perceived the siailar traffic situations in their neighborhoods. It would be beneficial to see how the techniques improved a residential stre.e.t. 8/4/92 P&S: 12 ~ .. I ! , , Mr. overvay thouqht the proposal would help differentiate perceived concerna and real concerns. The r~ason speed bumps were liked or not ~~s baaed on innuendos and rumors. The proposal in the staff report (CKR:362:92) involved leqitimate tOQls and voold be good to try. Judgment was based on those facts. He asked whether staff could have the flexibility to come up with altern!ltive plans if other types ot measures were disoovered. council BeBber M~Co.~ said staff could have th~ flexibility. Chai-~son Xhiss aqreed. Mr. OVerway said staff implicitly included a ttroaCler repreBentation of the neighborhood. The area was part of Professorville and affected neiqhbors on other streets. A mechanism would be developed to broaden input. Council Meaber Si.itian said tbere were design and compatibility iSSUQs~ A probleJI with proposals \fas hoy they occasionally appeared like slap-dash parts of the neighbcrhooda He wanted to ensure wo~k was aesthe~i=ally consi&tent and an integral part of the neighborhOOd. lIS. RUdin ::tsked it the motion directed the issue to remain in CoIIIrlttee. Chairperson Kniss replied yes. ~o. ~'!'BD: The Policy and Services Committee hold. in the iote. in coBaittee and. direct staff to devote staff time during the six-month interim to further analyze potential traffic aanagement actions on waverley Street and the wider study area and return to the Policy and Services coaaittUl for consideration after the cOIIPletion of the six-month .onitorinq report on the Bicycle Boulevard Expansion Project. CoUncil Keaber Sillitian ask"KI if the gateway feat::r.;; .iibVl.i.ldi be included. counci 1 Member MCCown said she excluded the gateway features because it was an issue which should be ~aken through a different process in conjunction with the. RRB and gateway concepts for Prot"essorv-ille. mrzow .u.B 3-0 .. Huber abstaininq • • 8 Ordinance council Keabe ian said he had the impression that staff was not enthusiastic abou itaqe tree ordinance. He asked if his perception was correct. xa 4graphs in the staff report (CXR:356:92) appeared to have hidden •. Chairperson Kniss appreciateQ Council Member SiEitla aments because she interpreted the report exactly the same 'Way. She 8/4/92 P&S: 13 ATIACHMENTD . ... . . Attachment 0 is CMR:362:92, July 30, 1992, "Professorville (Waverlev/Addison) Traffic ProPQsal. This.attachment was provided only to City Council Members. Copies of the report may be obtained at the TI1Insport8tion Division office, sixth floor, City Half; 250 Hamilton Avenue. -".